213374U

I really don't feel like reading through an IRC log, so bear with my lazy ass. Who are these DLA people anyway?

Well, it certainly is nice of you to come by and explain your previous declarations, but I don't think it's such a good idea. You can't provide an accurate estimation of the length of the game given you're just the QA guy and stuff, which could be interpreted by some like Grom as a way of discrediting your previous comments and getting your ass covered. You are going to draw flak for this. And in the event the game is actually 30-40 hours long, you are going to draw flak from those that beat it in 20. Now, I'm not saying any of this is your fault, but surely you see how commenting on game length isn't the same as discussing max supported resolution for instance, where the game either meets the announced specifications or it doesn't. And folks around here are going to be taking your words as gospel... regardless of your intent. As much as I like having devs around to chat with, I'd much rather discuss specifics, not vague personal valorations that may or may not be realistic in the end, even more when those depend on playing styles. Heh. No wonder devs don't much post around these parts... Well Grom, BS is the lubricant in human relationships after all... we all give and take our fair share. :D

You can't have an Internet without unjustified and blind hate. It's just not possible.

Taks making a joke, and a funny one, to boot! The seventh sign of the Apocalypse!

I remember asking the devs to tweak the walk animation to a more realistic-looking speed while the game was still in development. As you can see, that was not a priority. When the game was released, I searched for a mod that did it, to no avail. Eventually, I tried to make the mod myself, editing some files that seemed to control character animations. For some reason, the game ignored the changes made to those files, which leads me to believe that it's hard-coded. I don't think such a mod exists. If you find it though, be sure to let me know.

Okay, okay, I got it. Have sex for the second time.

Have se... oh, snap!

Paul is in IW, at least in one of the endings. The extent of his involvement in the plot, thankfully I don't remember.

Yeah, discussions about the futility of life and how irrelevant is anything we do are always interesting. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go drown myself in booze.

Or at least that's the impression we've got. We can curb CO2 emissions alright, since those are our emissions. But freely claiming we can stop a cyclical event from happening as it's the case with global temperature changes, is akin to saying we can prevent tsunamis or earthquakes.

Well, yes and no. It's just that this is part of the dumb down trend that games seem to follow as they become more and more a part of the mainstream entertainment industry. Learning curves are in the process of disappearing, just like any other element that may cause inconvenience or that requires a bit of an effort. Also, by "hardcore" I didn't mean players that devote their life to gaming, that's not hardcore. That's stupid. I was referring more to the kind of player that posts in dev boards. Such as GTA, in which if you die, you just respawn at the nearest hospital?

You said it! Nobody can blame me this time. "

Well... to be honest, most of the regular, mainstream (as in non-hardcore, so none of you count) gamers I know are morons, at least when it comes to gaming. So I see it kinda justified. But that's not going to stop my bitching and moaning! )

Well, I'm not quite as worried about how they do it rules wise as long as they make NPC death a factor in combat. As it was in K2, not only you couldn't have your party members die, you also had to be either suicidal or completely passive to get both the party members AND the PC die and thus have combat count for something. Not implementing proper death also means making the game significantly easier.

Whatever. Mods are supposed to have an exemplary behavior, not just post like everyone else, and then bitchslap somebody here and there. I've had my fair share of speeches about fostering community and the spirit of the rules, and that kind of attitude goes precisely against that, even if it respects the letter scrupulously. Maybe that's why Fionavar doesn't actually post on these boards other than to police around. Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread or see it locked, so I consider it settled. If you want to go on about it, PM me. I'm not going to cyber you though, so keep that in mind.

Following that logic, let's go back to the arcade times when you had to start the game all over if you messed up. Only that was just a gimmick to have you pumping more and more coins into the machine. Oh well. Anyway, the function that these lame death rules supply is already provided by the loading function that most games have. Only this effectively prevents people that don't reload in the event of NPC death from playing as they want, and forces them to play in a predefined way for no good reason. This redundancy is only good to hold players' hands as they play. One would think that the trend is to provide more choices instead of less, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. A good story can be crafted without resorting to this deus ex machina BS, as it was done with BG2. I hated it in KotOR/K2, and will hate it in NWN2. I hope this is the only mistake they have copy-pasted from K2. Is randomly picking on the members part of your duties as moderator?

Because People Hate Losing.

What assumptions have I made? Only that you have an Internet connection and discuss ways to fix the world. Well, you're right. You might be doing so from Africa or South America in your spare time between building a well and harvesting the crops, but I doubt it. If that's the case, feel free to correct me. I'll take it all back. Thousands of years of empires rising and falling. Not only in Europe, but also in South America and Mexico, Asia... basically anyplace where society progressed locally past the tribal level. This doesn't even require a "understanding of history", as it's not dependent on any interpretations. It's just facts. It's you who's embarassing yourself with your unrealistic claims, and gleaming lack of historical knowledge. Another jewel. A "contraposition" of power is equal to an imbalance of power, except in the case of two competing hegemonies. Last time that happened, it was called the Cold War. Another thing I'd rather not have back. Well, now it's you who doesn't know what's talking about. The empires of old were often involved in constant war, either to keep their potential competitors from developing a strong economy, or simply to expand. And, at any rate, the wars that the US engage in today are very local, and rather contained, and whose extent is not comparable to that of the wars of old if we take into consideration today's weaponry. And yet, it's you who keeps on posting historically inaccurate stuff, without providing anything that can remotely dispute my allegedly mistaken historical claims. Obviously, it's hard to find data to back you up when you are, as a matter of fact, wrong. And no, your revolutionary pamphlets don't count, as they are full of the same fallacies and historical inaccuracies you suffer from. None taken. The fact that my opinions may sometimes be coincidental with that of those "US hawks" has absolutely nothing to do with their validity. It's also common for fools to laugh at what they don't understand. That doesn't worry me in the least. The difference between an ad hominem attack and a mere statement is that the former aims at undermining the validity of a point without actually addressing it, while the latter is just another part of the discussion. I don't argue ad hominem as I always address and debate people's points properly regardless of personal comments. I'm not sure the same can be said about you and your

Ah, crap. I hate this quote limit. Oh well, here we go again. Do I really have to explain the concept of conversational context to you? If this is a debate about politics and economy, it doesn't take much thinking to assume that I'm referring to that part of his works. Also, please be so kind as to quote the exact paragraph where I said that Marxism is the same as Communism. Communism is, however, the closest social scheme to Marx's postulates. No. As a matter of fact, Communism in its various brands is what happened to Marx's ideals after different people attempted to implement them. Since you like the wikipedia so much, go and cross-reference the articles on both subjects to find that they have more in common than merely an utopian vision. And of course Marx wouldn't have supported any dictators. He was a romantic revolutionary, idealistic, and ultimately blind. This statement is just a baseless assertion derived from your personal impressions, that incidentally, matches your sadly mistaken view of the current and past state of global affairs, and the nature of the human being itself. Again, please be so kind to quote the exact paragraph where I said that Julius Caesar used the might of his tank divisions to conquer the world. Or where I stated that Napoleon used his vast network of industrial centers to out-produce his competitors. Or where I said that the Mayans ruled an empire that spanned the entire globe. Until you can find a quote along those lines, please keep your straw men to yourself. It is true that empires have not always existed. There were times in which countries, factions or nations fought among themselves for hegemony. Examples of this are the Middle Ages, the classic period in the Eastern Mediterranean, or Europe at the beginning of the XX century. I'd much rather not have another of those, thank you very much, especially not after seeing two World Wars. Obviously, before the advent of the industrial society, the size and reach of empires and local hegemonies was different. Obviously, with the advent of global communications, corporate-based economy and industrial production, it's possible to manage larger empires (or at least with a larger sphere of influence). However, all empires (or rather, all hegemonic empires), throughout history share one common characteristic, that defines them: their power, be it military or economic, or a combination of both, was greater than that of any of their neighbors, and in most cases, greater than the combination of their neighbors' as well. And this power was always applied to favor the interests of the empire. The Evil US is no different in the essence, only the methods. I guess overpopulation means jack to you. You say that there are more than enough resources for the survival of everyone, with which I'm inclined to agree. I do not suscribe the opinion that the contentment is guaranteed as well, unless you expect everyone to live in some sort of soviet-style quasi-misery and be "content" with it. Nah. Criticizing the evils of capitalism, globalization, and US imperialist policies while enjoying your broadband Internet connection in a comfortable room makes you a hypocrite. It's that simple. Sorry if you don't like it. Following your logic, everyone should get into politics, instead of voting. Oh, that's right. You don't like democracy either. Too bad. And, um... if it's the thought of losing your influence and depriving the world of your wonderful theories, that prevent you from going to live under a rock in Africa, don't sweat it. It's unlikely anyone will seriously try to implement your suggestions. Fortunately.

What. The. F**k.

I see you've given up trying to use customized quotes, good. It's important to know one's own limitations. I am tempted to modify this quote and use it to dismiss you as the dimwit you are obviously making an effort to look like, but I won't. Right now I have nothing better to do, so I can waste some time with this. I am, however, going to ignore several of your statements and focus on the root of the problem, that is, your detachment from reality. Oh? And which mindset are you stuck in? The enlightened vision that gave birth to the laughable imposture known as the United Nations? The one that led to capitalism running rampant? The one that's leading to globalization? Or maybe you're more of a Marxist type of guy? Yeah, Marxism was awesome. Damn shame it's failed everytime anyone has tried to implement it. Marx failed to take into consideration a little but fundamental factor when elaborating sociopolitical and economic theories. He forgot about human nature. I hear what you say about the evils of imperialism and how there's no reason for empires to exist anymore. In your world of chocolate and gingerbread, that is. You obviously haven't given much thought to why empires exist, or otherwise, you would realize how sadly unrealistic your discourse is. The reason why there are, have been, and there will be empires is simple. There just isn't enough of anything for everyone. Quite simply, we're just too many, and resources are too few. Which basically means that to enjoy the very comfortable first-world life you lead, people have to suffer and die. When I see you giving up your lifestyle and going to live under a rock, I'll take you seriously. Until then, you're just another armchair humanitarian. Another goddamn hypocrite. This is where you are wrong. The US will fall eventually, but other will take its place (provided there's no nuclear war). This is backed by housands of years of human History. On the other hand you rely on... your daydreams of a world of happy faces, peace, and streets paved with candy, to make those predictions. That's just nonsense. A "multi-polar" world, as you describe it, only drives to widespread warfare until a hegemony is stablished once again, as it's happened time after time before. And everytime the "old elites" are given a run for their money, it's only so a new elite can replace it. So, yeah.

Ronaldinho was just okay. With all the hype though, it's no surprise that he found a minimum of two defenders breathing down his neck almost at all times. He also has this annoying tendency to do everything by himself even when playing with others has more chances of success. Meh. I'd have liked to see a bit more of Reyes too, it's a shame he played so little.

I have. And it is. It was for me, anyway. If you're going to play BG1, do it through TuTu, it's way, way better.

Yeah, I saw this in the news. They also showed a picture of the actual expert. Nice how nobody noticed that the white, middle-aged, thin technology expert they were expecting had somehow turned into a large, young black fellow.

Yep. Eto'o and Giuly made a few amazing displays of control. However, Eto'o's (that just looks weird) forte isn't dribbling, and every time he tried to get past Eboue, he lost the ball. He saw a lot of action on the left side, but he didn't really accomplish anything, until he was sent back to his usual place, at the center. Personally, I enjoyed Iniesta and Giuli's game much better than Eto'o's.