213374U

Nothing morally relative about this Jindo guy. He's a Lawful Good disgruntled Jedi, and that's about it. His "grey" light/dark force meter made no sense. He's well fleshed out because you get a good overview of what makes him tickle. What he likes, what he doesn't, why he follows you, what's his story. And you also get a few hints that his "senile old man" persona is just a fa

Well, there really isn't much to discuss until they release it. It looks like it could be fun, but balancing a game for MP is always hard. I wonder how they will manage to make it fun to play with several people without making solo play completely impossible. Among other things.

Schacht's defence on Nuremberg depended on the assumption that he didn't know Germany was going to war. So, arguably, Hitler didn't tell him to get Germany "ready for war". He was acquitted. He was also against an increase in military spending. Whose money was borrowed, that later got invaded, btw?

It'll take time for folks to come up with well-written tutorials complete with pictures and all. Mostly because people don't know the game yet all that well and Paradox games are very deep. I'd suggest you try HOI2 first, which is still awesome, with plenty of documentation to help you get a hang of the game, and you won't have to deal with the ****load of bugs that is like a staple of Paradox games at release. I'm going to hold off purchase of HOI3 for that very reason. I had hoped it'd be different this time around, but no such luck. On the other hand, learning everything on your own may be your cup of tea. It's not mine, tbh.

Yeah, I aim to please. I do it on my own penny, too!

That was meant to illustrate how Nazi repression worked. 50k+ dead or deported, most of them civilians. Military force brought to bear on the population of an already occupied city. These guys didn't operate like US troops on Iraq. If they had to burn down an entire neighborhood and kill everyone living there, they did. French resistance (not counting Free French troops) was pretty ineffectual, as well. In Vichy France, insurgency against the Germans was punished by internment in the Vichy equivalent of a concentration camp. There's always a local willing to become a tyrant-lackey and do the dirty work for you (see Tiso). A scenario in which civil disobedience and pockets of insurgency would have been able to topple a possible Nazi European hegemony is wishful thinking, methinks.

Finished Fallout (w/ hi-res mod). It had been a few years since I played it, so I had forgotten a lot of things. I remembered why I liked this game so much. The game world is still a bit small, especially when compared to FO2. I just finished installing FO2 and Killap's Restoration Patch, which I had been wanting to try for a while. It's time for a change, so I'm going to see how far can I get with a melee-oriented character. I didn't want to gimp my character quite completely, so no, I didn't get "Heavy Handed", no matter how tempting it may be.

I want, no, I DEMAND a webcomic by MCA.

Pure genius. Seriously man, I laughed. If I didn't already have a quote of yours, this would totally go in my sig.

I'm not so sure about that. Yeah, good points. I suppose that, as with everything once you take a closer look, this isn't a black and white issue. Hitler was very, very good at manipulating the fears and frustrations of post-Versailles Germany, and he also had a knack for accumulating and keeping power by any means necessary. He was also probably quite intelligent. However, I think other than that, he was terrible. You sustain that he achieved some great victories in foreign policy, and that's undeniable. But that makes him "brilliant" as much as it makes him a pushy brute. With the world immersed in the 30's crisis, the last thing anyone in his right mind wanted was another Great War. Hitler, on the other hand, made war a central part of his agenda - not surprising given his messiah complex and his possession of a great vision whose realization was inevitable. His brilliance resided in his will to keep pressing for more and more until somebody finally drew a line - which Hitler promptly crossed. He wasn't a good administrator. He wasn't a good general. He wasn't a good negotiator, always wielding the threat of war to get what he wanted. He was a pretty terrible philosopher. He was historically ignorant. But all of this is, to me, secondary to the trait that in my eyes shows his true stature as a man: he was utterly incapable of dealing with criticism and was almost as quick to dismiss those with dissenting opinions (and the braveness to voice them) as he was to fly into storming rages. I don't know man, even a broken clock is right twice a day. That's why my opinion is that, once war broke out, he was more a liability than an asset, what with his insistence to manage the war and his faith that England would eventually agree to a peace treaty. That's why he didn't want the British Expeditionary Force annihilated at Dunkirk, btw. He deeply admired the British Empire and its institutions. Of course, without him, it's anyone's guess how things may have played out.

I have no interest whatsoever in reading through the comments made by anon in a different website. I saw the comic. What is it you want to discuss? You should do that, more awareness of this is needed. Women are insane, and they can make perfectly healthy heterosexual men to doubt themselves to the point they're willing to become useless wimps if that offers them the chance to "get some". Ever wonder why gay men are so happy?

Actually that's not true. Germany lost a good chunk of territory to Poland (and K

Define "nice".

Again with the strawman. It's not even funny anymore. You don't need to write any essays. Simply make your arguments... well, arguments instead of hammering us over the head over and over with the same blatantly unsupported or outright false claims in the vein of "Unlike Torment, FO3 smells very bad indeed!". You know, the way I've been doing? The way Gizmo does? Otherwise, you're not here to debate or exchange opinions with others, no sirree. Your intent is to pontificate. You are on an ideological crusade to convert us poor misguided fools to your very own blend of truth. And trust me bub, I've seen far better than you try. Really now? And I'm the "argumentative, offensive elitist", you say? Grow up, sonny. edit: I'm thinking... what's wrong with being a total beginner? I mean, sure, not all of us can be RPGmasters, but really, everyone needs to start somewhere, aye?

Yeah. You tell that to Alexander or Scipio Africanus, though.

KGB!

Well, some honesty at last. You simply dislike FO3 for whatever reasons, but can't be arsed to make actual arguments with concrete comparisons and examples outside of "FO3 fails unlike game x" and "Game z is actually much better than FO3 at doing y". Further, you are apparently utterly lost in the fundamental difference between opinion and fact. And here I am wasting my time with you. Wake me up when you are willing to do your own thinking instead of being a broken record for others.

No, it wasn't sarcasm. It was a fallacy around which your arguments are built. The only game in your little list whose plot was clearly much better is Torment... so much better in fact that the game is a cult title. The rest are simply adequate McGuffins that set the stage for the player do his thing ("oh yeah sure my village is about to die, but it's ok if I waste a bit of time pursuing a career as a pron star" or "yeah okay my soul was just ripped from me, but it's fine if I just go kill me some random dragons for loot"). Finally, one bit of criticism that has merit. That took a while. Yes, you don't see people farming. Or farms, for that matter. But just like you imagined that people went to work, took lunch breaks, and went take a dump in all those games you mentioned, why don't you imagine that as well for FO3 and suspend your disbelief just as easily? I haven't been arguing that FO3 is the ultimate anything, or even the best of the series. I don't particularly like it myself. But look at your trolling just a few posts ago (NO story! NO characters!), and look at you now, struggling to find an actual, concrete flaw in the game that is so much worse in FO3 than in, well, just about any other game. Rhetorics are nice, but you need a li'l bit of substance, too.

Yeah. Only, they didn't have "a bunch". They had a grand total of 6 nukes in 1945. And conventional carpet bombing caused far more damage, anyway...

Ah, so we go from "a 5th grader could do better" to "that's not a plot worthy of Shakespeare!". It's quite plain, you don't have a leg to stand on unless you exaggerate rather obscenely. Pray tell, how many games feature a plot and characters worthy of praise, if you use the classics of literature as your standard? Really, tell me just one that compares favourably to, say (to use your own rhetoric) Henry VIII. Bethesda's writing is pretty meh, but as far as video games go, it's not remarkable either way. Certainly not nearly as bad as you'd have us believe with your strawmen. The rest of your arguments are unfair (FO1/2 characters didn't even sleep, much less work for a living) or simply feeble - we don't know the % of the population that was killed in the war, and more than a hundred years have passed. Also, people don't run out of ammo because they actually reused and produced it.

Yeah, oversimplification makes everything so much easier. "Uh, I'm looking for a water chip/holy GECK, have you seen one?" See, I can do it too! Hmm. Apparently you missed President Eden, for one. I don't know about 5th graders, but if your own arguments are anything to go by, I doubt YOU could have written anything better. Just sayin'. What are you talking about? That's not the atmosphere. That's the character progression and rewards design. Atmosphere are things such as being jumped by a Deathclaw while exploring an automated distress signal you picked on the radio, or an Enclave Vertibird ambushing you while you stroll happily through the ruined National Mall. Seriously man. I'm supposed to be the resident elitist jerk. Don't steal my thunder, m'kay?

I don't think that's the proper technical term, either. From what I've read, his paranoid mindset was strained to the breaking point by a combination of emotional tension, often-contradicting medications prescribed by his personal physician, and an overwhelming workload. This, coupled with his messiah complex made him increasingly unmovable by logic as the war dragged on, leaving only the possibility of a coup. Not exactly the kind of guy you'd want running the war effort, that's for sure.

Did you? Then what are these lies about the game not having a story, an atmosphere or characters? If you are going to be a troll, at least be a little subtle about it.

Could have they won? Well, sure. If somehow the Allied powers and the Soviet Union had made catastrophic blunders time and time again, the Axis may have had a chance. The first part of Barbarossa went pretty well... but Soviet morale didn't fail as Hitler had expected - I remember reading somewhere that everything was decided in the battle for Moscow, that Stalin refused to evacuate, that being the communications hub it was it would have given Germany control over pretty much all western Russia while denying the same to the Soviets. But even so, the Soviets had moved their industrial base and were receiving Lend & Lease from the US like crazy. Despite the very, very hairy situation England was in 1940-41, everything seems to have hinged on Hitler's hope for an early Soviet surrender, which is further supported by the fact that Germany was not prepared for a long war neither industrially nor psychologically. They didn't realize until far too late the mess they had gotten themselves into, apparently. Nice topic, btw. There are some serious History buffs around here so this should be interesting.

You got it backwards. FIRST you play the game, THEN you pan the game. Not the other way around.