Gorgon

True enough, the publisher promotes, decides which deserving game site gets the ad dollars, etc.

Professional reviewers and game review sites are nearly all whores who share a symbiotic relationship with the game developers with obvious incentive to avoid a clear thumbs down rating. Average Joe gamers have preconceptions about games but they aren't nearly as predictable, it also helps if you know a little about their persons and what type of games they like. Take for instance Mkreu describing the Gothic series in terms comparable to the second coming of Christ. You learn to take these things with a grain of salt. Both vararities of reviewer are subjective but the gamer is better at stating up front in no uncertain terms what his preferences are.

Interesting concentration of Atheists in the world's oceans.

Also, what's with the rage about conservative parties with racist undertones in Europe? Have you ever been to Europe for a longer period of time? Do you understand that there always be fringe parties in every open society? It is generally acknowledged that there has been a marked diffusion and increase in such parties over the last decade, what most of them have in common is that they feed on a general resentment of immgrants and immigration related problems. The concern about such parties is genuine, they have gained political influence and cooperate with traditionally 'respectable' parties who would usually refrain being associated with them.

Bongs are uncivilised, the dose you tupically get puts you to sleep unless you are smoke too much already. The gentleman rolls his own joints, which is something of an art as well, in order to savor both the flavor and the effect.

What a complete ****. I hope he goes away for long enough for everyone to forget about him.

Well not everybody can just zone out from their nagging worries.

Who were initially so inept they almost allowed Germany to do the impossible, because their command structure had been devastated by Stalin's purges.

But we are talking about voting on whether or not officers get to whip disobedient subordinates. In any case with independently thinking men and women the prospect of voting, or to be more exact, disagreement in the middle of battle becomes real. People need to be able to shut up and do what they are told. Or at least that's the prevailing idea.

lol How do you think the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War picked the leader of their military units? How do you think the early Bolshevik-aligned soldiers organized themselves? Officer removal via vote has historically played a pretty major role amongst ultraleftist western revolutionaries. Those would presumably be the anarchist militias which proved totally incapable of a single offensive operation? I think Che Guevara was on an expedition in Africa before he got killed in South America, didn't amount to anything though. The argument is a little thin if we are just talking about militaries and discipline. Without question the most able forces are based around it. As a redcoat in the Brittish army circa 18th ct. you could expect to be whipped or shot for disobeying orders. Wasn't pretty, but it also meant no one wanted to be the first to break formation and retreat, which is why they out performed the American revolutionaries again and again. The democratic process is too slow to be effective in battle, maybe in future it will be possible through some kind of neural hive mind network. In fact such decision making could be superior to a traditional command hierarchy.

It's desperation. You know love has some very unpleasant sister emotions.

It would have been a lot easier to swallow if we were talking about first contact, and not the x-files type government cover up reaching back to the 60s. You can't keep a secret that big for that many years. It's just not practically possible. On the other hand the existence of alien life is entirely probable, which most scientists concede without being able to offer any percentages of course.

That would be Hiro

Having worked in one I concur with Humanoid.

It would appear that the teachers cunning plan to force you all to think for yourselves and formulate your own opinions is bearing fruit.

That all depends. Sweatshops are profitable because they mistreat the workforce, and they are a part of the whole that makes up Capitalism.

It's too bad no one makes real tactical shooters anymore. I'm thinking a la ghost recon before the series got infected with consoltitis.

Look, employment, with the exception of the public sector in those cases where you can't fire anyone without misconduct, is a mercenary relationship. That goes both ways, the sense of company loyalty common two or three decades ago has long since evaporated. People aggressively negotiate wages on an individual basis regardless of what that does to the prospect of collective bargaining. In Denmark applications for 'safe' government jobs in the health industry has risen by, in some cases, several thousand percent since the start of the financial crisis.

There aren't going to be anymore Kotor games, just some depraved Mmporpheger.

Thanks for that. Not only are they awesome, but they just helped me with my work. Ok, what the hell do you do anyway. If that's not too forward.

It's an interesting problem though. How many of you believe that a company has a moral duty not to lay off staff if it can be avoided, and where does the idea come from. Isn't dog eat dog the basic operation of businesses in a Capitalist society. There is some evidence to the contrary, for instance public pension plans in many European countries approach their investments with an ethics clause, but private companies.... Many do take the highroad to acquire and maintain a good image. Things like a 'CO2' policy are getting common for companies which depend on a good standing in the public, but do we expect companies to maintain staff - especially in an economic crisis where getting laid off is a more serious business.

What do you mean 'forcing' there is no expectation that a company has do anything other than making money for their shareholders, what are you, a Communist ?

It's called downsizing and it's all about remaining competitive and the message, to the shareholders, of a strong earnings report. Just making money is not enough, you have to do better than predicted. Sacking a lot of people and telling the rest that they have to do more with less works better than just telling everybody that they have to do more with less. Growth through acquisitions is faster than expanding the core business, and if you don't do it you don't look like you are going places. in order to "narrow its product portfolio to provide greater focus on titles with higher margin opportunities." Think sequels and reboots of proven titles, and not much else.

He's a reasonably intelligent guy, you would think he was capable of playing more than one kind of psychopath. On the other hand it's an action movie, there isn't a lot of time for Shakespearean monologues

I didn't buy the premise of the blue hand at all. An s&m club where people pass the time by playing Russian roulette ?, is that really what people would be thinking if they knew they were going to die. It doesn't seem to fit with how people diagnosed with a terminal condition spend their day. It seems to me people in that situation would be looking for purpose, salvation, rather than an orgy. Also there are some excellent possibilities for philosophical comment, the surface of which have barely been scratched.