Enoch

Mubarak is delusional. Giving in little by little has managed to further enrage the protesters, while only convincing them that their eventual success is inevitable. Absent any seriously violent reprisals, they have very little reason to stop now.

The only aspect of the ME plot and setting that I really have trouble suspending disbelief and just going with is the extaordinarily short span of time between human first contact and the present state of human colonization and galactic political involvement. But that's a background detail that rarely comes up outside of codex entries. The rest of it fits pretty well within established "this is how spaceships and aliens and such work in mainstream sci-fi movies" criteria. The plot and setting are largely unimaginative and derivative, but they're not conspicuously terrible such that they get in the way of the things that make the games fun. (Unless you're just one of the joyless schlubs who are too busy complaining that the explosion of the Death Star shouldn't make any noise to actually enjoy the movie.)

(Or, google "passe," find the first hit that types it "pass

In hindsight, Irenicus looks lame because we all know his whole story, and it's a pretty lousy one. But unsolved mysteries are a lot more compelling than ones that we already know the answer to. And, on first playing BG2, the mystery about Irenicus' identity and his motivations is interesting enough that he immediately steals the scene whenever he appears. He's the story hook that keeps you going, and it works pretty well. (Ideally, the story hook should be more player-focused, but with so much about the protagonist either left to player freedom or already defined in BG1, loading the central story mystery into the antagonist is a not-terrible way to go.) The eventual reveal is, of course, a letdown, but it's well paced-- by the time you know his whole story, you've only got about 10 minutes left in the game anyway.

I was completely serious. The historical roots of the American 2nd Amendment are in the English Civil War and the surrounding century of Stuart rule. The royalists made many efforts to disarm the local militia barracks and batteries in areas where support for their political opponents was strong.

Yeah, if you're already in Act 3, the most tedious parts are well behind you. I'm not one to tell someone to keep playing a game they aren't enjoying, but I thought the final confrontation was pretty fun. MotB has its charms, but I've never been as enchanted with it as many here are. I just rather disliked the epic-cheese combat, and the storyline kinda requires the player to take Forgotten Realms cosmology seriously, which I've always had trouble doing.

I prefer the ending where you ignore their whole questline and simply murder their leaders.

A friend and I were having a discussion about sexual content in CRPGs just the other day. I expressed disappointment in how games very rarely fail to live down to the worst of their stereotype as entertainment primarily for 13-year-olds. His response was that if you're going to make a game primarily to enable people to indulge a particular variety of puerile wish fulfillment (i.e., taking on the role of the noble-hero-or-badass-antihero around whom all the major events in the world revolve), throwing in idealized sexual content as an additonal flavor of said puerile wish fulfillment doesn't change much. His is probably a healthier attitude, in that I'm a snob who likes to pretend that my enjoyment of these games is much more sophisticated than all that, and in that there is no real reason why I should consider the sexual element of the content as any more embarrassing than all the violence, escapism, solipsism, etc., is. And there is some truth to that. But, still, I find it a lot easier to extract 'sophisticated' pleasures from well-executed RPG combat, rules systems, and character interaction than I do from what sexual content I have seen in games. Which, I think, means either that I'm hung up on sex (possible), or that the way games have implemented sexual content is consistently less well thought-out, less polished, and less engaging than the implementation of other game elements (almost certainly the case).

Just make sure to feature lots of funk rock in all your releases. We'll either get the reference, or we'll just get funky. Everybody wins!

The key reasons behind the little-by-little DLC stream are: 1) DL size limits on consoles; and 2) prospect of future DLC is a disincentive to trade a game in. (Fewer copies traded-in to retailers generally means more new-copy sales.)

Well, mods are PC-only, and I presume that most DLC revenue is console-based. Also, I'd argue that the more frightening possible trend is the one in the other direction-- the increasing importance of DLC is going to be a large disincentive for developers to release Mod tools, or to tolerate fans releasing modifications of their product without slapping them with a Cease & Desist. As to the "shoddy work" point, that is true of every product, everywhere. Of course poor DLCs will reflect badly on the developers who release it. Hopefully the poor DLCs will sell poorly, and the developers will try harder next time. (E.g., the ME2 DLCs have generally been received as improvements over what BW offered for DA:O.)

I didn't buy any DA:O DLC (other than what I got for free as a retail purchaser of the game) so I can't comment on it as a value proposition, other than to say that it didn't look like a tempting enough value to get me to buy it. And, judging by how the number of DLCs being offered by developers seems to grow each year, it doesn't look to me like they're "killing" anything. If a few poor-value offerings had the potential to kill the idea of DLC, the whole concept would've been abandoned after the "Horse Armor" incident.

ME2 had an shortage of weapons and armors, all of which were later released via DLC. DA:O's Shale was too well developed to be "extra" content right out of release date. It is not about the game's completion, if I pay for DLC it should add something extra and new. Not something that was supposed to be there, moreover the quality of some of these DLC is well below standard. So, if I follow you, DLC is either of poor quality, or it is "too well developed" to be DLC? Anyhow, I don't think that either of your examples hold up. Any fan can get indignant based on their expectations about what "should have been in the game"-- that kind of thing was going on decades before anybody dreamed of selling downloadable add-on content. Basic games are either worth their retail price, or they're not, regardless of whether there is DLC content to come. DLC are either worth their retail price, or they're not, regardless of whether the high quality of their content makes you view the basic game in a lesser light. (Indeed, if a developer listens to their fans and releases DLC that addresses a common post-release complaint about an ancillary aspect of a game, isn't that a good thing??) Do your research and make your purchasing decisions in the manner that pleases you most.

Trunk or use a trenching tool instead. This was more directed at the people claiming it's necessary to use a snowblower to get a little bit of drift snow from behind your car. If you have a snowblower, put the shovel in its place and sell it. I think you may be underestimating the last few decades' super-sizing of the American homestead. Snowblowers are pretty common in modern American exurbs full of 3500 square-foot homes with multiple-car garages and 100-foot driveways. (And, given the physical fitness of many Americans, they can be pretty necessary in big storms.) Even in more reasonable neighborhoods, there's usually at least one person on a given block who has one, and they become the envy of their neighbors when the snowstorms come. (For my part, I live in an old neighborhood with small houses and lots. As a somewhat-doughy but reasonably healthy 30-something, I dig.)

I don't recall a Demo, but they did release a program before the game was out wherein you could create your character out-of-game, and get some kind of bonus for importing a character from that.

I can see both sides here. Sometimes, people blame themselves too much. Walsy has a solid point that some aspects of compatibility or non-compatibility between two people don't become evident immediately, and the emergence of some non-compatibilities can be crushing disappointments if the initial impressions were very positive. That crushing disappointment is sometimes irrational, when the underlying non-compatibility is something that was always unlikely to change or remain submerged for long. But, sometimes, people blame themselves too little, too. There's a whole industry out there built around consoling the lovelorn, recycling shopworn lines like "he wasn't 'The One.'" But decisions and actions do have consequences, and there is a staggering population of people who can be remarkably oblivious to how their decisions and actions can screw up otherwise promising relationships. Sometimes, that submerged non-compatibility is you being a jackass.

It's about: 1) Kissing up to retailers, to get stuff like good in-store placement, and sometimes piggyback advertising. 2) Boosting pre-orders, which is a metric that publishers and developers watch closely. Game publishers know that there are large subsets of gamers who are driven heavily by completionist or perfectionist motivations-- some people can't stand not being able to collect everything, and some people can't stand going without something that might provide some advantage in their quest to pwn everything in the game.

You might want to check the EULAs on those products you're buyinglicensing for your iProduct before you start praising them in this particular context. Otherwise, nice job stringing together some loosely connected anecdotes and pretending that the eventual conclusion has any kind of evidence behind it. As to the thread topic, the Demo is good news, as I'm in pretty firm "wait and see" territory with regard to buying DA2. I'll still probably wait for the post-patch, post-DLC, post-discount version, but it could win me over if I really enjoy the demo. The DRM scheme is a non-factor in my particular situation.

If they can, they tow abandoned cars. You've got to get them back from the local police lots. Happened to someone who was trying to visit my parent's house during a snowstorm and who got stuck about a block short of his destination.

I will mourn the passing of public libraries. The libraries in my neck of the woods have already changed dramatically. They aren't just a place to find books, they are filled with computers, children education centers, and so forth. Well, that's true here, too. I suppose I meant more specifically that I'll miss being able to borrow books that I'm interested in, but not quite so interested in that I want to lay out $$ for them. Is there a way to "lend" books via e-reader? Publishers are probably huge proponents of e-readers because they reduce their production and shipping costs, but also because they help rein in the thriving secondary market for their products-- libraries, person-to-person lending, used book shops, garage sales...

I will mourn the passing of public libraries. Although I can see the advantages (or at least, lack of major disadvantages) for reading fiction and narrative-structured nonfiction, I think I would find it awkward to use an e-reader for textbook purposes. It has been a while since I read a textbook other than a law school casebook (which is rather a different animal), but I recall doing a lot of flipping about (checking endnotes, referring back to previous text, diagrams, charts, maps, what-have-you) that would be more challenging on an e-reader. But I imagine that readers, authors, and technology will adjust (e.g., for texts with less narrative structure, use something more like a web browser, where the reader can have different pages open as tabs) to accommodate these kinds of concerns.

The last time the Muslim Brotherhood were allowed to run in elections was for the lower house elections in about 2005. They won 88 out of 160 seats. And that was with the NDP and Mubarak's policies toward them in place. A slim likelihood, you say? The Muslim Brotherhood, through social welfare programmes, enjoy massive support amongst the working classes and at present there is no viable third party in Egypt. This is the point: It's an either-or between the status quo and a Muslim Brotherhood-run, Islamised, radicalised, anti-Western, anti-Israeli Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood may be pro-democracy now, but as one commentator put it, that may well be an attitude of "one man, one vote, one time". Because one time is all they may need. There's a lot that isn't known about the political preferrences of Egyptian voters, as there hasn't ever been a meaningful election where all aspects of policy were in question (i.e., that didn't have a Mubarak or a Sadat or whoever behind the scenes), and the Mubarak regime has even gone so far as to oppress any political opinion research. I don't think that anything can be said with much certainty with regard to the results of a possibly-free election in the near future. And it's quite clear that the current impetus for change is not based in religious or foreign-policy concerns. But, as none of us are actually on the ground in Egypt or (I'm assuming) in-touch with people with a deep hands-on understanding of its internal demographics and politics, it comes down to who you trust. And nearly all of the "OMG teh Muslim Brotherhood" commentary is coming from people who are deeply invested in building them up as a bogeyman to scare their audience, starting with Mubarak himself. That's a good reason in my book to approach that view with some pretty hefty skepticism. And, lastly, it's not as if Western influence starts and stops with the decision of whether ol' Hosni should be overthrown or not. Whoever is ruling the country 6 months from now is going to be very interested in continuing to receive the billions in American military and development aid that currenty flows into Egypt. And in Western trade ties, in fighting Somali piracy, etc., etc.

See chapter 7 of this .pdf (2.5 MB), a publication of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. Is it really hard to understand why the citizens of a proud nation would resent a foreign power for propping up their authoritarian government? Or how a homegrown despotism can play on the insecurities of a people and maintain popularity by shifting focus to the struggle against a foreign power? "Some people"? Who? And how is what they say relevant? If only I had listened to "some people" and read that "thread a couple months ago," I could be informed, too! Gorth hit on the bottom-line. This movement simply isn't about fundamentalist Islam. The people in the streets aren't there to air religion-related grievances. Of all the problems that mainstream Egyptians have with their government, its attitude towards religion isn't one of them. Which means that, of all the likely changes that are to come in Egyptian society and government, significant changes to the religious posture of the government is not likely to be one of them. The Muslim Brotherhood has expressed support for the protests (as would any opposition party banned by the current regime), but they're hardly at the front line on the barricades. The influence of islamists is something to keep an eye on in whatever leadership emerges after the dust settles, but it's a manageable concern that can be dealt with when and if it arises.

Don't look at the public governmental proclamations-- look at who owns everything worth owning in the society. The Revolutionary Guard does depend on the clerics for popular support (which comes largely from the poorer element of society, where they're still very popular, as opposed to the more urban middle class youth who comprised most of the recent electoral protests), but they're firmly in control from a foreign/economic/military policy point of view. Modern Iran isn't anti-Western because it is islamist. It's anti-Western because the West (specifically, the U.S. and Britain) spent about 80 years propping up oppressive strongman rulers. The political stance of the mullahs became what it is and became popular because Iranians hated America, and they had pretty good reason for doing so. The bigger risk to U.S. interests-- in terms of (badness of outcome)*(likelihood of occurring)-- isn't that Egypt will turn out like Iran in 1979, it's that Egypt will turn out like Iran in 1953. (Refresher: that's when a coup with CIA support ousted a popularly elected prime minister who had eroded power from the U.S./G.B.-backed, dictatorial Shah, largely to save the proto-BP's interests in the Gulf from nationalization.) And you're also painting a lot of people with the same brush. I'm no friend of the Muslim Brotherhood, but they're not Taliban-level violent and insular. (They've renounced violence as a political tool, and have been a prominent enemy of Al Qaeda for decades.) Edit: added the quote, just to make sure that Gorth's post and the page-break don't confuse matters.

Abolish Human Nature!!! Edit: The last time something like this was tried on a wide scale, the result was the French Revolution.