Hurlshort

Canada left Brendan Shanahan off the Turin roster. That's absolutely unforgivable. The guy is 36 and one of the few older players performing well this season. He's been an international competitor for a lot longer than guys like Rick Nash. I think it's unexusable. They also left off Kariya, who has clearly shown that he's still a competitor. I'm pretty ticked about the Canada roster. I'm also surprised the US team left off Roenick. He spoke his mind about it, something like "Go ahead and take young guys, I've been there before and I know how to win, they don't." Seriously, my blood is raised over the whole thing.

Mechwarrior was huge. It spawned numerous sequels. It's not under-appreciated.

Unfortunately, Psychonauts used to make me nauseaus after 30 minutes of play. Actually quite a few of these console games make me nauseaus if I play to long. Maybe I'm dying...or pregnant.

I played for a bit tonight. The only name I recognized was Bokishi. We got massacred together a few times I think the Obsidian folks, there were about 10 of them on, are spending too much time played BF2. They were very deadly. DJKillingspree took me out quite a few times. Oh, I knifed someone. It was my first knife kill, so I was pretty stoked. I was hiding in the grass and sniping, and some medic nearly walked right over me. I jumped up and knifed him from behind.

Are more Special Forces servers popping up? I gotta say, Jet Skis are and awesome addition, but I don't know why we don't have dirt bikes yet. There was a game that was pretty similiar to BF2, Joint Operations I believe, that had dirt bikes, and a guy could sit on the back and use his gun. Pretty sweet way to travel. You know the unsuspecting guy who is always the first to die in any night mission attack? That's me, I'm useless at night.

Thread title is Battlefront 2 so I think we can safely assume the OP is talking about the BF2 of the Star Wars variety. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But Haitoku refered to BF2:SF, which I'm assuming is the Special Forces expansion for Battlefield, not Battlefront.

I think Nashville is doing an amazing job, and I really place it all on Kariya. He seems to be able to push players to perform way beyond their potential. They also have solid goaltending, but in the past it was offense that kept them in the cellar. Dunham is by far the most under-rated goalie in the league. I've watched OLN for a few games. It was really bad at the start of the season, but they seem to be improving the lighting and camera work. It's not ESPN, but you have to give them a season to iron out the technical stuff. They need to lose a few of those announcers.

We've had this thread before, but... Battlefront 2 is very much inferior to Battlefield 2. If you are buying it for the combat, get Battlefield. If you're buying it just for the Star Wars setting, I guess it's an ok title. These games are also way less effective on a console. There is a Battlefield title on the Xbox, but I'm not sure what it's like. Edit: Make sure you understand that both Battlefront and Battlefield go by the BF2 title...I think Haitoku was talking about Battlefield, not the Star Wars game.

In SAn Jose we have a promotion where, when the Sharks score 4 goals, you can take your ticket stub into a Round Table pizza and get a personal pizza free. I think with the new NHL and the increased scroring, that promotion will be making someone broke soon.

Peace keeping is a part of every one of those stations. It's not the only priority, of course. There is an agenda, the US wants people in power who serve their interests best. They want solid trade and economic certainty. You seem to think this is evil, but I say it's business. Running a country is the same as running a business. You can be ethical, but there is a bottom line that must be managed.

Man, Battlewookie just keeps spewing his anti-American propaganda. Do you even bother to read the rebuttals? You are totally looking at one side and refusing to see the many angles that politics have. The world is not nearly as cut and dry as you portray it to be. It's a huge onion with layers and layers of crap. Bush is also just one president, and the executive branch doesn't not have absolute power over the direction of the US. You seem to have a very elementary view of our political structure. I also don't see why the US needs to back out of its role as a protector of struggling nations. We have the largest and most advanced military. In many parts of the world they do a ton of good. The Middle East is a difficult situation, but there is no grand American strategy to conquer it. Even if the president had such ambition, he'd never be able to pull it off.

...Is that a response to my emotional state? Oh wait, I remember that game. Yes, very good, that is under-appreciated.

Years are nothing in the grand scale of things. I count in decades.

Merceneries was a very entertaining game. It's kinda like GTA but set in a warzone. I'm not sure on any of the other ones though.

Ok...under-appreciated does not mean immensely popular. Tetris is one of the best selling games ever, it's inspired tons of clones, and it brought video games to many non-gamers. You guys are killing me, under-appreciated games are not just older games. They are games that were great but slipped under the radar of the general public. Solitaire is not under-rated, it's installed on almost every computer in the world. Majesty is under-appreciated, it got great reviews, but couldn't bring in the sales or the mass public appeal.

The big thing about when US presidents suspend civil liberties in a time of war is that they return them come peace time. Now Bush clearly used the war on terror to get himself re-elected. Reagan did the same with the Cold War, as did JFK. But the US has huge political shifts every 4-8 years, and it's very hard to predict what will happen in three more years. The wheels are already in motion for Homeland Security to be lessened. That is the beauty of the US's government, it's constantly evolving and very resistant to any one person manipulating power. Lincoln clearly seized power during the Civil War, but before his assassination, he was facing tough political opposition because of this. George Washington could have been king. He could have stayed in power until he was dead, but he set a precedent that has helped the US adapt very well over the years. If you don't like the current government, just wait, it's constantly shifting.

I always tell my students that it's a great place to pick up links on a topic, but you shouldn't trust any single source for factual information. There's always some guy in his underwear typing this stuff in a basement somewhere...

Now that we've seen the tension, strife and conflicts brewing in Iraq I guess it kinda makes a diabolical sense, that Saddam was being hostile. For instance, what happened when Tito died? The former Jugoslavia was split into factions after the most bloody war in recent European history. I think that the people of Iraq are glad to be rid of Saddam, but despite his cruelty he did keep the country together...somewhat. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with that, and Stalin and Mao kept their countries together as well, but that doesn't mean it was it was a good regime. He ruled with an iron fist. It will be interesting to see if Iraq can establish a functioning government that doesn't need brute force. I don't know enough about Saddam, but I hear he also kept religion out of the government. That's an amazing feat in a place where Islam is so heavily saturated. Right now there is a very clear line between Sunni's and Shi'ites, and I don't think enough is being done to draw these two sides together. We need to solve the problems, not place blame and call names. That's the path to peace that Battlewookie seems intent on. Isolationism will not end strife.

Europeean nations have a pretty bad history in terms of trying to influence the rest of the world. Ever hear the expression, "People in glass houses, shouldn't cast stones." Seriously, let it go, you've got way too much US hostility. It's just a country.

I am greatfull for defenders and peace-keeping occupaters. Not for the conquering type of military though. And if you join the US-Army now you are for the conquering of things. If you really wish to help defend your country, become spy, Federal Agent, SWAT-agent, Anti-Terrorist, Riot cop or even normal cop, but not Army Soldier... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> These aren't peaceful countries that the US is occupying. These are countries with serious problems underneath, oppressive regimes and fanatical beliefs. The Taliban used to take archeological sites that were centuries old and destroy them because they did not fit their religious beliefs. Saddam was a hostile guy. Do you think he was trying for world peace? The goal of the US occupiers is to keep the peace and establish a government run by the Iraqi people and for the Iraqi people. The trouble is there are many different factions who all want power, and some have no trouble blowing up innocents to get it. The US has some problems, I agree. There is too much of a focus on the concept of voting and establishing a capitalistic society. Many policy makers struggle to understand that the formula that works for us will not work the same in the Middle East. But the US is not some evil entity trying to conquer the world. The intentions are well-founded.

Very awesome, good luck! I almost joined the reserves a few months ago, but as a teacher and with my mortgage, it was hard to figure out a way to stay financially positive if I got called up. Not to mention my wife wants to have children soon...but I'm thinking about the National Guard instead.

Wow, it's amazing how people here take extremely complex political issues and simplify them to fit their bizarre opinions. Personally, I respect anyone who is willing to give up their personal freedom in order to serve in the military. It's a very difficult job, but it's tremendously important. That doesn't mean I always agree with the decisions of leadership, but I would never blame the defenders of our country for those decisions. Also, what happens if the US pulls out of Iraq? Everyone loves to argue about how they shouldn't be there in the first place, but do you think that insurgency will stop if all the US troops go home tomorrow?

ToEE was a pretty well known adventure, so I think they figured it'd be the easiest to market. I don't know much about it, but did they stick pretty close to the P&P madule? Perhaps they got too caught up in the recreation and ignored the fact that story is more important in a single player RPG than a PnP group.

As long as they go back to being the Jets. Can you see Sydney Crosby in those jerseys with the little plane on it?

That's a pretty odd disappointing game list on Gamespot as well...JE is put on thier because it was an above average game and not a perfect one, and Madden and Tony Hawk were put on there for using the same formula that has worked well for years. They even say Madden is great...how can you say the game is great and put it on the list? Madden and Tony Hawk gave you exactly what you were expecting, that's not disappointing in my eyes. I've heard about a lot more disappointing games this year than the 5 they listed.