213374U

Anti-hype? What is that supposed to mean, exactly? Are they going to write unbiased reviews and rate the game regardless of its name? And if so, why do they need to put up yet another site just for that? There's plenty of sites that'll offer way more objective reviews than the likes of NMA could ever aspire to. Looks like a high-profile attempt at selling their own vision of what a Fallout game should be. Non-hostile? That'll be the day. "Lies about its greatness"? According to whom? Because a great many people think the game is "great" indeed, so... Yeah, "true" as in copy-paste from Fallout. Not gonna happen, though, so they'll whine all the same and pat themselves on the back because they were right all along. Either way, they win, huh?

They can run, but they can't hide...

Whatever happened to the good ol' Death Ray projects? What's with this trend of watering down everything lately...

Need to compensate for something, Ed? What the hell? I've seen some pretty incompetent people handle guns (some even managed to actually bend a 5.56 round while cocking the thing), but none ever came close to injuring themselves. Bad maintenance perhaps? I hear it's fairly easy to break a wrist with that thing... Hello yourself. ) Stupid filter...

It will be Fallout. They own the license, you don't. End of thread.

Does it even have a story? [insert broken record pic]

I didn't say they don't want money. Now, do they want the money more than they want the US out? According to the Wiki, they don't.

The US came to be a power too late to have any colonies in the traditional sense. This is only relevant however if you are going to stick to the colonial aspect of imperialism. This is a self-contradicting statement. If a nation is sovereign, it by definition is not controlled externally by anyone else. Otherwise, there is no proper sovereignty. You are also quite conveniently omitting the fact that the US has exerted influence in the domestic and foreign policies of many countries over time, the extent of that influence is still the subject of much debate. Again, yes. There haven't been any American governors or viceroys in the traditional colonial sense, but that alone does not make an empire. It's quite easy to appear lawful when you're the one making the law. Heh, I'm surprised you brought this up. I guess this is an exception to the rule of "if they want us out, we leave", then. Why yes, and Americans don't wear those weird wigs, or sail around in galleons either. Comparing American imperialism to traditional imperialism is like comparing the Old Regime with present democracy, or medieval battle tactics with modern submarine warfare; it makes no sense and it doesn't work very well. Times have changed, and so has imperialism. Save for the colonial bit (which, since there are no US colonies, is irrelevant), this sentence works just as well if you replace "British" with "American". You are focusing your entire argument in colonialism, because it's the only way it works. But there's more to imperialism than colonies. Heh, "intellectually dishonest", that's pretty cool. I wish I could get that under my avatar. Anyway, why get so worked up about it? Unlike many people, I do not believe that imperialism has the negative connotations that the word seems to have acquired recently. I'm not attempting a thinly veiled attack against your country, either. But if I were to rephrase and say that the US is a "superpower", would you dispute that as well? It's just an argument of semantics, then.

Not sure what you mean by this. Every engagement the Spanish Legion has taken part in, they have proven their effectiveness. Even though it was modeled after the FFL, it was never a "Foreign" corps by itself. At present, they are considered crack units in the Spanish military. It was established late (colonially speaking), though. If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck...

exactly, and its even improving <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Found your twin soul, didn't you?

Ya, I was going to make a comment along those lines too...

And prohibition prevents that how?

Installed it, played it for 20 minutes, and deleted it. That's pretty much all I can remember.

As opposed to public consumption?

Yes. The state has no business telling you what you can and cannot smoke.

I am European. You are again proving you're just talking out of your ass. This is proof how? I am able to contact with aliens, and they tell me Bush is one jolly good fellow. Does this count? Of course, I'm sure you find Qazi Hussain Ahmed, president of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) "most reliable", but well... I'd take anything he says with a pinch of salt, if I were you. Not even he compares the US with North Korea, though. You're a pioneer in that regard.

Hassat? Is that you? No, seriously. Show me a single page that at least has a semblance of objectivity that supports the crap you're spouting. Also: I couldn't find a single reference to NK in the articles you posted. Also: You are still a long way from proving that "average" opinion is what you claim it is. You know, average? Also: Google is your friend, but don't overdo it.

I expect you to post links, or [else your arguments have no power to persuade]. )

According to your eminence only. One person that was, incidentally, elected twice to lead the country by the (however faulty) democratic system of the US.

Well, sorry. I haven't mastered the subtle art of doublethink quite yet. So you are not anti-american but you associate americanism with idiocy? Err... okay.

Would you find it sensible that police were only able to prevent a killing if they are in good terms with the aggressor? And more importantly, do you think Saudi Arabia would get involved in anything because of a human catastrophe? Really, you aren't making a very good job at concealing your anti-americanism. You get points for the laugh, though. Keep it coming.

So, it's fine to stop genocide in Somalia but toppling a genocidal, totalitarian government is a no-no? Interesting logic, indeed.

No, I'm not talking about the right to freedom. And for the record, I'm just seeing how much we can stretch this logic until it breaks; I'm not taking sides either way. I accept they have the same right to freedom as we do. However, do they really want it? Do they want it bad enough to stand up and fight for it against those that would take it from them? That's what I'm not so sure of. Freedom starts on the inside. You and I aren't out killing for it, but we probably would if it was in jeopardy.

It sure as hell beats mopping floors in a men-only monastery in the middle of flamin' nowhere! You see, I got it all worked out.

I can accept that. But then, why don't they rebel against that? Doesn't imposing it on them (or liberating them from those that would prevent it) somehow cheapen that achievement for them? Will they truly be able to appreciate it as if they had paid for it with their own sweat and blood? I mean, it's like solving a rubik's cube. If somebody does it for you, it's just not the same.