~Di

Dear god, the more I read the more confused I become. Cris Priesley also said this: "BioWare has used SecuROM for Neverwinter Nights, Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Emprie and now Mass Effect. So, yes I can say that we recommend it." Now I clearly have played all those games and had no idea they had SecuRom on them. Obviously I've had no problem with them, and I sure didn't realize that they were checking on me every time I played. So is ME SecuRom going to be different somehow? I just hate not understanding this stuff.

Yes, I verified it. From Cris Priesley's faq: "Q: Why does MEPC need to reactivate every 10 days? A: MEPC needs to authenticate every 10 days to ensure that the CD key used for the game is valid. This is designed to reduce piracy and protect valid CD keys." "Q: What happens if I want to play MEPC but do not have an internet connection? A: You cannot play MEPC without an internet connection. MEPC must authenticate when it is initially run and every 10 days thereafter." "Q: How many installations will SecuROM allow from my copy of MEPC? A: Since SecuROM has nothing to do with the installer, you can install and uninstall on the same machine over and over again without any problems. SecuROM also allows you to activate the game on 3 different machines. " "Q: What happens if I exceed 3 activations? A: Your first 3 activations will still work, but any subsequent activation will not work. " This just sounds incredibly onerous and invasive. Fair enough, I'm not real techie when it comes to computer stuff, but dang.

Dozens of times, on at least 4 different computers over the years. I thought it would recheck every 10 days as well? I'm quite illiterate on SecuRom stuff. But I do understand it when Derek French tells me I can only install a game three times, then poof. Do you know how many times I've reinstalled BG2 alone? Damn, this is why I hate piracy with a passion, because it forces gaming companies to do draconian crap like this. I know I'm not going to run out on May 28 and buy the damned thing, that's for sure. I'll be perusing the BioWare Support forums to see just how much of a problem others smarter than I are having. Damn. Again.

DIal up will work ok for the activation though. SO technically that shouldn't bother you. But it continually comes back to recheck, and if your computer can't be accessed for 3 rechecks (from what I understand) your game will no longer run. BTW, I finally got wireless a while back so I'm not hobbled by 24kbm dial-up anymore. I understand that rampant piracy has brought these draconian measures, but damn. It's a horrible thing to do to BioWare's long-time and loyal fans.

Wow. When I read this thread, I couldn't believe it and went right over to the Bio forums. By the gods... it's true. Words cannot express my disappointment. No doubt future Bio games, like Dragon Age, will require the same. Unbelievable that according to Derek Finch, MEPC... a single-player game... will require an internet connection to play. No dial-up players need apply. I've looked forward to this game for so long... now I'm not sure I'm going to buy it. I must think.

I'm getting a little tired of you insulting and baiting me, so I'm asking you nicely to stop.

Pics of Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh getting it on? Well, thanks to that image permanently burned into my brain I may never have sex again. *shudder*

God no, half the populace would die of heart attacks!

You disagree that our foray into Mogadishu is not comparable to a 5-year-and-rising full-blown war and occupation? That surprises me. Surely you know that some of the so-called "manufactured" evidence presented to the UN was from British Intel. When the fact that it was phoney... the British people labeled it phony, not faulty... was discovered, the Brits were outraged enough to drive Blair out of office. Now what indeed? Bush has no plans for our eventual withdrawal from Iraq; or if he does, he's yet to share it with us. I don't want to see this country permanently occupying Iraq, so somebody had better figure out a way to either jump-start the Iraqi government... and I use the term loosely... into dealing with the problems of their own country effectively. Failing that then yes, we will eventually have to leave. Americans cannot afford to indefinitely fund Iraq's domestic needs and act as a free police force. McCain, God love him, has not explained to my satisfaction how he expects to extricate us from Iraq. He seems perfectly happy with the way it's going. Well, the majority of Americans are not the least bit happy about it, and that stance will lose him votes in the end. It lost him my vote, and I have always admired heck out of the guy. Of course it's not simple, and it would take more than a forum post to even touch on the vagaries in play then and now. Thing is, I do blame Bush for Iraq. Anyone who listened to his campaign speeches in 1999 knew that toppling Saddam was a priority with him. Once he won the election, he brought in a cabinet itching for Saddam's blood, and after 9/11 he had the fear card he needed to convince a ridiculously stupid congress to go along. Using, I might add, evidence that was at best faulty and at worst manufactured. I have no idea why Tony Blair jumped on the bandwagon, but he has already paid the ultimate political price for his part in the debaucle. Looks like the only thing we agree on is that neither of us can fathom how the hell Bush got reelected in 2004. I suspect the total lack of organization and resulting chaos of the current democratic primary process is the biggest clue.

We differ here. I said the Iraq War because I meant the Iraq War. It was an illegal pre-emptive strike on a country that posed no threat to us, and it was based upon deceit and false intelligence. I support the war in Afghanistan, which is going poorly because most of our resources are tied up in Iraq. I supported the US-led NATO intervention in Kosovo because I was pretty damned sick of watching Serbia attempt genocide against all of its neighbors year after year after year while Europe sat on its hands. Mogidishu was supposed to be a mercy mission, bringing in food. Who knew that Al Qaeda had quietly set itself up under the protection of its own warlord? We should have known, that's who. Dumb stunt all the way around, with lousy intell and tragic results. But no way can those relatively short skirmishes compare with the two-front war we now are mired in because of the Iraq invasion. Thanks to Bush and Rummy's ineptness and lack of logic, this country will still be mired in those wars for the rest of my lifetime, and possibly for the rest of my childrens' lifetimes. This annoys me. Greatly. Yep, they have to surround themselves with devious, like-minded folk then deliberately hone a plan to dupe a lazy and stupid congress into going along with it. Our government would be great if it wasn't run by politicians. Guard Dog: I understand what you are saying; I even agree with much of it. I simply do not ascribe personal ambition and moral ambiguity more to Hillary than I do to Obama, McCain or any other politician. And I most certainly do not hold her accountable for what her husband did or did not do while he was in office.

For the most part that's true. State and local government has the most immediate affect on most of us. But these past years haven't been business as usual; the Iraq war has affected every citizen of this country in one way or another, and had global affects as well. I'm actually a McCain fan; have been for years. However, I can't get past his support of the Iraq war and the way he's kowtowed to the GOP by being a Bush lapdog for the past few years. He's not the independent maverick I once loved. Add that to the fact that I would prefer a more balanced SCOTUS than I believe we'd get with a republican in the office, I'm kinda stuck with voting democratic or third party. I never really bought into the GOP's vendetta against the Clintons; I figure that if 8 years of constant investigations and special prosecutors couldn't dig up enough dirt to put them in the slam, there probably isn't any more in their background than that of any of the lifetime politicians in D.C. That vendetta is the reason I'm no longer a republican; I'm a pox-on-both-your-houses Independent! As far as I'm concerned, she's a two-term senior senator who has done a good job for her state and earned the respect of her colleagues. That's more than I know about Obama, so I'm nervous about him. If McCain would have a change of heart about Iraq before November, I'd strongly consider voting for him. But he won't, so I won't.

That's a bit over-simplified. Don't forget, nearly half of the democratic party supports Hillary. If we took into account Florida and Michigan, two states that will not be allowed a voice in the democratic primaries at all, she has more than half. I find it hard to believe that a candidate with that much support would be considered to be "destroying" the party simply because she doesn't roll over and die. It's just as easy to say that an ambitious, first-year freshman senator with extremely limited governmental experience, no foreign policy or economic experience, no demonstrable program beyond "change!" is destroying the party to satisfy his own narcissim. In my experience, obsessive or extreme hatred, even of a politician, for whatever reason seems to distort the reality of those who are consumed by it. Hillary has proven herself to be a capable, experienced politician who has earned the respect of her colleagues. The fact that two major delegate states decided to tic off the DNC by changing their primary dates, thus losing all of their delegates and disenfranchising millions of their voters... the majority of which voted for Hillary... is hardly her fault. She has a duty to her millions of supporters, nearly half of the party, to continue on. Gorth: Frankly I think that implying because she didn't end her marriage over her husband's infidelity proves her ambitions to be utterly sexist and unfair. Now she is to blame because her husband publicly humiliated her? That's rubbish. A lot of women and men are able to rebuild their marriages after infidelity. And please point out which male presidential candidates of the past few decades have not been politically ambitious. Why is ambition a bad thing only when a female possesses it?

Sorry, Di, I really don't like the idea that I offended you, but, I used Bimbo in this sense: a foolish, stupid, or inept person. , and I'm afraid that's just what I think of her. I'm not completely opposed to a female pres, I just don't want HER to be the 1st. People's opinions differ when it comes to politics. Hillary wasn't my first choice either; I wanted Biden or Richardson. However, I do not believe by any stretch that a two-term senator with a strong record of accomplishment can accurately be labeled as stupid or inept. Foolish? We're all human and have our foolish moments. I just get a bit ruffled with gender-specific insults used against females in general, and strong, politically powerful females in particular. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm not the least bit angry, so don't give it another thought.

I disagree. Obama is an unknown quantity with rock-star charisma. Turning presidential elections into a personality contest is what gave us George Bush in 2000. Gore was too "boring". We wanted excitement? Boy-howdy, Bush has given us excitement! I like McCain, I just don't want another republican in the Whitehouse. Hillary has proven she would be a dynamic and competent president. Obama has proven nothing, and cannot even be pinned down on what kind of changes he plans, how he plans to accomplish them and how the nation would benefit. Change simply for the sake of it isn't always good, after all. Change is what Bush promised... and change we got. Just something to think about. And I kinda take issue with calling a senator and presidential candidate a "bimbo".

Definitely could be a floor fight. It's the DNC's fault, too. If they hadn't disqualified Michigan and Florida delegates, Hillary would take it prior to the convention.

Congratulations! Sounds like you're giving this a lot of thought, and are making a sound move on gaining skills that you can draw upon for the rest of your life. Don't forget us, now. Drop in when you can get to a computer!

Bah, I always had to have Kivan. I dabbled with the other NPC's, but Kivan was always by my side. I just couldn't talk him into my bed. Oh, well. There was always Coran.

Could you elaborate on this? Specifically what people said that made you think that and why you don't think the game is sexist? I read a couple of reviews that stressed the sexual part of the game along with the fact (they said) that females in the game were stereotyped, and seemed to have little use other than to be, er, sexual relief vessles for Geralt. On a fan board I perused for info (can't recall it, not one I frequent) a poster said the humor was "guy stuff" and implied the game was pretty raunchy. The trading-card thing sounded quite adolescent to me, and a bit insulting as well! I got the impression overall that it was a "guy's game" and women were objectified or belittled in it. Several folks commented on the "obscene" language. Obviously, that wasn't the case at all. Yes, most of the females came across as willing sluts if the player wanted them to... clearly the developers were catering to the male fantasy, lol!... but it wasn't an integral part of the game and could usually be avoided. I still think the trading cards are adolescent, but hey. *shrug* Cards weren't as big a part of the game as those on the Witcher forum bragging about collecting them all made it seem. What's more two of the most important NPC's were strong-willed, courageous females, without whom Geralt would have repeatedly been toast. So I saw no hint of misogynism whatsoever. Sure there was some strong language, but it was fairly scarce, fit the characters and we ARE adults, after all. If not for folks in this forum dispelling those impressions, I wouldn't have purchased the game based on what I'd read and heard about it, so I'm glad I listened to y'all!

It was quite a good game. Not to say I didn't have some issues with some of the design decisions, but overall it was solid and fun. I know what you mean, I can't really "identify" with a male PC, but I learn to like 'em well enough and feel as if I am participating in their adventure from a less personal vantage point. I've enjoyed several games with pre-made male PCs... Gothic 1 & 2, Plane:scape Torment, Deus Ex... so that doesn't automatically turn me off. Initial reports on The Witcher gave me the impression that it was a bit sexist, which I didn't find to be the case when I actually played it. Although Geralt does indeed have the option of... well... of plowing anything with a pulse. My Geralt was a bit more choosy... although sometimes the dialogue isn't explicit enough to know that it's going where it's going, so he ended up with a few more trading cards than I intended! I hope you enjoy the game!

That's actually pretty darn good news! Thanks for sharing it.

I'd like to see another quality game set in the planescape world. However, there should never be an attempt at a PS:Torment sequel. PS:T had an irrevocable ending for the Nameless One... and without Nameless One, there is no "Torment", ergo no sequel is possible.

Ahhhh, BG 1 was the love of my life too. I must have played that game 20+ times... no exaggeration. I liked BG2/Throne of Bhaal probably better than you did, but I was missing that "thrill" that I had every time I fired of BG 1 and heard that BG theme music. Sent chills down my spine. I also liked KoToR better than you did, more for the story than the game play. I thought it a good game. Frankly, I liked much about Obsidian's KoToR 2 better... better story, more interesting characters, but a more flawed presentation in many ways. NWN1 was my biggest BioWare disappointment. Even the much-better expansion packs couldn't totally take the sour taste away. It wasn't really a bad game. It was a dull game, and so far beneath what I expected from BioWare. You've really got me excited about Mass Effect now! Can't wait!

I wasn't interested in Jade Empire... I mean, what RPG lover cares about a martial arts game set in feudal China???... so at the time I didn't care that it was an X-Box exclusive. I shrugged it off and went on about my business. However, it came out for PC at a time when I was totally desperate for something, anything new to play. So I bought it. And guess what? I truly had fun with it. It was bright, colorful with some interesting characters and a story that held my interest. The combat, once I got the hang of it, was really some of the most fun combat I've seen in a game. Now it's not RPG Of The Year material, true, but it was really a fresh, fun game that was more than worth the money, in my opinion, and has good replayability. Mass Effect is, of course, on my must-buy list! It'll be out the end of next month, and I'm snapping that baby right up!

Although I don't like all of Bioware's games equally, I will say that I've had a fun and satisfying experience with all of them. And yes, I've bought them all. That's a pretty darned good record of turning out quality games in my book. I don't think any other gaming company comes close to the number of high-quality games released over the past dozen years or so.

I've just finished The Witcher. Not a bad game overall, but some of their design decisions made me cranky. Whoever designed their inventory system should be flogged. Whoever designed the Old Vizima and Swamp Cemetary maps should be flogged and shot. Whoever designed the Kikimore Queen battle should be flogged, shot, set on fire and thrown off a cliff. That is all.