PsychoYoshi

Looks like Sawyer still has a good old WRT54G hanging on for life on top of his computer. Sounds like all of the modes will add a lot of depth; my only concern is that if too many are implemented, it'll spread the gameplay all around too thin.

This is the worst bull I've ever heard. I'm referring to the part about spending comparatively little on defence. Sweden used to have an entire internal arms industry, with among other things a nuclear programme which was terminated in 1968. I'm sure Scandinavia was protected from the USSR by the threat of American nuclear arms, however, that does not equal having a low defence budget. You sure about that? Sweden isn't even in the top 15 overall. If you don't prefer that measure, as of 2010, the US currently spends 4.8% of its GDP on military expenditures, and I highly doubt this figure counts black ops. Sweden spends 1.3%. It would be nice to have figures that went back a little further, but if the current distribution is any indication...

The group that has the most to lose from the Bush cuts expiring are the group that already bears the highest relative overall tax burden--the upper middle class and the lower upper class who have high salaries, but need to work to maintain their status. Most of the super-rich won't be severely affected because most of their wealth comes from capital gains and other investments, not salaried income. An alternate course of action would be to leave rates where they are, give or take a couple percentage points, but getting rid of most of the deductions that allow people to game the system, maybe preserving charitable giving. Another possibility would be to nuke it from orbit (it's the only way to be sure) and replace the system with something like the FairTax. Cuts also need to accompany tax reform; other than the high tax rates, Europe's welfare states have only worked as long as they have because thanks to America, they need to spend comparatively little on their defensive budgets. Other than entitlements, the US needs to trim its defensive budget by about half, make more of the world responsible for policing its own regions, and get rid of agencies like DHS that exist to harrass its own citizens more than harrass terrorists. The Big Three entitlements: Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare, also need a complete overhaul because the system as it's currently set up is a giant wealth vortex from the young to the old. Social Security at least is at least debatably moreorless revenue-neutral (assuming that we don't have politicians raiding it to "pay down" the debt--see Clinton's fake economic "miracle") and Medicaid is relatively small as far as federal programs go, but Medicare is a behemoth.

Generally, yes. Most Americans are starting to wake up and realize that the two-party duopoly is completely counterproductive to pretty much everyones' goals other than corporate and government bureaucratic interests. Unfortunately, most are still buying into the media's lie that this latest election is the Most Important Election Ever™ and the Wrong Side™ (whichever major party they like less) will screw up America more and make it more difficult for the Better Side™ to "fix" things. The hurdle is persuading everyone to make the next logical step and refusing to continue to sustain the status quo.

I'm a relatively recent convert to Obsidian games, so I don't really have any prior knowledge as to how their difficulty is normally. New Vegas started out easy, got ridiculously hard at around level 10 or so if you ticked off the NCR or Legion early, and then the difficulty gradually died off until you were ridiculously overpowered. As for how I myself like difficulty in games? Challenge is sort've like spicy food; it's good, but you don't want it in really high doses. Because a lot of games are big into the hand-holding these days, yeah, I often do up the ante a bit, but the only game where I consistently play on the highest difficulty possible is Rock Band, and even then, I don't download stuff like the death metal tracks on RBN which are specifically designed to make your wrists and fingers weep. In contrast, on an Atlus game like Catherine/Megaten/Demon Souls, I normally leave difficulty where it is or lower it a bit.

I jumped the gun with the assumption that you supported the loans for Sol; I concluded that from your earlier "spur economic change" argument. If that's what you mean by "ill-informed", I apologize, that was a bad move. The underlying point that I was trying to make, though, that governmental subsidy is a perverse incentive regardless of whether one side views it as a necessary/desirable project, still stands, and I would have made the same point re: Solyndra regardless of whether or not it had been approved on its first go-around during Bush's tenure. Also, even if one believes in the very shaky assumption that the Democrats are measurably better than the GOP, voting for the lesser evil is, as Oby posted, not going to solve anything when the two parties are bought out part and parcel by the banks and military-industrial complex (both sides), Big Oil (GOP), and Big Media/Tech (Democrats). As both Occupy and the Tea Party/Ron Paul and Gary Johnson wing of the GOP demonstrated, both parties are simply too controlled by the establishmentarians to be redeemable. The only thing that could potentially make US elections interesting going forward would be either the rise of a viable third party or a party fracture. That might actually happen to the GOP pretty soon, seeing the growing rift between the party's socon and fiscal con elements. My cynicism re: the system doesn't mean that I don't vote or advocate for potential changes. As a libertarian, tilting against windmills is one of my favorite hobbies. Not necessarily. GOP is likely to maintain its majority, although slightly more narrowly than before. Unless there's widespread, systemic discontent towards just one party, massive gerrymandering, or something along those lines, district seats don't switch up too much in the House in terms of party lines. In 2012, there's widespread discontent towards both parties, and most Americans are responding by attempting to vote gridlock.

Interesting idea; ED was a great game. I don't know if there should be something like a sanity meter in PE, per sec, but the concept of sanity as some type of story or plot mechanic could be very compelling, indeed. Seeing as how souls are tied to everything, it could be a reasonable extension that perception or something like that could be affected by the development of the person's soul. One example might be, say, if a person was some kind of spirit medium. Altruistic spirits are more likely to flock to an altruistic person. Something of that nature. On the insanity end, certain kinds of evil or just weird characters could potentially gain access to different powers based on their mental state.

Republicans have the majority in the House. They already had two years of filibuster-proof majorities from 2008-2010 and majorities for the last two years of Bush's tenure. Please enlighten us how they performed any better than the GOP other than using the the litigation momentum that the Log Cabins started against DA-DT to repeal it. I'm not sure what's worse, wrongfully mischaracterizing GOP members as a homogenous block or the argument that they pay more than lip service to Rand, regardless of whether or not her philosophies were good. Crony capitalism != capitalism. This is systemic among the establishment of both parties. Right then. OK. You do realize Solyndra et. al. are symptomatic of the same crony capitalism that you profess to hate? Or does it suddenly become acceptable when it doesn't conflict with your goals? In short? Stop drinking the partisan kool-aid. Neither the GOP nor the Democrats care for voters at all. Quick edit: just in case I come off the wrong way, this is not meant to be a personal attack against Krez; he's entitled to his views. It's meant to be a deconstruction of the argument that the Dems are considerably better than the GOP.

Thanks for being so receptive to suggestions, devs. Quite a few other higher-profile companies could learn a thing or two from you.

This poll would probably work out better as a checkbox-style poll instead of radio buttons; there's nothing mutually exclusive about homosexuality and intellectualism in romance. That being said, I support romance when it helps to round out characters and/or the story, but I'm usually not a fan of sex appeal for its own sake in games. I can understand why some might prefer it, but oftentimes all the time and resources devoted to developing them could be better utilized elsewhere.

CPU: FX-8120 OC'd to 3.9 Ghz, (not as bad for gaming as Intel and several tech sites would have you believe, especially with Win8 RP) [courtesy of AMD] Mobo: Asus Sabertooth 990FX GPU: Palit Geforce 560 Sonic Platinum Memory: 8GB G. Skill DDR3-1600 PSU: Cooler Master Silent Pro M600 Case: Cooler Master CM690II Advanced Boot Drive: 64GB Crucial m4 Main Drive: 500GB Western Digital Caviar Blue Sound Card: Asus Xonar DG Cheap little MS mouse. Cheap pair of Logitech speakers. Steelseries Shift keyboard [courtesy of Intel] She's a good little machine that serves my purposes; I might consider jumping for a HD7850/70 in the near future so that I can partake in a few more high-def tex mods in Skyrim.

By the time this comes out Gabe might make good on his threat to release a Steam client for linux. More than might. He specifically told Phoronix that it'd be out by the end of this year, and a "linux-compatible" tag has already been added to Greenlight. Some rumors are even saying that Valve might get it out before Microsoft releases Win8 so that they can thumb their noses at MS.

Additionally, "selfish" should simply be labelled selfish without the usual good=altruism, bad=selfishness mold that always gets introduced in. D&D is a great system in that it clearly defines what it believes are characteristic qualities of good and evil, but even with such demarkations, it's still possible to spit in the face of the alignment chart. How do we define a character that always helps people out but does so because they realize that good PR usually means good rewards? Or a Sofia Lamb-esque character whose stated goal is the greatest good for the greatest number but is completely willing to toss anyone under the bus to achieve her goal? Simultaneously, one could be an entrepreneur that loves amassing wealth but pays it forward in the form of charity and keeping prices as low as they can so that everyone can enjoy their product? "Selfish" by some interpretations, but simultaneously altruistic. One can try shoehorning these people into the alignment system, but there's always a lot of debate about where they go.

I, for one, think we need more DA: O-esque Mage full-length dresses and fabu-hats. Problem?

Choice is important, but at the same time, I'd like to see a deemphasis of the good/evil dichotomy simply because too often good is simplified to "martyr-without-a-cause altruism" and evil becomes "let me stroke my Snidely Whiplash mustache while sucker-punching every granny I run across". As others have said, New Vegas was great because factions symbolized certain ideals more than they symbolized good and evil. Within a set of ideals there is pretty much always the potential to have varying interpretations of the philosophy. Example: even with a "good" faction like the Followers, you still have some members who take their philosophies to logical extremes and are the bomb-throwing anarchists that people think they are. NCR is another great example. On one hand, people who generally care about their men and fight because they really do believe the NCR is the best option for everyone in the Mojave, and on the other hand, you have glory hounds who will annex you because "(blank) you, that's why." Or, think about the ending of Wild Card. Why does your character want anarchy? Is it because they're principled anarchists who earnestly believe that everyone would be better off under such a system, or is it because they simply want an easier environment in which to exploit people? What form of anarchy do they want? The great thing about these kinds of choices is that you can ascribe to a particular ideology and then roleplay in your characters' motivations for doing so on your own. Allows for more immersion, IMO. These are the kinds of choices that I like to see, not so much "Help kitten out of tree", "walk away from kitten", or "create delicious roasted cat by burning down tree with fire magic" ad nauseum.