Cantousent

I still haven't had a chance to express my views of the Iraq war, but I think I'll save that for the morals thread. As for the issue at hand, I suggest that it's much easier to say, after the fact, that this should have been done or that should have been done. Hind-sight is not 20/20. Play a computer game and make a save before a critical decision with a number of variables and paths. Play that save several times. After the first move, you might think that you know what you should have done. Nevertheless, you'll often find the outcome of the replay isn't exactly what you expected. Sometimes, you'll find the outcome isn't at all what you expected. Now, take that experience with games and apply that perspective on real life where there are infinitely more variables. Right now, Iraq is not the Viet Nam that folks claimed it would be. Bush and Rumsfeld never claimed it would be a walk in the park. Still, the commander-in-chief does make mistakes, some of them understandable and some of them understandably foolish. The most ridiculous thing Bush did was announce the end of major combat actions in Iraq, which clearly wasn't the case and still isn't today.

Talk about a weird way for an off topic thread to go off topic. I've never before opened a thread and seen a list of flags. Cool, though.

I've heard that xbox 360 won't be backward compatible. I can never keep track of these things I don't really trust them until I hear official word closer to the release date. After all, look at the demos for xbox and ps at E3.

It's not that price isn't a factor. I don't like the idea of throwing money away. Still, I'm probably going the xbox route simply because I can afford the system and I've enjoyed my current xbox. The only thing that irritates me is the fact that my old xbox games won't work. Mostly that doesn't matter as I've played all of them several times. Still, I relax by playing the Tiger Woods games. Even after I beat them and have my character maxed, I still play. *shrug* I'll just buy the next Tiger Woods game EA ships for xbox 360. I couldn't care less about the vast majority of Japanese style RPGs I've played. I'm not railing against them, but they just aren't my cup of tea.

It's good to see folks willing to express an opinion. It's the foundation of democracy that we, the citizens, discuss our democracy. ...And I appreciate the fact that we must all be heard, even if we disagree. Still, your opinion cuts both ways. You say, "I find it disgusting that my nation has squandered the goodwill of our longtime allies and many other coutnries after 9-11 by alienating everyone with our arrogance." It's easy to engender goodwill while you're getting your teeth kicked down your throat. It's quite a bit more difficult when you're kicking someone else's teeth down his throat. I'd rather lose goodwill by attacking Iraq than win goodwill by having terrorists fly airplanes into our national landmarks. You say, "...at the time of Watergate, the New York intellectuals turned neo-cons were writing about how horrible it was that the press had gained the power to discredit a president of the United States who had the polular support of the people." This sounds quite similar to rhetoric regarding Bill Clinton. Both political parties, every political party, engages in such practices. However, if you think that the press is stifled, then you are clearly misguided. The press has every right to make claims. If its deficiency of judgment and excesses have undermined public trust, the press can only blame itself. I suspect they lack the introspection to do so. You write, "...these policians can start a war, but they sure don't know how to run one." ...But it takes one Darth Drabek to really know what we should do.

Someone throw Vol a hunk of red meat. He's gotten out of his cage again. Anyhow, I'll keep an eye on Dungeons and Dragons online. If they can get it right, I'd love to play DnD online. I currently have two PnP DnD groups, but I'm lucky to get two games going a month even so. I'll keep the PnP groups going, but it would be cool to have access to a good game 24/7.

Probably X box 360. I'll see how I feel when it hits the shelves.

I honestly don't know how to answer this question. After all, I'm a Catholic. ...No, I am a Roman Catholic. I am an adherent to my faith. I have weathered no end of ugly confrontation from folks who do not like Catholics, either from folks who attack on the oblique or even a few frontal assaults every now and then. So, I am entrenched in my religion. I would no longer profess it otherwise. On the other hand, I hope there is no hell. With all my heart and soul, I hope there is no hell. Catholic or not, I cannot believe that God would create any of his creatures with such an end in mind. An eternity of torment? Must it be so? It is not for me to decide any fate but my own, and if the atheists are correct, then even that is out of my hands. It is not for any of us to decide, to sit in judgment of what happens after death. There will either be nothing after death, or something. If there is something, as I believe there is, then I will go to heaven. As much of a sinner as I am, I know I will go to heaven and to the arms of a loving God. I pray, fervently, that all people will ultimately enjoy the same fate. All people hope for divine retribution for folks who have committed evil. How does the saying go?

If it were truth, it would hurt. As it is, Galloway's remarks will not be long remembered. George Bush may be wrong and he might lack in character, but I doubt he's self-serving. There is no self motivated reason for the political stances he takes. He was independently wealthy before he took office and he's endured slanderous comments every day of his presidency. Bush is no more or less self-serving than Clinton or any other president, the majority of whom truly believed that they were doing what was necessary for the United States. You can argue that George Bush was wrong, and that's certainly an area for legitimate debate. To suggest that he's just a political opportunist seems a bit hollow to me. Galloway, from what I can discern of politics in the United Kingdom is clearly a man with nothing but his own interests at heart. I suppose you might want to portray Galloway as a man of strong convictions, and I respect your right to do so. You are clearly wrong. You are more than welcome to level the same charge at me.

Galloway, the future face of UK politics? Probably not. It would be funny if he were, though. It's refreshing to see someone so wrong, so completely self-serving being praised by people who obviously don't understand his character. ...And the ability to shout down your oponent is a long admired rhetorical device. The mark of a true statesman, however, it is not.

guilty, as charged.

I do, but I don't want to invest in enough 20 sided die for both using as markers and rolling. However, I probably should, since they're so cheap. The party rarely faces over twelve of anything, though.

I could have sworn I heard it was PvP mostly. That makes it a new ballgame, as both WoW and Gild Wars have come highly recommended.

Tell that to Rush Limbaugh. Or Hannity himself. These portly gents are the voices of the "Middle America" that won Dubya his latest election; I'd say they serve their causes pretty damn well. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Indeed, a fellow who manages to get his point across and win votes isn't a fool. Nothing argues like success. However, Hannity is an obnoxious fellow and I don't like listening to his show. ...And I hate all talk radio. I'd rather listen to music.

Unfortunately, they treat information coming from outside the coalition as quite possible and, indeed, probably true. The BBC would have had you believe the coalition was losing the war. I'm not talking about the subsequent occupation of Iraq. They seemed to believe it would take months to take even the major cities. That's just first of all. I don't like Hannity, but he's not a reporter. He's a commentator. The show in which you saw that exchange is not a "news" show. It's a debate show where Hannity is a known Republican and Colmes is a known Democrat. They don't even pretend to give a regular newscast. The BBC, however, does pretend to do so. The idea that neither organization is biased is absolutely ridiculous. The idea that the BBC is more accurate is equally bogus. Certainly, the BBC should be less biased than a debate show. That's a pretty high benchmark for an organization with the BBC's reputation. I'm sure management can take solace that they are less biased than Sean Hannity, who not only takes part in the debate show Hannity & Colmes, but is also a regular on conservative talk radio. For the actual website itself, I'm happy that it be heard. I would be perfectly happy to see this odious fellow back on the internet. Fools with loud voices rarely serve the cause they champion.

This was really my experience from RtCW. It was a team based game where I developed a certain level of trust and loyalty to the group. It's an either/or propostion. Either the player jumps in and pull his weight or he is dead weight.

Very nice, Kalfear. I'm going to keep an eye out for Dungeons and Dragons online. www.ddo.com is the official website, and it looks like it's coming right along. I'm going to take the wait and see approach, of course, but what I've seen so far gives me hope. I think I will also look to see if there's some sort of trial version of WoW just to give it a shot.

I am a sinner. My alignment is Neutral Evil. I strive to be Good.

The problem with Guild Wars, from what I've heard, is that it's geared towards the PvP crowd. I'd rather have something in which to act cooperatively. I don't really have the energy to go heavy PvP. I've done it, but I would probably just grab a good FPS if that were my goal. I'd rather do co-op PvE rather than PvP. I certainly have no use right now for a game completely premised on PvP. My biggest beef with PvP is that, to be competetive at all, you must dedicate a lot of time to the game. Either you suck or you practice as part of a clan essentially every day. I don't have time for that anymore. I haven't for years.

I use miniatures for the party and NPCs. I use dice for the baddies in battle. That makes it a lot easier as I just use the number on the die to correspond to the number on the badguy. It really only gets to be a problem if there are more than twelve foes.

I tried City of Heroes at a friends request. It was actually quite fun and I played several characters past level 20 and one up to level 35. Unfortunately, my time completely dried up at that point. Afterwards, it wasn't as fun, so I ended my membership. I'm more looking to see what good games I should try. I already know I'm ready to try another.

Okay, I was going to make a new thread, but I'd like to hear some of the guru's convicne me why the MMORPG they play is the one I should buy.

Made sense to me. hehehe I mean, if the only thing a game offers is hack and slash, then I might or might like it. If a game sports hack and slash with a great backdrop, I'm almost certain to like it. :haksthumbsup:

I thought that "wanker" referred to a person who engages in autoeroticsim.

*insert a multipage rant against Wizardry 8 here.* Actually, the RPG I hated the most was Might and Magic 9, which completely killed the series. After plundering the franchise for what it was worth, they ended the series on a terrible note. Anyhow, I like hack and slash. It's a great diversion. I like a wide variety of games, and what story might be lacking in a hack and slash title will undoubtedly be found elsewhere. Finally, folks claim that hack and slash lacks a story. That's not always true. I loved IWD, which was a hack and slasher. Still, the backstory was quite good. Diablo had a backstory. The difference is, the player can largely ignore the story should that be his desire. Fair enough. Bloodlines had a great story with lackluster combat and I think it suffered for it. I really wish Troika had done this game a long time ago. I'd like to see a sequel, but it seems unlikely.