Drowsy Emperor

But you do know you're a troll, right? An ice troll from the Finnish wastes to be precise.

What I can't be bothered to read are your apocalypse fantasies. I understood quite clearly that you're arguing an economic downturn will cripple the military capability of the US. Your argument is - again - a fantasy. The USA has an immense economy and military. Cuts to US military spending could be absorbed on an enormous scale and it might just reduce their crisis response to only two World crises at once, rather than three. Even if spending cuts reduced the regular US military to the level of China it would be at least one or two generations before anyone else caught up. The US economy can't possibly stay down for that long. The country has a strong economy built into its _geography_. You may be stuck in your attic dreaming of rivers of blood for a wee while yet. We're talking decades down the line, not this time tomorrow. It doesn't really matter how long it takes for other competitors to catch up as long as they're doing so. The US economy doesn't have to suffer any economic collapse, its relative power is shrinking by the mere fact that the opposition's is growing. The post USSR collapse situation where the US is the strongest military and strongest economy was always living on borrowed time. What was actually being discussed there is whether the US will accept just being one of the world powers or if it will make a bid to stay the only power through military conflict, because down the line that will probably be the only way to secure that position. BTW you're not fooling anyone with your wild assumptions regarding my "fantasies" - everyone here knows you'd be the first to advocate bombing China back to the stone age if it were feasible, the same way you justify any military "intervention". I in fact am for a balance of powers scenario because its the only way a small country can hope to protect its own interests.

Then your very subtle trolling went straight over my head.

That's actually what I said but Walsingham couldn't be bothered to read.

The next time someone asks what a gaming hipster is, I'm going to link them to this post. I got a bingo on my gaming hipster card halfway through the second paragraph, and it just gets better after that. What's hipsterish about liking SoC and hoping for more from the same author? The game is almost universally considered to be the best title to come out on the PS2, and that's in some stiff competition. Its not about playing "artsy" titles for bragging rights, its a genuine desire for an experience different from the usual lemonade most genres have turned into.

No its not. Open world games are generally worse than corridor shooters, because corridor shooters are a controlled experience that is easier to craft into something coherent. Open world games are feel like randomly generated crap 95% of the time.

His whole attitude is just... disappointing. Purposefully implementing the sort of abuse rampant in online experiences is sure to make everyone's experience better. What sort of satisfaction am I supposed to glean from teabagging a paying player? That's a high point in the universe he's creating? And I was actually looking forward to this.

We will blame Serbia if the world enters another Cold War, which is not unreasonable as they have already been the catalyst for one World War? Wouldn't be surprised, shifting ones own guilt to another is a very human coping mechanism

I think the key question of the next few decades is: will the policy makers in Washingon reach? They have a huge army and a strong economy, but the economy is not as powerful as it once was and the competition is slowly but steadily rising. Down the line the army will suffer from these reduction in the economy as well. They're in the typical tempting scenario of an empire on a decline. A lot of potent power that begs to be used to secure as much as it can, as fast as it can - because its on a timer. The conquest of Iraq's oil is a typical example of this. But the inherent danger is one of not adjusting one's greed and ambitions on one hand to the capabilities and reactions of ones opponents. If they do not reach (militarily) and readjust their position and give up world ambitions like the British empire did, then the outcome for the rest of the world is bright. The other outcome is horrible. What is very likely is a cold war scenario (that the US and China are practically engaging in now) leading to an increase in tensions. Where those tensions will lead us is the million dollar question.

Don't be silly there is absolutely NO chance of a Third World War. I can't believe you actually think this is even a remote outcome? Not as things currently stand, no. But a decade or two down the line, a conflict between China and the US (referred to here as a world war only because of scope, not necessarily because it would involve a lot of countries) is not unthinkable, if the US keeps the same policies it has now on one hand and if China isn't brought down by its internal problems on the other. The policy of surrounding Russia with NATO countries and nuclear warheads in eastern Europe has a similar result but how far the Russians would go to counter that is anybody's guess. Realistically Russia can only engage in nuclear war with the US and that's only likely to happen in the most extreme of situations.

The reason the rebels never had a chance without foreign intervention is that Syria has a pretty good army by middle eastern standards. Arms and instructors can only do so much. If the US keeps on intervening more and more towards the east, a third world war scenario becomes more and more likely. Not allowing Russia, China Iran, and certain other countries to have space to project their own interests leads down the path to an inevitable conflict.

Heh, same here. I actually never finished the game. I loved what I played through...the atmosphere, the graphic/gameplay design. But after awhile I just couldn't take the constant tension anymore. I usually prefer games for relaxation or stress relief, not to increase my stress. So it's become another of those games that I mean to get back to "one day." During a bright sunny day, perhaps. Me too. It was too stressful so I quit about half way through. I don't generally enjoy survival horror much anyway but Amnesia was particularly terrifying compared to Resident Evil, Silent Hill etc.

You might as well try Devil May Cry 3 then, for the PS2 which is absolute torture on the standard difficulty.

Exactly.

It does undermine his argument, but the argument on the whole is relatively correct. The anti-male (generally only white males) shtick so popular in today's media does go hand in hand with the whole pro-gay thing. Chaz, or any of us, are perfectly entitled to liking big breasted bombshells in our games (if we so choose) and not to be criticized for that choice... ...and at the same time to be unimpressed and uninterested when anyone espouses the virtues of having homosexual relationships in their games. Its not like someone is likely to push you into a gay bar in real life, unless you want to go there yourself. So if you're not into that you can't but be annoyed that someone is pointing that out as a virtue of a game you might otherwise want to play. In short: you can sell a banana all you want but don't criticize me for liking melons. And not wanting your banana.

I don't see the reason to get all riled up, if anything worthwhile hits the XBone we're 90% likely to play it on the PC too. Considering its price point, and how expensive console games are - its actually worse value for money than a PC now (all the cheap PC game sales more than make up for the monitor & hardware cost in the long run) Buying it is like a broken pencil. Pointless.

Woohoo Dylan Moran, I love that guy!

I doubt its going to make the game much better. The core of the problem is 1UPT, every problem Civ V leads to it, from the economy, research to warfare. By Shafer's own admission the concept is broken in Civ V and can't (really) be fixed. Typically Firaxis expansions are a bunch of useful fixes and also commonly feature bloat.

That's a bunch of really glowing reviews of the hands-off demo. Hopefully that level of quality reflects on the final product, and throughout, not just in one area or act. They're making a MASSIVE world that, from all accounts, dwarfs Skyrim, so it will be a tall task to populate the whole area with interesting things to do and encounter. Hopefully CD Projekt RED can pull it off. I have faith in them. There is no way it can dwarf Skyrim in size considering that CDP content is much more carefully designed than Bethesda's.

Is the game keyboard friendly? No?

Before you reply Chaz you must know that alan works at Bioware and they hold "surprise buttsex" very close to their hearts. So stop being "inappropriate" before you incur the wrath of the BSN hive mind.

You're at CDP now? Cool Working on W3 or Cyberpunk?

Nice graphics, they really worked their asses off. Does the PS3 have anti aliasing capability? Quite a few jagged edges there.

Well those that have rigs that can run Crytek games are generally hardcore gamers. The filthy rich with the best gear that are in it for a casual experience are not exactly a big market.