Valsuelm

Not sure I can agree with this. Unless you have connections with some sort of criminal element, I don't know if he'd be able to acquire the weapons as easily. This is 100 % true The 2 handguns and the automatic weapon that was used in the Sandy Hook school shootings were Adam Lanzas mothers, do you think she would have had been able to get these weapons through illegal means? Highly unlikely First, you underestimate the black market, both in size, what you can find on it, and the relative ease of finding it. Where there is a will there is a way. Second, you assume that if it were to come to pass one day that these guns you dislike were to be illegal everyone would give up their guns. I guarantee you there's be a lot of people who weren't previously breaking the law, breaking the law willfully if a ban were to come about. Someone such as Mrs. Lanza, who believes that all hell is likely to break loose in the not so distance future very well might have been such a person to obtain what she felt she needed regardless of any laws. The idea that a ban on guns would have prevented what happened last week or will prevent a future catastrophe is an idea firmly rooted in lala land.

Well, there are two questions we need to ask about that. First, should we be seeking to reduce massacres in particular, or homicide in general? Second, does restricting guns reduce massacres, and if so by how much? They're clearly possible without firearms, as the worst terrorist attack in US history involved hijacking a plane, and the worst domestic one in history involved an explosive. And the Chinese have an ongoing issue with knife attacks on schools in which maniacs stab children to death. And restricting firearms doesn't get rid of them. The question is: is there a substitution effect, and if so how much is substituted? The worst school massacre in U.S. history was also done with explosives. It's relatively safe to say that the 'substitution' would be close to 100%, and that's not considering the affects on other crimes such as robbery and rape that would very possibly increase in some segments of an unarmed populace. One can just look at the crime rates in England or Australia after their relatively recent disarming of the population and see how much their lack of guns hasn't helped their crime rate. If someone is hell bent on killing person(s) X, they're more than likely going to be able to accomplish that with or without a gun if they have the element of surprise and aren't going up against armed people (even against armed people the first victim(s) are sadly going to be toast unless luck is on their side). The thing is we are all to an extent at the mercy of the 'madman' should he decide to strike us. You cannot legislate the 'madman' out of existence or take away all of his tools. The best thing to do to defend against the 'madman' is to have weapons close by to protect yourself and others once the 'madman' moves into action. Fortunately, for the would be armed or unarmed there aren't that many people out there who would perpetrate a crime such as was done last Friday. There is no legislation that would have prevented any recent school massacre, nor any that will prevent the future massacre. What would have (would) possibly made (make) them less atrocious in terms of numbers of fatalities was if there had been (would be) someone there who could have stopped the perpetrator(s). People generally do try to do this, even if they're unarmed, but unless luck is very much on their side (and it sadly hasn't been) they're going to fail unless they themselves are armed with a weapon. Less guns=the need for more effort=less people following through. Also, your last paragraph just points to Hurlie's points about psychiatric care. And note that there's a difference between "crime rate" and "Homocide rate" and "fatalities". Your first and last line make no real point. I'll respond to your second though. Psychiatric 'care' as your average westerner sees it is not a solution, it is a problem. As I've mentioned before, most of the massacres (at least in the U.S.... I'm not overly familiar with ones elsewhere) in schools and out of schools over the last two decades were perpetrated by people under the influence of psychotropics. I'd posit that there's a good chance the crimes would not have happen had the perps not been under the influence of these drugs. We don't talk about that though much here in the U.S. because a large portion of the population is taking these drugs or similar drugs. Psychiatrists and psychologists have become the new priests and bishops for many who seek console, Unlike priests and bishops though these replacements peddle (and even push) drugs. They often advise in favor of division and the material over reconciliation and the spiritual, but that's a secondary (yet not small) problem. The drugs that are designed first and foremost to help pharmaceutical company X's bottom line, not the individual taking them. Some would say that it's not the drugs as a large portion of the population that is on these drugs is not out killing a great many people. True, but these drugs affect people in subtly different ways, and all are affected negatively to the detriment of themselves and those they have relationships with. The first thing most psychotropics do to a person is numb them emotionally to a degree to what goes on around them. And even if an adult is 'out of their mind' on drugs, if they made it to adulthood before using these drugs they're likely already hardwired to not do something such as a 'massacre', a person who has been on these drugs since childhood and doesn't know life without them may not have such hard wiring. Note that most massacres are perpetrated by the young. People who aren't or never have been under the affect of any of these drugs tend to not realize just how much the person sitting next to them is affected. And the person on them isn't always aware of just how much they're affected due to the subtle nature of some of the drugs, and they're especially unaware if they don't know better. The number of children placed on these drugs has skyrocketed over the last two decades. It's sad and scary, as the societal effects of this has not yet been realized, and won't be for some time. I guarantee you these effects are not going to be good, as on an individual level these drugs usually wreak great havoc. The drugging of our children and the labeling of many of them as 'suffering' from 'disorder X' is probably one of the greatest crimes perpetrated on a generation in the history of the world. What these children are usually suffering from if anything is horrible/naive parents and/or horrible/naive teachers/psychologists not any real mental deficiency, and because of that their lives are often ruined by these drugs they are placed on. Some of them realize that but most do not as they have no point of reference to a life without them, as they've never known it.

Well, there are two questions we need to ask about that. First, should we be seeking to reduce massacres in particular, or homicide in general? Second, does restricting guns reduce massacres, and if so by how much? They're clearly possible without firearms, as the worst terrorist attack in US history involved hijacking a plane, and the worst domestic one in history involved an explosive. And the Chinese have an ongoing issue with knife attacks on schools in which maniacs stab children to death. And restricting firearms doesn't get rid of them. The question is: is there a substitution effect, and if so how much is substituted? The worst school massacre in U.S. history was also done with explosives. It's relatively safe to say that the 'substitution' would be close to 100%, and that's not considering the affects on other crimes such as robbery and rape that would very possibly increase in some segments of an unarmed populace. One can just look at the crime rates in England or Australia after their relatively recent disarming of the population and see how much their lack of guns hasn't helped their crime rate. If someone is hell bent on killing person(s) X, they're more than likely going to be able to accomplish that with or without a gun if they have the element of surprise and aren't going up against armed people (even against armed people the first victim(s) are sadly going to be toast unless luck is on their side). The thing is we are all to an extent at the mercy of the 'madman' should he decide to strike us. You cannot legislate the 'madman' out of existence or take away all of his tools. The best thing to do to defend against the 'madman' is to have weapons close by to protect yourself and others once the 'madman' moves into action. Fortunately, for the would be armed or unarmed there aren't that many people out there who would perpetrate a crime such as was done last Friday. There is no legislation that would have prevented any recent school massacre, nor any that will prevent the future massacre. What would have (would) possibly made (make) them less atrocious in terms of numbers of fatalities was if there had been (would be) someone there who could have stopped the perpetrator(s). People generally do try to do this, even if they're unarmed, but unless luck is very much on their side (and it sadly hasn't been) they're going to fail unless they themselves are armed with a weapon.

The above is an incredibly naive statement. In the U.S., on some levels we're already arguably way beyond the level of tyranny that caused the war that created this nation. There's certainly no doubt that if alive today Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, et al would be meeting somewhere working on the next Revolution right now. Regardless of what they'd do or not do, there is absolutely nothing about 'this day and age' that makes it impervious to tyranny, if anything the tyrannical state has more tools than ever to levy it's power. You're right that any revolutionary war would be largely a guerrilla war. For the most part that's always been true. You're wrong in that the revolutionaries wouldn't get their hands on RPGs, Stingers, etc in relative short order, they would, and possibly from multiple sources.

Funny you should being up ole TR. Teddy *was* incompetent. He was the puppet/lapdog of King Edward VII and J.P. Morgan along with *his* European stringholders. A great many things went awry under his administration. In many ways Teddy arguably was the first really horrible President the U.S. had on many levels. You wouldn't know that growing up in your typical America school though, where you're taught that Teddy was 'a man's man', aka the first 'cool' president. Hey.. I once thought that too, until I became more than passingly familiar with American as well as European history, as well as learned who wrote those school textbooks. If you think Teddy Roosevelt was a good president.... well.... there's just no way to debunk that in a small amount of space. If you care at all for liberty and the fundamentals that the U.S. Republic sits on though, I suggest you reconsider. You've got a lot of reading to do however. Realizing Teddy isn't the cat's meow doesn't happen overnight. I recommend this book to get started. It's brand new and I haven't read it myself, but Andrew has more than a clue and I trust he makes a good case. His thesis is certainly spot on as Wilson was a lapdog and tragedy as well.

Sometimes mindsets shouldn't change. There are things worth standing up for, liberty is certainly one of them. The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. Though unfortunately many (as a result of miseducation and propaganda in the news and from your socialist or incompetent politician) actually think we do live in a democracy. Tip, as I know some are going to look up the difference right now: If you don't readily know the difference, you have A LOT of homework to do on what's going on in the world. The decision was made long ago. The United States of America would not have existed long without the 2nd Amendment or the other nine that made up the Bill of Rights. Some things should not be changed. The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are some of those things. Do the people in the US trust the system enough? Depends on who you ask. Overall though, the short answer to that is no. And I'll posit that anyone who says yes has their head in the sand or is just too young to realize just how much they're being lied to.

That is indeed a better idea.

If Anders Behring Breivik wasn't a psychopath, no one is. His actions: killing 70+ and injuring hundreds of random people he did not know while having no remorse or empathy for his victims is the very essence of what a psychopath is. If anyone's picture could be placed next to the definition of psychopath in the dictionary it's his.

Then support your claim with better sources. You made no point. You accused me of somehow being in denial for challenging something someone else wrote that was based on very incomplete information, and substantiated that claim in no way. Disingenuous I was not.

American culture is much like European culture in regards to the number of uber whackoloons we have. Western society shares many of the same ills throughout it's various nations. The wikipedia information is very incomplete for all nations, especially in regards to atrocities in Europe. Note that very few school shooting are listed prior to the internet age. It is not because there were so few shooting during that time it's because any that happened were not documented as well they would be now. Tragedies such as a school shooting generally just used to make the local news, let alone national, and especially international news. You are proving his point with your denial. Not really, you're just proving you don't realize that wikipedia isn't the best place to find information (especially in regards to information about events prior to the internet age), as well as your inability to argue well. Even if you go by the information on the wikipedia the number of mass murders (10 or more dead) over the last 20 years at a school number higher in Europe (5) than in the U.S. (3). If you lower that bar to more to 3+ murders in one incident, over the last twenty years the number of mass murders (3 or more dead) at schools are nearly the same in Europe (19) and the US (18). Incidents where 1 or 2 people are killed generally shouldn't be counted as a 'school attack' incident, as in most cases the perpetrator was interested in only killing those 1 or 2 people and would have done so elsewhere; the school at large wasn't a target it just happened to be where the crime was done. A recent example would be the kid who killed his father who was a professor at a Wisconsin college in his father's classroom. He had no interest in killing anyone else there that day (the kid by the way was pissed at his father for passing the 'aspergers gene' on to him, among other things no doubt).

If there's anything I don't want in regards to voice acting, it's a well known narrator. She'd be far less than perfect imo. Baldur's Gate did it right. Great narration by a voice most were unfamiliar with. If any known voice actor was used as the narrator my vote would be for the same guy who did BG.

American culture is much like European culture in regards to the number of uber whackoloons we have. Western society shares many of the same ills throughout it's various nations. The wikipedia information is very incomplete for all nations, especially in regards to atrocities in Europe. Note that very few school shooting are listed prior to the internet age. It is not because there were so few shooting during that time it's because any that happened were not documented as well they would be now. Tragedies such as a school shooting generally just used to make the local news, let alone national, and especially international news.

Throwing money at 'mental health care' will not only accomplish less than banning guns would to prevent future tragedies it will very arguably cause more future tragedies. Psychiatric care was very possibly the problem to begin with. It's emerged that the kid was diagnosed with mental issues, and sadly was probably given drugs to 'help' him as that's par for the course nowadays. If the perpetrator was on psychotropics that changes everything in terms of how his actions should be viewed. It also should shift focus to those drugs and why he was on those drugs. That more than likely won't happen though, as we as a society have become a pill popping populace and bought into the notion that western psychology has a clue to begin with. The DSM, the psychiatrist's bible, is written first and foremost to sell drugs. Because of that we've a whole slew of diagnosis that didn't exist just a few years ago, and an ever increasing number of people (especially children) who are told they have some disorder that requires some pill to 'fix'. The vast majority of these diagnosis are utter hogwash, but the damage done to the person's psyche that the diagnosis is leveled upon is very real, and greatly exasperated if the person is placed on drugs as a result (and at that point physical damage will ultimately occur due to the drugs as well to the person's organs). The perpetrator went to the school with some guns for a reason, and I very much doubt it was to gain notoriety as some suggest. I'd wager a great deal it was to pay his former school psychologist a visit for what she did to him, as well as anyone else he thought was responsible, such as a former teacher or the principle. What further pushed him to kill a bunch of innocent children we'll likely never know (unless the police can piece that hard drive together), but perhaps in his mind he was sparing them the hell he felt he was in. Psychiatrists destroy lives all the time and generally are completely oblivious to it (many of them themselves take the very drugs they peddle). Many of the people who's lives they destroy are even oblivious to it as they're under the effects of mind altering drugs. If you look into many of the recent mass murders over the last couple decades you will indeed find that most of the perpetrators were on psychotropics. This is true in Columbine, Fort Hood, a recent double murder at a university in Wyoming, the Batman movie massacre, et al. A famous as Columbine is you just about never hear that the drugs the kids were on might be the problem, but you often hear that the guns they used were. There is no real correlation here at all. In fact the opposite would generally be true of anyone who held the Constitution dear, as the national health care plan known as Obamacare was unconstitutional. Anon though as that's another issue.

With all due respect to Sara Kestelman and everyone else who's been suggested or will be to be a voice actor, I'd much prefer to hear new voices than anything familiar from other games. There is a plethora of talent out there. That said, I'd hope the designers upon imagining and fleshing out the characters we'll meet in PE will have imagined a voice for each character they want voiced and then go out and find someone that is best able to act out their ideas. If that means a familiar voice, so be it, but I'm all for unfamiliar. I definitely don't want a high profile actor for the sake of having a high profile actor (ie: Bethesda games).

There's absolutely nothing insane about what he said, not even quirky. And I don't agree with everything he said. ie: while the parents ultimately are somewhat culpable, we don't know and possibly never will exactly what circumstances the kid obtained the weapons in his mother's house. She very well may have had them locked up. Any intelligent and resourceful teenager or older is going to get by just about any lock their parents (or roommate) put in place, for a gun or whatever else if they are intent on gaining access to it. Someone who thinks otherwise is not intelligent or resourceful enough, or is and lacks the empathy required to imagine themselves in a scenario where they'd want/need to do such a thing as compromise some security measure such as a lock to obtain or achieve X. Some folks think handguns are bad: 'what could you possibly need those for?' yet rifles are ok. Some think the opposite and ask the same question. The limitations proposed are arbitrary and have little basis in reality. Anyone familiar with the weapons themselves will know that the limitations can relatively easily be circumvented. ie: a fact that most folks unfamiliar with guns don't realize is that anyone who is very familiar with how a gun works can take most if not all semi automatic weapons and make them fully automatic should they choose to do so. As for why you'd need any gun you'd personally think is 'over the top', well, depending on what you're arbitrary threshold for what you think over the top is I could likely give you some plausible scenarios. But really, you should just go and study why the 2nd amendment exists. I recommend this video: http://youtu.be/M1u0Byq5Qis

It's not just in the U.S. While there may be some folks out there who are considering perpetrating crime X or have perpetrated crime X primarily for the notoriety, if you've spent time looking into why many tragedy Xs were perpetrated you'd see that that is almost never the primary motive, though rarely it is a secondary, tertiary, etc one. Motives for crimes vary greatly, though when it comes to mass murder vengeance against someone(s) or some group is a common one.

I think you're mistaken. Few if any people I've ever talked to who are all for the 2nd amendment in the U.S. or just generally for the right to bear arms anywhere doesn't make that connection. It's more a matter of there are many people who make that connection and think it's THE connection, as if there aren't other things at play or those other things are trivial at best. That is not the case.

It makes for good ratings? That's capitalism and free market economy in action. I wonder if somebody could enlighten me about something (since I don't live there), but isn't there an enormous stigma associated with being a "loser", in a country where success is everything and failure seems to be regarded as a crime and/or divine punishment. Maybe somebody need to run an information campaign for young men, since they seem to be the majority of the shooters, that it is perfectly Ok to seek help? Just a thought. There used to be. In better days. Our culture has become much more corrupted since then. The stigma still exists in some segments of the population but over the last 20 or so years the stigma of being a 'loser' has been turned on it's head and in much of pop culture it's cool to be a 'loser' now. The 'why' of this is a somewhat huge topic as it encompasses many things, and much of the why is even taboo to speak about, but a great deal of the reason behind it is what people see on TV and in the movies. If I have more time maybe I'll write more on this to better answer your question. But in short, no... the stigma is gone. The race to the bottom is in.

I think you and some others here are seriously overestimating the 'niche' of PE. PE has quite a bit more than your average game potential to be a blockbuster game. Certainly it has the potential to be as popular as any of the major IPs of the genre out there now. A genre that's had a relatively weak showing these last few years and has a playerbase somewhat wanting for something good as good RPG games are anything but common these days.

Ideally something new and unique to the world we'll be playing in, with a definition of rough equivalent in the manual so those of us living on earth can relate the fantastical unit to something in our world, ie: 1 PE unit approximately = X lbs = X kg Barring that, give me American measures such as the IE games had. Keep the metric system and it's logic out of my fantasy game!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y One of the better videos of recent times showing us how our 'leaders' are psychopaths.

The above is what really needs to be addressed. Not gun control.

Pessimistic /= Realistic, whereas wise and realistic are somewhat synonymous.

Mog as a character first appeared in FF VI (i highly recommend playing FF VI if you never have, it's easily one of the best), and I'm pretty positive Moogles first appeared in FF III. I'm not sure Mog was ever an official mascot of Square though. RIP that gaming company... one of the best ever. SquareEnix is a mere shadow of that former glory. Though I don't want to see a Mog dance in PE, I'm all for visually stunning and environment altering illusions and/or spell effects, especially if they can be implemented in a way that adds to gameplay and isn't just eye candy.

I'd wager much that you'd still be able to get a boxed version in retail when the game is released, though I don't see a good reason why Obsidian is not also offering a boxed 'Slacker Backer' option on top of their digital download one. If there's a gaming crowd likely to want hard copies over digital ones we're likely it, and looking at the pledges there seems to be proof that hard copies are preferred. I know if I just stumbled upon PE for the first time and wanted to back it I wouldn't do the current 'Slacker Backer' as it's digital download only. I'd wait until release and get a hard copy. I wouldn't be opposed at all though if those who have pledged something and later wanted to 'upgrade' their pledge could do so. I myself on further thought would like to upgrade to the collector's edition and get in on the beta. To those who think the game won't be available in retail. While I don't work for Obsidian and couldn't say with 100% certainty due to that, I think they'd be very unwise to not make PE available via retail when the time comes for release, and would be very surprised as well as quite disappointed if the game wasn't released retail.