metadigital

But the reason most people didn't like Manaan is because there was more roleplaying and less combat. So, Gabreille, did you like the combat in KotOR?

Ah, youngling, you do not know wisdom when it speaks. Revan's dead.

I can't believe you watched that film.

it's a trompe l'oeil

I imagine the argument will run along the "PS3 is not including it either" type ...

I am just replaying Deus Ex: Invisible War, and one of the better features is the voice acting. That said, I agree 101% with you on KotOR. The bollocks alienspeak is repetitive and annoying after the first instance. I expect the reason that everyone speaks and essential NPCs are not differentiated is precisely that, to make it less obvious and jarring when you meet a plot-essential NPC. BTW, you can press the space bar (assuming that key works) to skip the speech after reading the subtitles (except on Manaan: don't worry, you'll understand when you get there).

Revan's dead, Moths.

... More like planetoids ... :D

Of course they don't, but you only have so much money to work with.. and most of it seems to go toward the visual assets. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yep, this tyranny of visual improvement is a factor of the marketing suits, not the developers, and as such should be discouraged. I'm all for great graphics, but I'll happily play Deus Ex again and again, whereas the sequel just doesn't have it, despite being graphically superior.

Play the game until you can't play it any more (hopefully the end). Then we can talk. You aren't even out of the beginning of the game yet.

He really should try to cut down on nose candy and do some cardiovascular work.

Psst. It helps if you click on the link and read the article, Gab.

That is sad. All too common, too. The largest cause of death of teenage males in Australia is suicide (not including car accidents). I think your attitude to honesty is not uncommon. Certainly I have always valued truth over all else. As I get older I find I just can't be bothered with crap; someone who lies to me once doesn't usually get the chance to again.

I don't doubt that the depression pandemic is being unnecessarily expanded with artificial and erroneous diagnoses (especially distressing is the penchant of doctors to diagnose and treat children with drugs, which has only become public knowledge since seroxat started making some children suicidal where they had never been so before). Having witnessed clinical depression first hand, I know that it definitely exists, and is treatable in about 60-70% of cases with drugs (it can help if treated in combination with cognitive behaviour therapy). Try and tell Spike Milligan that he should just "pull his socks up" and live life. (A little difficult bacause he's now six feet under a stone that says "I told you I was ill".) In fact, most comedians have some sort of depression. Which brings in an anciliary point. Maybe "illness" is a relative term. IIRC Mozart suffered from an anxiety illness, and his music was his own way to reverse the effects. In our metaphorical time machine, do we cure Mozart of his anxiety illness?

Absolutely. And good women know this, too.

I think the results of THC are a lot more subtle. For a start, it is not known why people have a reaction to it. Sure, the biological process is understood: there are THC receptors in the brain, and this is the mechanism that promulgates the high. But not every creature has them, for example, mice don't (IIRC). Considering there is a pandemic of depression across the world (I think it's 1/6 people suffer from depression at some point in their life), adding more uncertainty into th mix is a little ill-advised. I agree that it is better controlled if legalised, though; after all, you can't regulate an illegal product on the black market. Tax it, too. I would put an age limit of 25, though, considering the research findings about mental impacts. (Or whatever the scientists decide is the safest minimum age for it.) Also there should be a maximum dose, too, and like radiation it would vary over the "exposure" time. Certainly de-criminalising drug addicts, and treating them with legal drug prescriptions paid for by the society is a contraversial policy, too. But if you calculate the crime committed by drug-addicted heroine users, removing them from the crime statistics (giving them free heroine would mean they didn't have to steal their neighbours' video cameras to buy it), then it is justified on those merits, alone! Take into account the victims of crime and the criminalising of a significant percentile of society, and you have a compelling argument.

We haven't been graced with your questionable quality puns for a while, Ender. That was particularly bad, well done!

TMI, Ender! :"> But yes, I agree with the sentiment, most "men" don't know the right women (looks at Gromnir). I can vouch for the good ones ...

Ya, anytime someone was just taking trivial things in life too seriously they'd have to hit a bong or something. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> While most people have no adverse reaction to it, some people have very bad reactions to it. It could conceivably cause a major psychosis. Considering how poorly societies are managing mental illness (careless in the community, anyone?) I think this is too cavalier an attitude.

You can get medicinal concentrates of Tetrahydrocannabinol (C21H30O2, or THC). It can be effective for treatment of glaucoma, which is not exactly a pandemic. You don't have to smoke it. It can come in baking products or even introvenously, if you are keen enough.

No, actually, there is considerable evidence that it can (in those individuals who have a predisposition to mental illness) bring out psychotic maladies (schizophrenia, personality dissonance, etc) especially on the minds of young adults who have not fully developed/b], i.e. under 25. So there could easily be a societal health cost. Considering the woeful care available for the mentally ill in all our societies, I think this is worth more research before we create a health time-bomb like obesity (which causes multiple health complications, like hypertension, type II diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc). So there is evidence that an individual's behaviour may affect others in society, so that behaviour needs to be monitored, managed and controlled.

I would rather be with women than men. Anytime.

Um, I was under the impression that it was pseudoscience proving the Ark was there. Two points: Aluminium was discovered and named in the nineteenth century. One major reason is that it is very difficult to smelt from the naturally occurring ores, to wit: ... The basis for all modern primary aluminium smelting plants is the Hall-H

Well, I tend to regard it this way: the biblical writers were (men) of their time, and may were recycling old retreads of oral traditions; one thing that has definitely changed over the millennia is how humans measure time. (This obviously doesn't include the Nicen