Drowsy Emperor

The game is more interesting as a caster, as a fighter there is absolutely nothing to do other than click on enemies. DnD fighters don't have much to do at low levels, and since its a system designed for a party so it was naturally broken in NWN. Because everything hinged on one character (they had to take into account that a player might go solo) the combat system couldn't be utilized leading to shallow and easy gameplay. NWN is kept together by the sole virtue of being playable by anyone who can hold a mouse. Even Diablo is more sophisticated and requires more moment to moment decision making along with some rudimentary strategy in building a character.

Shipbreakers is a real Homeworld game now. This is old news, but its one of the few things that keeps me going in this hobby. I thought gamers who enjoy role playing had it bad, but once I rekindled my interest in RTS games I realized just how bad things are in PC gaming. Yeah, there are more than a few low budget strategy games around and the turn based genre is still shuffling along in its typical manner but the big budget strategy is down to the very few franchises that are sure to sell (Total War, Starcraft).

Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Dannor was such a horrible game that I still can't erase it from my memory. Give me a few years and I might even start to remember it fondly, as a sort of inside joke on just how terrible an RPG can be.

I didn't know you could change it, and I couldn't be bothered to do it either. Its only a nuisance when I'm trying to order something online and the country selection form only has Yugoslavia in it. Then I have to ask them to update their shop software, which usually happens a few days later.

You'll have to convince Valve that

Yeah, Bioware was a great influence on me. I'm not so lonely anymore because I have my inflatable Liara for company. Isn't that right sweetie?

I think all of us want to play a game as good as PST again. That's really why people gave their money to InXile. But when you stop tugging the nostalgia strings, it seems obvious that this project was a case of brand (ab)use from the very beginning. This game shares only the title and vague thematic similarities with PST. That's like saying my Abibas sneakers are your Adidas because they share most of the name and have 3 stripes on them. They may be just as good but you'd be a fool to take that for granted. Therefore nothing is really obligatory, and nothing has to be included for the game to be "true" to PSTorment, because this game is already as far removed from PST as possible. All the positive associations used to sell this product were from day one, only in the minds of the players and in Fargo the salesman's mouth. And I still hate turn based. And it may still end up being a good game. 3.5% chance according to my latest estimates YEEAAAHHH!

Awesome, they deserve it. The final game will be great, already fell in love with the alpha version. I've checked it out on Youtube and it looks cool. Will look into it when its done

Well it had to happen eventually. I mean they're old games, you can't make new old games so you're going to run out of a large supply of old games that are good that haven't appeared yet on Good Old Games. Nowadays it's just good games that gradually become good old games trickling onto Good Old Games while we're busy playing good new games, some of which feel like old games because old games are the new new games. **** you for making me read that three times.

Its impossible to gross me out with gayness now, I've played far too many of Bioware's newer games. On topic: I'm not complaining about GoG. Its a great idea and its executed well. I just keep coming back to the site expecting a few unreleased classics, that have been in demand for a while now, and they're just not coming. Its either some game no one played when it was new a decade ago or a new indie title (that no one will be playing a week from release).

I hate turned based combat. Real time with pause is the best thing that ever happened to computer role playing, because its almost as tactical as turn based but much more dynamic. There is nothing more annoying than having to go through turn based combat against too easy or too difficult an opponent. You know how its going to end but you're forced to sit there while every animation you've seen a million times plays out at it own pace. And if you're able to skip or quicken it you get a jarring, stop motion mess of a gameplay experience. The most nerd rage inducing experience of my gaming "career" was the random encounters of any JRPG where you're ripped from the game to the battle screen only to have to spend minutes routinely fighing some insignificant critter. Every five steps you make in game. Wait for the animation to finish. Pick action from list. Wait. Pick another action (for every other character). Wait. Kill animation. Victory animation.... For hours on end. Makes you want to throw something at the screen. That said, the best thing about the original Torment's combat was that you could barge through it to the more interesting parts of the game. If it was turn based it would be equally obnoxious but twice as drawn out. But, this game has nothing to do with the real Torment, so ... who cares.

Is that cloud's sword (cleaver, lol?) from FFVII? I wonder if they really expected it to cut anything (except maybe, the handler's carotid when he gets tired of holding it).

Shadow of the Colossus on hard difficulty. I finally managed to climb the central temple and find my way to the secret garden on the top. So typical of Ueda to put something so beautiful that obviously took a lot of time and effort to make in a location where almost no-one is likely to see it. He couldn't resist a bit of christian allegory there methinks. All the fruit in the garden lowers one's health permanently instead of increasing it, as it usually does. The other part that opened up with the climb is the bridge that looms over the landscape, which I crossed to see what's on the other side. What's normally a blur in the distance turned out to be a magnificent and enormous building ... that no one sees apart from a short bit in the intro and that serves no purpose at all, except to sit there and look pretty. If one takes the time to get to it. How much confidence it must take to make something great and then casually toss it aside. Games usually force even the worst of their content on the player just to draw out the gameplay a little bit more.

The really good old games seem to be showing up very rarely on GoG nowadays. System Shock 2 was, I think, the last of the highly sought after titles. I suppose the rights to some games are so tangled up in legal issues that they may not be released for years to come.

The US dumped every new thing straight out of the lab onto Vietnam and no one ever faced criminal charges because of it. Yet a few instances of chemical weapon use that can't be reliably proven to one of the sides are enough cause for war? Bitch, please. PS: I don't see that anyone bothered to reply to Zoraptor's observation on Israel and white phosphorus.

Yes Volo, he's the new dark lord of the Sith made by splicing the genes of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. Join the dark side Vol, we need more Ewoks in our ranks.

I think it has somewhat depreciated in value since Obama got his preemptively, thus Putin will have to receive at least two.

China and Indya (and other Asians independent from West) are bad, blah-blah IRL statistics http://www.statisticbrain.com/rape-statistics/ http://messymatters.com/rape/ http://www.uschina.usc.edu/w_usci/showarticle.aspx?articleID=13037&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 In other words 31,833 rapes in China = 2,12 rate/100 000. Meanwhile in US 28.0 rate/100 000, in UK 23.1 rate/100 00. Western states are leaders in Rapes. Welcome to real world. This is actually correct. Even with the presumption that under-reporting is more prevalent in asian countries the US far outstrips most, if not all countries in rape. While rapes do happen everywhere I have a hard time believing that its more common in any traditional society. Not because of morals but because of repercussions. In places were its important for a woman to enter marriage as a virgin, to forcibly take away her virginity is enough reason for serious bloodshed, police or no police.

Syria won't fight Israel under pretty much any circumstances. They'd lose, badly, even if they weren't fighting a civil war as well, plus it would guarantee US intervention, even if you had a neo isolationist (Rand Paul? so practically unlikely) as President. You can make a nice parallel between Israel's 'theoretical' nuclear stockpile and Syria's 'theoretical' stockpile though-since they both exist for the same reason (if we look like losing a war we'll nuke Damascus/ if we look like losing a war we'll gas Tel Aviv), are both undeclared, both 'illegal', both never been used (r00fles!) etc. I'm rather surprised to see the US backpedal like this. Usually these interventions are planned well ahead and there is stopping them once the decision has been made. It isn't entirely obvious what's making the US effort crumble on this issue. The congressional approval seems to be more of a result of events behind the scenes, rather than a key point in the whole affair. I'm a proponent of the theory that the modern US president is merely a representative of the various interest groups that form US policy so I don't necessarily agree that his personal strength or weakness is really an important factor. I suppose its a combination of factors: 1. the lack of public approval (although this isn't entirely necessary if past events are any indication) 2. the British parliamentary vote (while Britain isn't vital to the war effort, these things do need a veneer of legitimacy) 3. strong Russian response, Chinese response (?) this is really an unknown. The only thing we do know is some of the fleet movements and that the Russians were ready to go further than usual 4. inability to gain UN approval (not really something important for the US in previous wars) The more I think about this the more obvious it seems to me that we don't really know what is going on as all of these reasons existed before but were insufficient to stop the previous interventions.

Well it wouldn't be the first time the US fought alongside, funded or enabled Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups. Its just that Americans have started to care after 9/11.

Everything you are saying makes sense expect for the fact the majority of the USA and UK public are against the war and have never been behind intervention in Syria, sorry to be logical Drowsy but you know how I detest conspiracy theories..and yes how else would you expect Assad to be portrayed but in a negative light. Anyone who is prepared to turn the might of his army and police against his own people who want political change doesn't deserve to stay in power, its as simple as that Yes, even after prolonged propaganda the pubic is still against war. Whether the US goes through with it regardless will be a good test of its own democracy. You fail to mention that in an uprising, the rebels do not necessarily represent the people or majority any more than the government does. The government exists to uphold law and order and its duty is to use its army and police against those who would destabilize it. Otherwise, what's the point of the government - it might as well not exist. The point at which the government crosses that line into terrorizing its own citizens is very hard to prove, and has not been proven so far. Considering that Assad still controls the army, which is, even in the most corrupt of countries, the most patriotic of institutions, and considering that that army surely has more than a few Sunni muslims a pretty good case could be made that the majority of Syrians, of all religions, still have faith in the government. The Christians (10% of Syrian population) are terrified of the possibility of Sunni rule, and by and large support Assad. If it was a true uprising and if Assad was a true "butcher" that indiscriminately murders everyone who is against him - it would be much easier for the opposition to find common ground and overthrow him. And they wouldn't have to rely on imported jihadists to do it.

To certain people, that is obviously irrelevant. Btw the whole "2 years to intervene" explanation sounds very convenient, but its common knowledge that the propaganda machine needs to start at least a year or more before an intervention in order to drum up public support and enthusiasm for war. The intention to destroy Assad was plain from the moment the uprising began, way before chemical weapons were even a topic. The tone of the news reports, where Assad is always portrayed in a negative light (despite not having done anything at that point) made it very clear from the outset what the intentions of the US are.

That all comes with the generous presumption that chemical weapons are really what this conflict is about and not an impossible goal used to create legitimacy for further involvement.

And your conclusive evidence of chemical weapon use against civilians by Assad, presented by an unbiased source, is where? You never entered this discussion with rational arguments, it was just "innocent people are dying, quick we need to act to kill the evil dictator, and don't think too hard about it either! The only thing the cruise missiles will do is destroy infrastructure that civilians need, empty government buildings evacuated long before the missiles start flying, kill innocent people when they inevitably miss and do **** all to the Syrian army. They'll do **** all to Assad too, who will be in a hardened bunker somewhere. That's what happened in '99. It doesn't take a great amount of intelligence to deduce that these actions are in fact just terror tactics against civilians to convince them, by force, that a regime change is necessary. What use was there in destroying government buildings like the federal army HQ in Belgrade center in '99? Everyone knew it was empty and unused at that point, just a pretty building built way before the government of the day that was supposedly the target of the bombing. A pointless waste of a million dollar missile a rational person would say. In truth it was destroyed in an attempt to cow the civilians that walk by it every day in one of the busiest streets of the city out of anger because the airstrikes weren't doing squat against the army on the ground. I know exactly what's going on through the minds of the people in Syria right now, probably better than anyone on this forum. The sunni, the shia, the christians, none of them want the US there. None of them want bombs flying over their heads. The only ones who do are army pricks, paid NGO's and fringe politicians that will sit out the bombs in their bases and bunkers or even in neighboring countries waiting to seize power and finally stop being the nobodies they are.

What conspiracy? Is everything that contradicts CNN and BBC a conspiracy today? Assad had no reason to use chemical weapons that would inevitably inflame pubic opinion in a war he's winning on all fronts. Even the most biased reports admit the rebels are losing. Rebels need a US intervention or they're dead. Rebels use chemical weapons, US gains pseudo justification for war. US intervenes. Put the two and two together please.