~Di

Piracy is indeed stealing. It is the act of using a product without paying for it. Morally and legally, it is theft, pure and simple. All the manipulative yapping I've read in the past about how "nobody loses money because I wouldn't have bought the game anyway" or "I have a right to see if I want it first" or "games cost too much, so I'm entitled to steal it" or any of the other ridiculous claims I've read over the years mean nothing. Someone has created a product and set a price for it's use. Those who use that product without paying for it have stolen it. Period. According to the gaming industry itself, piracy cost millions of dollars in lost revenue. Ask any developer what they think of piracy. Ask if it affects their profitability. Ask what percentage they use on their balance sheets to offset losses by piracy. Ask what percentage of the retail price is jacked up to help offset those losses. In other words, just like the manufacturers of clothing, etc., increase the price of their products to cover shoplifting and theft, requiring honest patrons to subsidize thieves, so does the cost of legitimately-purchased video games subsidize loss by piracy. No, I'm not going to Google up a bunch of sources. Those who are determined to get something for nothing wouldn't care about them anyway. This is a hot-button issue for me, though, so I couldn't resist adding my thoughts to the mix.

I want the NWN2 forums back here. And I want 'em back here RIGHT NOW! Edit: Oh crumb, Hades beat me to it. *sulk*

I enjoyed solo'ing very much. Boredom wasn't an issue for me personally, so again it depends on the individuals involved and their preferenced play styles.

Gabrielle... I can honestly say that I've played over 90%+ of GW by myself (well, me and the henchies!). Truthfully there are a couple of missions late in the game that I had to group in order to finish. I did every single quest with henchies, however. And I've done most of the post-storyline games/areas with just henchies. So you can spend a lot of hours by yourself, if that's your wish. And I took advantage of that! Drakon, you obviously prefer WoW over GW, and that's fine. I've not played WoW, because I have dial-up and don't want to spend $15/month in addition to the $49.99 investment. It very well may be that the majority of people who have played both games will prefer WoW, but the truth is that they are very different games, both in cost and play styles. I don't see why one has to denigrate one game just to elevate the status of another, however. Opinions, valuable as they are, aren't really facts, after all, and do vary from person to person!

Drakon, of course you're entitled to your opinion. I'm sure you'd agree, however, that others are entitled to differing opinions.

Eek. Well, Guild Wars might not be everyone's cuppa, but it does what it does very, very well, is a beautiful game, and frankly has absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to Diablo2. And I'd sure consider it to be a MMORPG. No game will hold everyone's attention indefinitely, but frankly I've put 300-400 hours into it, and I'm still having fun. That's definitely my $49.99 worth, IMHO. kotorkyle, my post on the previous page goes into more detail about the story line, the potential of using a team of cleaver AI henchies or grouping with other "human" players, the missions, and the exploration of many... and I do mean many... gorgeous maps for questing. It's a fine game in my opinion, and a very popular one as well. Do some research at the various Guild Wars forums, and see if you might like to try it.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't... politically speaking, of course! :D Thing is, I was asked my definition of "fundamentalism", and I gave it. That said, there are extreme elements of every religion on earth, and every sect of every religion. However, when these extreme elements gather enough power to begin instilling public policy that incorporates their personal religious belief, then I consider that a threat to this supposedly-secular society that I personally would like to keep. I believe that criminalizing abortion, diminishing science in our public schools to elevate biblical myth as a scientific equal, forcing prayers upon our children in their schools (which has been outlawed by the USSC but which a wide array of Christians, and not just extremists, have fought tooth-and-nail to reinstate) is the beginning of what I can see as a future Christian theocracy in this country. And I'm against it! Yes, it is. At least in my opinion.

Well, Eldar, since you seem to have become rather hostile on the topic I shall drop my part of the discussion. A pity, that. I certainly didn't think I was being severe; I was actually feeling rather pleasant and in the mood for discussion. Yes, we clearly have a failure to communicate here. If I don't understand what you are saying, I'll ask for clarification. If you clearly have misunderstood what I meant, I'll try to restate my position better. That was certainly not meant to be a personal insult to you, although much of what you wrote in reply was clearly meant to insult me. I'm... surprised. I thought we were friends. Speaking of not understanding, I have no idea what you are talking about here. I never mentioned axe-handles. Oh, well.

I love Guild Wars, for several reasons. First, it is an "instanced" game, which means the only time you meet and greet with others online is in the towns. When you go on missions and quests, your group has the entire game to itself! This means those of us on slow dial-up can play and enjoy. Also, you can build your own party of henchies (who are surprisingly good!) so you aren't always stuck trying to find a party of griefer 12 year olds for missions and quests. Yes, there is an arena PvP segment of the game, but I don't play it. I do only the PVE, which is the exploring, questing, and following the story missions. Yes, there IS a story. Not rocket science, but it held my interest. I've moved two characters to the end of the story missions, and into the difficult end-game stuff. Having a ball. Again, there's no monthly fee to play and I have not done WoW (dial-up, don'tcha know... ) but I really have enjoyed my time with Guild Wars. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could compare it with Diablo, though. I mean, not even close.

Hmm, perhaps we have a failure to communicate. When you commented that "Fundamentalists do not, contrary to popular belief, anecdoatal evidence, and constant claims to the contrary, have a choke-hold on power in this country", you apparently were dissecting Christianity into several small packets; I, on the other hand, am discussing Christianity as a whole. Christians DO have a chokehold on power in this country, and as I previously stated in some detail, the "fundamentalist" faction in particular wields an immense amount of power. If you believe my comments in that regard were attempting to "prove the country is run by fundamentalists", then we truly do have a major failure to communicate. If you reread what I wrote, you may note that I was simply responding to your comments about fundamentalists being "beset by hostility from virtually every side in our society", and your statements that people on this very board had even threatened to beat Christians to death. I was simply pointing out that other factions are also "beset by hostility" , and I mentioned several examples, including the fact that atheists had been murdered for their belief... or perhaps for their non-belief. As for your insistance that a "fundamentalist" is different from a Catholic or a "non-fundamentalist" Christian, I respectfully disagree. Christianity is Christianity overall, with some segments more ... er... enthusiastic than others in foisting their beliefs upon the rest of the populace. My point is that the government is quite clearly controlled by Christians, period. But beyond that, a "fundamentalist" faction is clearly in control of the White House, as is a large segment of congress. Before you dispute that, Bush makes quite the point of being a born-again evangelical, which is by any definition a "fundamentalist", as is Southern Baptist and just about any other hell-and-brimstone type of congregation. Fundamentalist isn't a specific sect; it's a belief system that wants government to use religion as its core... a theocracy, if you will... and wants literal interpretation of the Bible codified into law. (That's simplistic, but you get the gist). Hell, Bush insisted that one reason Harriet Miers was qualified for the USSC because she was a born-again evangelical! That's pretty damned "fundamentalist", and both the White House and the USSC are pretty damned powerful, you must admit! :D However, trying to break down Christianity into dozens of tiny segments (i.e. Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Evangelical, Mormon, Methodist, etc., etc., etc.) makes little sense to me, since any and all of these taken to extreme can be "fundamentalist". Excuse me? I truly do not understand the meaning of that statement. Exactly what "charge" have I made? I suspect I haven't expressed myself well, so if you'll be more specific, I'll attempt to clarify my meaning.

Not for lack of trying, considering the number of boycotts, write-in campaigns and even congressional "hearings" devoted to the deterioration of our cherished youth by that godless sexual stuff. Heck, even Hillary Clinton... a fine Christian, though hardly a right-wing whacko... is willing to censor Grand Theft Auto, among other stuff. But I digress. Things have indeed changed since the 50's (which, by the way, is when congress decided to put God on currency, in public buildings, and stuffed God into our Pledge of Alligiance to boot... thank you, Mr. McCarthy!). However, the head of the Atheist party was murdered in the 1990's, not the 1950's, and the fellow who is trying to get God off currency and out of the pledge is rather routinely villified by right-wing media like old Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and their ilk. He may yet be shot, so keep the faith! My point was that I find it ludicrous for Christians to whine that they are persecuted in this country when it is categorically proveable that they are the most powerful majority here in the US of A, and as such are in charge of running the place from the White House on down. I have no problems with that per se, having been raised a good Southern Baptist myself. I do, however, have a problem when religion is inserted into my child's science class, into government, and into the judiciary. Intelligent Design should most certainly be taught and discussed by those who believe it; but it should be taught and discussed in religious institutions, not in public schools.

Er... well, fundamentalists currently control the White House and the House of Representatives, and hold a rather large chunk of the Senate, which contains more fundamentalists than moderates at the moment. It has been widely touted by the fundamentalists themselves that they are personally responsible for the re-election of Bush in 2004, and with the Roberts/Alito nominations, it looks like fundamentalists will now run the highest court in the land as well. Nearly every single congress person and senator, republican and democrat alike, claims to be either Catholic or Christian. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that Christians, particularly fundamentalist Christians, DO indeed run the country. Atheists have been blacklisted, publicly villified by official governmental hearings (McCarthy ring a bell? And of course, calling someone a "godless commie" is still considered one of the worst insults on earth!). The head of the national Atheist party and her family was murdered and buried in the Texas desert. Clearly being an Atheist has its drawbacks. Jews have been persecuted around the world for centuries; holocaust, anyone? Muslims hate Christians, Christians hate Muslims, Jews hate everyone, and everyone hates Atheists. And since we've already established in provable fashion (see my comments above, and count the Christians and/or evangelicals in power positions in the current government!) I frankly do not comprehend the "we are so persecuted" chant by Christians in this country at this point in time. So I must disagree respectfully, Eldar, although I still like you. A lot.

Just a reminder that scientific "theory" is considerably more than speculation. It is accepted scientific principle based upon substantial proven fact and hard evidence. Please do not toss out the word "theory" as if it's nothing more than a blind guess by the scientific community and on a par with a "theory" mentioned in a religious text written thousands of years ago. That is deliberately distorting and categorically untrue. Everyone can believe what they wish. However, when religious interpretations make it into the public classroom and are force-fed to children under the guise of "science", then I do believe that it is unacceptable, no matter how the justification is worded. Okay, that's my thought on the matter. Bye.

HK!!! *sloppy kisses right back atcha!* Okay, I see we are being precise in our definitions, lol... I hadn't bothered to read the entire thread. Obviously. I agree that Deus Ex was much more than a typical FPS. Action? Yep. Stealth? Yep. RPG elements? Yep. I've decided that Deus Ex was its own genre, which I shall refer to from this day forward as FPASRPGS... First Person Action Shooter with a drib of RPG and a dab of Stealth! Or DX for short!

Sir Tech. Absolutely Number One. Absolutely! BioWare Black Isle Obsidian gets an honorable mention, because their first and only game was excellent, so I have high hopes for their future!

I really loved Deus Ex... top-notch game. The sequel was a good game, not a great game, but probably seemed less "good" than it actually was because of the natural comparison to its utterly outstanding predecessor. Most Deus Ex fans that I know were disappointed by the sequel in some manner or another. I personally don't think it was a bad game, but it really didn't live up to the quality of the original. As to the is-it or is-it-not an RPG argument, I consider both Deus Ex and Deus Ex:IW to be FPS with RPG elements. Yes, hybrids to be sure, but very heavy on the FPS and very light on the RPG, in my opinion.

Awww, great choice. I just love Anachronox. It's always on my Top Ten All-Time Fav list. Innovative, brilliant, chuckle-out-loud humor. Just a wonderful game.

I'm playing Alpha Centauri and Guild Wars.

I'm surprised to see you here, tarna, but welcome. I'm pretty much a lurker in these parts, though, so I won't be causing you any grief. For a change.

I don't have to presume the motive for inserting those phrases. Congress, led by the infamous McCarthy, inserted those phrases to distinguish God-fearing Americans from those evil godless commies. I'm not making it up. Headlines of the day screamed said motivations, and quotes from congress-critters solidified it. My school studies of that era gave me more than enough fact to be quite confident that the reasons expressed by the congress at the time the changes were made were indeed factual. Thing is, what they did seriously eroded the separation of church and state, which is exactly what it was intended to do, for the reasons so stated. Mind you, this was at the height of the cold war, when simply being a member of an out-of-favor political party (communism) was enough to get a person blacklisted, banned, deported and/or arrested. I'd like to think we as a society have evolved enough since then that both our Pledge of Alligiance and our currency should be returned to their original, pre-commie-hysteria form. (I also don't think congress should be opening each session with a Christian prayer, but that's a debate for another time! )

Ahhhh.... too much nick-changing around here, lol. I'm blonde, and easily confused.

LOL, it's a secret! Anyway, my last book was published in 2002, and I've kinda-sorta retired. I just play games now. Hehe. Where in NorCal are you? We're neighbors!

Fine. However, if you are going to disrespect and insult folks, don't go getting all huffy when they respond in kind! Umm, yes. A good Christian boy, if memory serves. *grin* What is your point, sir? I suppose "radical fringe" is in the eye of the beholder. I think that many, if not most, of the Christian fundamentalists views are radical, and dangerous to things I hold dear. Take Pat Robertson, for example... yes, he's a nut, but he's no more of a nut than the vast majority of his fundamentalist preacher peers, IMHO... he certainly advocates radical views and violence toward others. And he has an audience of millions, if not tens of millions. So yes, I believe Pat Robertson and his millions of Christian fundamentalist fans are radical and dangerous. I believe that fervently and do not apologize for that belief. So there. Edit: Oops, sorry... I was typing and didn't see that you wished the discussion to end. I'll not post on this topic again, then.

No, I don't recall contending such a thing, or jumping to any such conclusion. If you had quoted the part of my post that made you believe that, I'd be in a better position to clarify my meaning, and correct your inaccurate presumption. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I wrote: You responded: Perhaps I misunderstood your comments. You responded to a statement in which I compared the all powerful "Christian fundamentalists" with outright treason. It seems, at a glance that you place these Cfs as more damaging to our Democracy, but I'll let you clarify the matter for me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I didn't see your statement as comparing Christian fundamentalists with outright treason. You simply said that some folks were suggesting that treason was the sign of a healthy democracy (which I didn't respond to, because I hadn't seen the suggestion and really had no comment upon it), then you added what appeared to be a totally separate comment that Christian fundamentalism was low on your list of concerns. These did not appear to me to be directly-linked comparisons, so I responded only to your second statement, by saying that it was not low on my list, and explained why I felt that way. How you could leapfrog that into the presumption that I "contend that the Republic is more in danger of falling from the attitude of fringe Christians more than folks who advocate outright treason" and "immediately jump to the conclussion that fundamentalist of any religion drive a culture towards bloodshed" is quite frankly beyond me. Needless to say, neither of us correctly interpreted the posts of the other.

Aww, how sweet! *smooch* Thank you.