~Di

I'll let you know what I think, Grommy. Yes, I had fun with Divine Divinity, although it certainly had its flaws and was not in competition for RPG of the Year award from me personally. Its successor, Beyond Divinity, truly sucked. Horrible game. Still, I'm probably more open to variations of the RPG standard than some. Okay, okay. I'm bored. I am tolerant of action-rpg games, although not in tthe Diablo sense; I hated that game and its successors. Still, I need something fun to divert me, and I don't much care if it's Pulitzer material or not. Fact reamains, I have not played Divine Divinity in years. I can enjoy a game once but not put it on my top ten list... and I can enjoy games like Deus Ex that are not RPGs at all, but have a real "fun value". I wasn't really excited about The Witcher, for its resource hog or its adolescent sex humor rep... but frankly, I need something to amuse me until Mass Effect for PC is released. I'm hoping now that my PC has been upgraded and the patch released it will be worth the $50 I'll pay for it, but I frankly am not expecting a classic that I'll replay for years to come. I have my fingers crossed that Dragon's Age will be the next "classic" for me... but who knows? Anyway, a lot of gamers enjoyed The Witcher, so now that my PC can play it I'll give it a try. Will give my humble opinion when I've finished it. For whatever it's worth, lol! Grommy is much more discerning than I am. I'm easily amused... though rarely blown away.

Oh, great! Here I thought we were friends, and yet I've been relegated to "anything with a pulse" category. Yeah, I've heard B is optional... thankfully. I honestly don't think my role-playing imagination is quite that ... evolved. It's one thing to sit on a guy's shoulders, pulling his little strings (I do that in real-life all the time... ask my husband), but girls just aren't my cuppa, so I'd just as soon skip that part, if you know what I mean. I'm heartened by your comments about Geralt. The only way I can enjoy "being" a male character is if that character is cool down to his toenails. (Yes, I'm being serious!) I mean, I have to like the guy and be rooting for him, and a serial fornicator wouldn't float my personal boat. I'll probably be posting in the C&C Spoilers thread when I actually start the game. Maybe you can help me out when I get totally stuck, which I no doubt will be, sooner more likely than later!

Please submit your speculations and discussion for prior approval and majority vote before entering them on the Speculation & Discussion forum. Thank you.

They do indeed seem to be making excellent progress. I am sooooo excited about this mod. Also, I am soooo grateful to the team for the years of work they have put into it.

Yes, despite my misgivings about (A) a preset MALE protagonist and (B) the stunning skill of being able to hump anything with a pulse, I've finally upgraded my PC with 2 gigs of RAM and am ready to plunge into The Witcher. (Yes, I know there is probably a Witcher thread in here somewhere, but I can't be bothered to hunt it up and I've heard the mods frown on resurrecting dead threads). Any tips, hints, warnings are greatly appreciated! Oh, and I just got my PC Gamer mag with the massive Witcher patch on disk, so I should be ready to rock. I should get the game in a day or two. Anyone have any good Witcher fan sites or hints for a neophyte Witcher-wannabe? So many of you speak so highly of this game that I figured I'd better have a go at it. Folks around here seem to have pretty good taste in games over all. I think it was mkreku who recommended Gothic to me, and I enjoyed it and Gothic II very much, despite the premade MALE protagonist. Besides, Crash Girl loves it. That's enough for me!

I wouldn't mind seeing a Bourne... Jessica Bourne, Jason's sister.

Well, I was going to wade through your last post to me and try again to explain how I personally define the differences between a RPG, and FPS and a hybrid... but your comment above proves that you're not really interested in my views on the subject in lieu of my brain function problems. So I guess we'll just have to disagree.

NOLF was one of my favorite FPS games! Sadly, I never got NOLF2... I must have been buried in real life when it came out. Still, NOLF was campy, story-driven, humorous, terrific fun. I should play it again... soon!

I hated the Gothic series. Okay, I hated Gothic 1 and 2. I never played Gothic 3. I just couldn't get into the game. I couldn't get in character. Unless the game has a phenomenal storyline and great gameplay I just stop playing the game because I lose interest. I need to feel I have ownership of the character. You cannot give that feeling of ownership without proper character creation. I didn't hate Gothic 1 and 2. I quite liked them, actually. That said, I never felt as if I WAS the main character; never really identified with him. Rather, I felt as if I was sitting on his shoulders giving orders like a little pupeteer. The games I have loved the most, that I have played over and over are the games that gave me a PC that I could identify with, felt fully a part of. That has never happened when I've been handed a preset PC, even in the games I've enjoyed, like PS:T, Gothic, and Deus Ex. I always felt as if I was watching the action, controlling the action, but never as if I was truly a part of it.

Oh? Why weren't they RPGs? In the case of DX alone: - Non-linear Neither were non-linear. They were both story-driven, and you sure as heck couldn't decide to go to, say, Hong-Kong until the story told you to. That matters not in RPG matters for me, however, since lots of great RPG's, including NWN2, weren't terribly non-linear. That comes under the definition of "with some role-playing elements". In NOLF, this didn't exist at all. System Shock had these features, as did BioShock, but few would argue that they weren't FPS games "with some role-playing elements." Er, No. The PC was a preset character. In Deus Ex, however, you had three head choices for J.C. Denton. Eh? Unless you're talking about the choice of endings in Deus Ex. Otherwise, it was simply who you killed, if you killed, and how you killed. The same can be said of most recent FPS. Heck, there were dialog choices in Jagged Alliance 2, a completely non-linear world, leveling systems, skills, etc.... and I doubt anyone would call this tactical squad action game an RPG. Lots of FPS can say the same. Again, many FPS (not to mention RTS) can say the same. It was a FPS (all in first person to boot!) with some role-playing elements. NOLF was strictly a FPS... which also had dialogue trees, side quests, moral choices, just like most games nowadays. Now I wasn't criticizing Alpha Protocol, nor was I criticizing Deus Ex or NOLF (I loved both). I'm just saying that what very little I have read about the game... and face it, we know next to nothing at this point... sounds a bit to me like a cross between the two, and more of a FPS than what I consider a true role-playing game, particularly since it sounds as if the game will have a preset PC.

My first impression is that it sounds a bit "No One Lives Forever" with a male PC plus "Deus Ex" without the implants. Now I liked both games, but neither was an RPG. They were FPS through and through despite Deus Ex's claim to have "role playing elements". I have a wait and see attitude. I've played and enjoyed games with pres-set male PC's... but I've rarely played them more than once, and have avoided them more often than I've purchased them. I'll just watch and wait to see what this game has that makes it "buy worthy"... particularly if it ends up being more of an FPS than an RPG (which just doesn't really fit the mode of a pre-set PC, in my humble opinion.)

That depends upon the child and the school. In too many schools the only socialization skills some of the "outcast" kids learn is how to avoid thugs and gangs of roving bullies, and to carry clean underwear if their avoidance techniques aren't up to par. Most children do quite well in a public school setting. I did. My children did. However, some children are scarred for life by what they endure in public school. Parents are best able to make these decisions for their own children. Period.

Some fit your description, some do not - it varies on the state one is in and the type of homeschooling you have applied for. If, say, you are in Virginia, you must either apply for a religious exemption (in this case you can never apply to the public school system, until college, without notifying the state of a change in your status), present a draft of your curriculum, or have a higher degree from an accredited college or university. Also, for the latter two options, you must either present a portfolio for examination or take a standardized test. Some states are more lax, some are harsher - but nearly all have the religious exemption option, something that does not fall under your description. Virginia also requires home schoolers to abide by acredited home school programs. If you have evidence that the only home schooling allowed in Virginia is to those who have submitted a "religious exception", then I'd be happy to see it. Nothing I have seen in researching Virginia home school requirements supports that thus far. Religion has little to do with most home schooled children, btw. Parents who decide to homeschool do so based primarily on what is best for their children, and the decisions usually are made based upon their child's abilities (very slow or very bright children do not do well in crowded classroom situations), their child's fears (nerds, fat kids, homely kids, insecure kids are frequently the targets of bullies and schoolyard thieves), and parental fears (a lot of schools, particularly urban, inner city schools, are quite frankly dangerous places to be). I still take umbrage with the characterization that home-schooling a child, no matter the reason, is "domestic violence". That is pure rubbish.

Perhaps some of you are not aware, but home-schooled children in the USA belong to various home schooling associations, accredited by the state, and supply the home-school parents with all the workbooks and materials necessary for the coursework. In addition, home schooled children must past state-licensed examinations commensurate with their grade levels. We are not talking about ignorant mom and pop reading the bible to their kids for 12 years and calling it education. As for the "who do parents think they are to believe they know best for their children" crowd, the parents think they are the parents, charged with the responsibility for raising their children the best way they know how. The parents think they know their children better than anyone else. The parents think they care for their children more than anyone else does. And they are right. As for home-schooling parents committing "domestic violence" against their children, that is uttly ridiculous. For some children, school itself is the violence, a frightening place where they are bullied, ridiculed, and tormented by the metal detector they must walk through daily. With all due respect, some of you are making definitive statements about things of which you are not knowledgeable. Let's not confuse the topic of sex education, which I agree should be a staple of every child's education, by bashing home-schools or parents. Raising children is difficult. Anyone who doesn't think so, try it for 20 years then get back to me.

Dead kids are not "hilarious". Period.

I don't either. I especially don't understand why a dead child is being laughed at and ridiculed.

No options for a female PC? *sniff* Not that it matters, since it's a console release.

They are just teasing you. You won't get warned or banned for double posting. Just delete the text and type "double post" in there. It happens a lot around here. And welcome to the forum!

Russia's losses in the war were staggering. There's little doubt that they made a major contribution toward Hitler's defeat... but what some seem to forget is that the only reason the Russians were fighting Hitler in the first place is because Hitler double-crossed them and broke their alliance. Now if that alliance had held and Russia had fought with the Germans, I'm pretty sure the war would not have turned out the way it did. Whenever the topic of WW2 comes up, it really amazes me when I read arrogant comments from Americans about "saving Europe's butt", or Europeans bitterly complaining because America didn't jump into the war right away... it seems like after 60 years and plenty of history lessons to absorb we'd stop the foolish bragging and/or silly scapegoating. It's pointless, it's childish, and most of all, it's flat out wrong. Every country fought in the war for itself, for its survival as a nation. That's what wars are about. No country is an island, and no major global conflict can be won without the support of allies. I guess I don't understand how people that depended upon each other for survival can now seethe with anger and resentment to the point of near hatred. It makes no sense to me, and it frustrates me.

Dear ~Di, Lurk Moar. Speak less. Signed, Abraham Lincoln, one-term US representative, best president ever. I think I have a right to express an opinion without being singled out and told to basically shut up. That was uncalled for. You have the right to be called out when you're impressively wrong. Unless you're honestly willing to argue that my old friend Abe really was an undistinguished and unsuccessful president as a direct result of his lack of experience, which I suppose you could, except... no, no, you can't, really. That would be well stupid. You have the right to disagree with my opinion. Elections are nothing more than a counting of opinions, after all. An opinion, a choice, cannot be "wrong". You do not have a right to tell me to basically shut up. If you want to go back a couple of centuries, sure, we can go back even further. George Washington had no governmental experience whatsoever. Neither did most of his immediate successors. However, we are not talking about the 18th century, or the 19th century. We are talking about the 21st century, where foreign affairs really are a big deal, and a lack of experience thereof can be catastrophic. We are also talking about issues, clearly stated, that we may disagree with versus issues not articulated at all, so we can't really figure out if we agree or disagree with them. Between Obama and Clinton, I think Clinton is the stronger, more experienced candidate. If you disagree, swell. I won't tell you to shut up. If you want to delineate what Obama's positions are on basic policies versus Hillary, great. I'll listen. I'd love to know what his positions are, since he hasn't managed to tell me yet. So go on. Let's see a lovely comparison of Obama versus Hillary, position by position. Let us know exactly why you feel his positions are superior. And try to do so without ridiculing me, since I'm actually not running, y'know. As someone who originally told Di to "shut up" at one time long ago...I'm siding with her here. While her opinion is that H. Clinton will win the Dem nomination may or may not be correct, her summation is sound. The nomination will be made according to viability to win, NOT the popular vote. The Dems are more concerned with winning the Presidency than anything else. If this means kissing the public booty then they are more than willing to do so. I'll make a wager with you. Watch the local Dem convention with me. Lincoln didn't start the civil war to free the blacks from slavery for reasons of morality as much as for economic reasons. As it looks like the Democratic nomination will be decided here in Denver ( as it may be too close to call ), I will wager you a $100 Visa card that ( no matter what ) Hillary will be the nominated candidate for the Dems. Decision to be arbitared here by the members of this forum. I will send you the account numbers and ex date of the card I purchase to support my claim. I'm up for it...are you? Walk the talk or don't piss away our time ( other denominations , (lessor or greater) available as long as a confidence in a candidate nomination is shown). $100.00 on the table...pick it up or walk away! What's yer choice? Tarna!!! I think I love you... but then, you know that! Of course, when you told me to shut up I didn't take it any better either, IIRC. But you begged my forgiveness... right?... Okay, maybe not. But what can I say? I've always been a mighty-mouth. My opinions aren't any better than anyone else's; but they are colorful, yes? *hugs*

Thank you for a mature and thoughtful response. Seriously. As I've said, if Obama is the democratic candidate, I'll vote for him despite the fact that I really like McCain as a person and think him probably more ready for the job than Obama. McCain will continue the Iraq war... I can't live with that. McCain will continue Bush's policies... I can't live with that. I think Hillary will be a better president than Obama because she has more experience and a well-honed knowledge of foreign affairs, which may make or break us in the coming decade. I honestly do not know what Obama stands for because despite his wonderful gift of speech, he has never, ever, given me a firm commitment as to what he will change, what he will do specifically. That makes me nervous and suspicious. If the democrats tear themselves apart over the primaries (I'm not a democrat, btw... I'm an independent), then they risk putting McCain, who has basically become a Bush clone, in the whitehouse. I can't live with that. The more democrats spend time and money trying to destroy each other, the more likely McCain will win... and with him comes a supreme court that will become 100% conservative for decades, and an Iraq war that will go on until our grandchildren are grown. I suspect that we are on the same side here. But when people on the same side split into enemies, then the opposition has a clear road ahead. If Hillary wins the nomination, which is iffy at this point, it's imperative that all democrats and independents who share the basic vision rally behind her, lest we find ourselves in a no-win war in Iraq for decades to come. Pick your enemies; don't wipe out your friends along the way. I'm just saying.

I have no problems with Europeans, Australians, etc. being interested in our political process. I'm certainly interested in your political process, and follow all of your elections with interest. I do have problems when Europeans, Australians, etc., who insult not only our political process, but ridicule Americans as a whole because they don't approve of who we have chosen. I didn't vote for Bush. I dislike Bush and his policies immensely. But even more than I dislike Bush, I dislike non-Americans who condescend to us, who mock us, and who through smug innuendo imply superiority to us, because the vote didn't turn out the way Europeans, Australians, etc., would have preferred. It's rude and it's arrogant, particularly when couched by the implication that they know more about this country than we do. If this is how our so-called allies view us, then frankly it makes me wonder if our mid-20th century isolationism wasn't the best policy after all. When "friends" regard us with such contempt, our enemies seem to be at least honest in their intentions. They want to see us humbled and destroyed. Honesty we can deal with. Deceit from "friends" is more... challenging.

Dear ~Di, Lurk Moar. Speak less. Signed, Abraham Lincoln, one-term US representative, best president ever. I think I have a right to express an opinion without being singled out and told to basically shut up. That was uncalled for. You have the right to be called out when you're impressively wrong. Unless you're honestly willing to argue that my old friend Abe really was an undistinguished and unsuccessful president as a direct result of his lack of experience, which I suppose you could, except... no, no, you can't, really. That would be well stupid. You have the right to disagree with my opinion. Elections are nothing more than a counting of opinions, after all. An opinion, a choice, cannot be "wrong". You do not have a right to tell me to basically shut up. If you want to go back a couple of centuries, sure, we can go back even further. George Washington had no governmental experience whatsoever. Neither did most of his immediate successors. However, we are not talking about the 18th century, or the 19th century. We are talking about the 21st century, where foreign affairs really are a big deal, and a lack of experience thereof can be catastrophic. We are also talking about issues, clearly stated, that we may disagree with versus issues not articulated at all, so we can't really figure out if we agree or disagree with them. Between Obama and Clinton, I think Clinton is the stronger, more experienced candidate. If you disagree, swell. I won't tell you to shut up. If you want to delineate what Obama's positions are on basic policies versus Hillary, great. I'll listen. I'd love to know what his positions are, since he hasn't managed to tell me yet. So go on. Let's see a lovely comparison of Obama versus Hillary, position by position. Let us know exactly why you feel his positions are superior. And try to do so without ridiculing me, since I'm actually not running, y'know.

On her own, nearly a decade in the Senate, where she has by all accounts performed admireably enough to earn placement on several high-ranking committees. She has more senate experience than JFK, for that matter. Realistically, she has been her husband's closest advisor, not only in the governor's mansion but in the whitehouse. She knows the workings of the presidency more intimately than most. And it's not just my opinion; even her political enemies grudgingly admit that she does indeed have the experience and the ability... they just don't like her policies... or her personally.

Look at the bright side, the less he tells you, the less promises he is going to break, should he win A more serious question about his lack of experience, how much of the decision making is done by the president (current, past and future) and how much is the country run by the group of people backing him/her? That depends on the individual. Since I've not been a fly on the wall during several administrations, I have only my own observations and opinions upon which to rely. Reagan... especially in his second term, when quite frankly his disease was beginning to be noticeable... relied a great deal on those around him. Jimmy Carter, if what I've read is correct, was a micromanager whose lack of deligating resulted in possibly the weakest presidency in decades. Bush... cripes... Bush surrounds himself with idiots, so who knows if the idiocy of his presidency is his idea or someone else's. Bottom line, the president is the final word in all things over which he has presidential authority. I'd like to believe in the person carrying the title, and not rely on his entourage when it comes to running the country is concerned.