Azarkon

GD nailed it. NWN 2 coming so soon on the heels of NWN 1 limits the initial flurry of activity. Let's face it, modders are not professional game developers. They don't do this for a living and having done it once and gotten it off their chest, simply don't have as much incentive to do it again so soon. As for the argument that there should be new modders, understand that they're a minority compared to the throngs of itching storytellers who awaited the coming of NWN 1. There's not, relatively speaking, that many people who want to mod badly but did not have the opportunity to do it in NWN 1.

Kaftan, I'm curious, but it seems that your argument of "not wanting to miss anything" logically rules out choice-and-consequence, as well, or more broadly any sort of branching in games. Now, personally, there are very good games out there (JRPGs, for instance) that don't branch, but then they don't exaclty allow for a great deal of roleplaying (or, to avoid that word, "choosing") either. As a result, I'm almost convinced that your preference simply precludes interest in branching games, which is a perfectly reasonable stance, but one that would make it unnecessary to argue any further. Is this correct? I'd like to know because it'd help me decide whether to respond in depth to your criticism or to simply "agree to disagree," if ya get what I mean.

I believe the sort of cartoon that could've worked would've offended American puritan sensibilities I don't think we disagree, but perhaps debating the finer points would help. I agree that in the circumstances we were given total victory was the only viable choice. I also suspect that you would agree with the assertion that we should be glad that we're past the phase of history that would produce such circumstances (at least, so it seems at the moment). I'm not decrying our decision to seek total victory, but the doctrine of total war that necessitated such a decision in the first place. But of course, it's not even total war that I'm criticizing, but the mentality that necessitated it - that being an ideology of power and domination founded upon beliefs of intrinsic superiority, and which put aside service to universal morality in the name of nationalism.

The bomb served an expedient end, but let's not forget that the Allies were determined to force a total surrender from Japan and had plans in place for a land invasion - if the bomb failed (which General Marshall thought it would after seeing the Japanese defend their islands). Their estimates for casaulties resulting from such an invasion were far worse than was caused by the bomb and it did not sway them, and I genuinely think that they would've reduced Japan to the last man, woman, and child if that was the way it had to be (though it'd likely not have come to that, particularly with the Soviet threat brooding on the coasts). I bring this out not to downplay the effects of the bomb, but to stress that total war, as was practiced in WW 2, was brutal in a way that people today have a hard time imagining. It wasn't about morality, it wasn't about civilian casaulties, it wasn't about keeping the public happy ... It was about winning, total victory - whatever it takes. Hundreds of years of European enlightenement, of civilization building, of societal progress... And it comes down to that. I'm glad this phase of history is over.

Sorry, let me rewrite that: "But the enemy commander likely will have to visit parents and wives when they get home, because war will never be reduced to simulated battles between robots: the underlying causes of war are far too serious for that. I say this because some analysts believe that robot armies would, like nuclear weapons, bring an end to human warfare - because who'd ever throw their lives away fighting robots? Me, I think that's BS - not only because it's unlikely to be true, but also because it trivializes war, which is really the object of this entire project - to make war so innocuous that it can be waged painlessly. But it doesn't do that, because if a war was so trivial for both sides that they're willing to let robots decide it for them, it wouldn't have been waged under current circumstances. And if a war was serious enough that people would be willing to die for it, as is the current state of wars, then nobody would let robots decide it for them, either. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that robot armies would change nothing but the weight of technological superiority - and that's a dangerous thing should the one with the technology ever become the 'bad guy' in a war."

I thought that debate was over, and we were just trying to get at the source of why people are dredging up old laundry in an effort to discredit the US, but you're the mod

But the enemy likely will, which is the entire problem - regardless of what pundits think, war will never be reduced to simulated battles between robots, because the underlying causes of war are never trivial - it is, as internet goers would say, serious business. Perhaps it's the democrat in me, but it's always been somewhat heartening to think that if enough people were willing to die for a noble cause, they'd be able to achieve it. Unfortunately, the possibility of that "noble cause" being religious and fanatical in nature has produced a modernity that increasingly looks to systematic dominance as the preferred solution. A day might come, then, when even the sacrifice of all its disciples would not allow a cause to survive. That day is frightening to imagine, because who - then - will be able to resist oppression?

Actually, that's because of medical insurance, and Sicko criticizes plenty of that Now, you're of course right that a disinterested foreign policy would yield certain unsavory conditions, but the gap between indifference and intervention is quite large, and even if we were "right" to choose intervention, in "principle," there's still the matter of practicalities. I don't think you can deny that US foreign policy is currently a cesspool of mismangement and failure, regardless of its stated intentions. I'm not so worried about what we say we meant to do, but about what we failed to do. Numerous still are the apologists, but fewer now are those who believe that the situation in Iraq will stabilize any time soon. While I don't agree with all of its points, http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200708...eyond_disaster/ gives an argument that's increasingly harder to dispute. One cannot judge a policy merely on moral and ideological grounds - implementation is, as in all things, the most significant measure, and here the Bush administration is knee deep in sludge. Personally, all else is secondary: the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but in the end it's the results that count. I fear Iraq will go down in history, like Nam, as yet another blow to the feasibility of US interventionism and all the bad press is just an extension of that.

Granted, but usually it's not the domestic systems that people bash but the foreign policy, and here the comparison is similar to leadership. Sure, you have Russia strong-arming the former Soviet states, and you have China propping up brutal dictatorships in Africa, but neither expressions of geopolitics are quite as visible as the wars we've got going in the Middle-East - and here you have to remember that most of the world doesn't believe the US is there for altruistic reasons. It tends to go downhill from there.

Out of the list of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Churchill, and Roosevelt, it's obvious who the two "winners" are. No, by no means were Churchill and Roosevelt "perfect" leaders, but compared to the competition, it's hard to deny that they did the least wrong, and made the most right of decisions. Out of the list of Merkel, Putin, Hu, Blair, and Bush, however, the choice is less obvious, and I think that's the gist of the issue. The US can not ride on the surge of good leadership that led it in the past, and today the image of the star spangled knight is badly tarnished, to the extent that American exceptionalism is being challenged on a routine basis. All this bad press must be interpreted in this context - American arrogance has built up alot of pent-up rage, and given the opportunity the world is bringing us down to size. It's not so much that the US has done an inordinate amount of wrong in the past (though we've certainly done our share), but that those wrongs take on new meanings when America is no longer the hero but the accused, no longer the judge but the judged. It's been said that these days it's a fad to bash America... I don't disagree, but this has been the nature of national image for as long as it existed. We fad-bash others (ie China), and others fad-bash us. It's awfully unfair to represent a nation solely by its wrongs and mention not at all the rights and reasons, but I suppose it's only fair that other people trash us the same way we trash them. In short, it sucks to be on the receiving end of the stick, I suppose.

These are double-edged SWORDS, if you know what I mean...

PST combat was simply, for the most part, bland; saying that it's great combat is ludicrous, but I can see an argument for saying that it's adequate for a game that purposefully de-emphasises combat. Maybe MCA's argument for why PST combat was fine is that combat simply isn't a big part of the game. Maybe the dull combat was supposed to encourage non-violent solutions. Maybe it's supposed to reflect numbed out violence. Maybe MCA just wanted it to be different than other IE games so as to emphasis the strangeness of the planes. Of course, this could just all be apologetics and BIS might've simply failed to deliver the combat they wanted to deliver. We don't know, but the important distinction is between whether PST should've had great combat. Would that have added to the game - made it more worthy? Personally, it's debateable. I don't quite fall into the "if every part of the game is good, then the gane must be good" camp of game design. I think a game is more than the sum of its parts, and that at times it's necessary to sacrifice certain features in order to emphasis others. Would PST have been the same experience if it had awesome tactical combat that made TBS fans drool in ernest, or would such things have diluted the focus of the game, which was on dialogue and storytelling? It certainly might have sold better, but in terms of the game as a cohesive unit, I'd argue that it'd have been a betrayal of PST's motifs to spend more zots on combat that could've been spent on quests, puzzles, and roleplaying choices. Lest we forget, combat is not a necessary component of RPGs, and in some sense PST was an experiment in getting away from the classic mold of RPGs-as-tactical-combat-simulators, even if it's only because combat was intentionally an afterthought (which to me is the most convincing explanation since, as it's been pointed out, the BIS devs were quite well aware of what good tactical combat looked like when they made IWD).

Huh, interesting... And very British, indeed. Didn't know that before, thanks! Good to hear he's doing alright. Hmm... Somehow I'm not so surprised you love dwarves now, Volourn.

Before this thread gets shut down, let me just say this: Amidst all the propaganda and rhetoric, two things are true: 1) America's foreign policy is the source of all the hate, and 2) despite hating America, most people outside of Europe and Japan would still like to make America their home. The complexity of national perception lies therein - it's not contradictory, for most people, to desire the life style of Americans while hating what America does on the world stage, and if you think about it just a little, the same holds in the minds of many Americans. It's at this point that you can begin to ask the real questions - such as whether the government of America (and really, any country) truly represents its people, and whether what we do on the world stage is necessary for the perpetuation of our life style.

On-topic: Mining is not only a dangerous job, it's also a generally debilitating one. Miners expose themselves to all kinds of harmful chemical agents via fumes, dust, etc. on a daily basis. This is particularly true of coal mining, which causes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_lung, among other problems. While these occupational hazards have been reduced by improved safety standards and technology in most first-world countries, the same cannot be said, unfortunately, for developing nations (yes, China is still a developing country - don't let the facade of urban prosperity blind you to the very real poverty and exploitation that enable it). That businesses fail to comply with government regulations and aren't prosecuted due to their clout in the economy, of course, also doesn't help. Off-topic: Err, I reckon I'm not that familiar with British vernacular/slang, but what's the rationale behind using "devil" to refer to miners? Walsh?

There is actually quite a bit of variety to Chinese food... It doesn't get translated very well, however. I once had a Chinese colleague remark, upon coming to America, that he pities the Americans for their food options, though I'm sure the UK has better standards

Hey, Kipling might have coined the phrase, but it was Americans who were the subject of it. Don't hug all the infamy!

The 231% Cholesterol doesn't scare you?

You don't like cardboard? Shame on you. Seriously though if you ever visit China don't just go into any random restaurant. Stick to the expensive, foreign-catering restaurants - they usually have much higher standards and won't likely run into shady dealings like their poorer counterparts. That, or hire a local expert to guide you - they usually know the popular scams.

Of course, so do I There is definitely a difference between a neo-nazi cult and what could be considered neo-fascist politics. The former is just a group of criminals venting their misguided anger at society, and will never be taken seriously by anybody. The latter... Well, let's just say that history would have been alot more pleasant to read if Hitler was simply the card-holding member of a German subculture, as opposed to Fuhrer of the Deutsche Reich.

Yup, and it's probably inaccurate to consider the Klan neo-nazis, since they came before the nazis did. EDIT: I feel the Wikipedia article on the KKK is pretty good, so be sure to read that if you're interested in this aspect of US fringe culture. Of interest is the following quote:

If by "neo-fascists" you mean extreme neo-nazis who treat white supremacy as some kind of cult, who go around terrorizing the neighborhood, wearing funny hoods, and enacting occult ceremonies, you'll only find them on the fringes of society. They have few sympathizers, relatively speaking, and can only be considered a weird sub-culture, not unlike alien worshippers and satanists. If, however, by "neo-fascists" you mean people who believe in the superiority of the West and its right to dominate the world, who reckons that Western civilization is the only one worth having, who denounces liberals as traitors and ridicules multi-culturalism, who thinks immigration from Mexico will dilute US nationhood and its IQ pool, who claims that all other cultures and civilizations are either decadent, despotic, or both, who recalls with nostalgia the days of European Empire, and who even to this day see international politics as a reflection of the "white man's burden" - then look no further than the collectivist trend that is currently in the process of transforming the political mainstream. You can find such people on almost all boards dedicated to politics, the military, and/or the neo-conservative view - this one included.

1. Quite right, and that's partly why it might be futile to say unless we can somehow address the regional interests of other players. I'm not talking about expanding the warfront, necessarily, but the current status isn't going to improve until the neighboring states start cooperating with us. For example of what could be a best-case scenario, see: http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IG07Ak04.html (I don't necessarily agree with the author's hypothetical scenario, but I can see why Iran would never accede to cooperation so long as the US maintains a threatening military presence in Iraq). 2. I think our moral imperative depends on the will of the Iraqi people, since that's basis of our remaining moral justification (ie we're there to help them). Ultimately it's their country, not ours (which makes it a very different situation than Churchill at Dunkirk), and therefore they should have the final say as to whether we stay if we were judging this situation from a strictly moral perspective. 3. Unfortunately signs indicate that we've already lost the war for hearts and minds in the Middle-East, and that's really what matters in determining who would gets blamed in the event of an implosion, Al Qaeda or no Al Qaeda. As it is now, even if Al Qaeda's leaders are taken out of the picture, other groups would undoubtedly use our presence to rally support, and that's one important question that you've got to ask - if we pull out, would they still target the US? Many people believe so, claiming that Islam's real goal is the overthrow of the West. But just as many people suggest that if we were genuine in our pull out from the Middle-East, they'd go back to fighting amongst themselves and leave us alone. One thing's for sure, however - even if the US pulls out, Israel can't, and they're at the core of Islamist demands for US pull-out (ie we'll leave you alone if you stop supporting Israel). To effect a real pull-out might not, in this respect, be feasible. In which case, might as well stay, right? But then the world is rallying against us, particularly the Muslim world (even countries like Indonesia, simply because they fear the US's threat to their religion), and we could be in deep doo-doo if we became the symbol against which a world-wide Islamic movement gathers. Alas, I fear that this might be a situation in which there just isn't an altogether correct solution, and that we'd be paying for our decision either way.

One step closer to science fiction

Gasses and bugs can be used effectively against the military, though; and obviously, no one would ever claim that a nuclear weapon would not constitute a WMD - yet nukes are built not just to level enemy cities but also to level enemy military installations, bases, and production facilities. I think the popular definition is that WMDs consist of any weapon system designed to effect indiscriminate destruction on a massive scale. The term indiscriminate is key, because without it many military weapons could be classified as WMDs - ie artillery shelling and aerial bombing, both of which the US, at least, argues are discriminating because they can be used surgically. Compare that to a biological agent, which, even if you target the military, could easily be transmitted to civilians and thereby cause suffering en masse. It's not so much that the weapon only targets civilians, but that it is indiscriminate when used and massive in scale. Therefore, while a box of rat poison is relatively indiscriminate, I wouldn't say that it's a WMD because it's probably not massive.