Azarkon

But the Creator races are out to get yoooooouuuuuuuuu...

Melissan would've been better if she had been a recurring character, maybe a NPC you've grown to trust, but the problem with the BG series was that you didn't have to get any NPC in your party, which makes it difficult to have traitors (ie the issues with Yoshimo). Or if she was a Zulkir. Oh yes.

They died too fast

Yeah Edwin was a Red Wizard. One of my favorite characters, too. Would've loved to have the Zulkirs involved - they've got all the necessary qualities: evil, intelligence, ambition, a tad of insantiy, and political shrewdness. Even if it's only as sub-bosses... Please?

I'd like to see the Zulkirs of Thay as villains in some future CRPG. How come we never face off against any of the nefarious wizards in FR, anyhow? The closest we've got is, well, Halaster in HoTU and he wasn't really a villain there as much as he was a plot device. Something to do with not wanting to tamper with canon?

China isn't stupid for doing nothing about NK: why would they? Let's look at the possible best and worst case scenarios: Best case: * NK comes back to the negotiation table after becoming assured of its new nuclear stick. The US makes some concessions, NK gets some breathing room, and eventually adopts Chinese-style state-directed economic reforms. China can then flex its economic muscle and get a sane NK on its side as permanent ally. Win-win. * NK thumbs its stick, but no one cares. The regime eventually topples due to mass starvation. Before that, the remains of the regime, still bitter about SK, calls on China for help. China goes in and gains a new province. * The missile test fails and NK is back to square one. Worst case: * NK attacks SK. SK retaliates with US aid. NK in desperation nukes SK. Both Koreas are now in shambles. China, along with the US and Japan, stands to gain from rebuilding the countries. * NK attacks Japan. Japan retaliates with US aid. NK in desperation nukes Japan. China now has one less neighbor to compete with. * The US attacks NK with Japan. This pisses off SK, which now leans towards China. The US gets bogged down in yet another occupational war and its resources are stretched to the breaking point. China, in a gesture of "good will," buys even more US war bonds and makes the US even more dependent upon it. At the end of the day, the Chinese become the new dominant economic force. * The US attacks NK with SK. But that won't happen because SK is for "peaceful reunificiation" and wants the US to butt out. * The US airstrikes NK. NK in retaliation nukes/missiles US allies SK and Japan. Might give Japan an excuse to militarize, which could be bad for China, but the likelihood of that happening regardless is pretty high anyhow, so no real loss. * The US nukes NK. The whole of East Asia gets pissed at the US and China gets more influence in the region. * NK attacks China. Not going to happen. So why would the Chinese do anything? And what can they do? They've already told the NK to "stop it," but NK is obviously not listening. The only two things the Chinese can do at this point would be: * Sanction NK alongside the rest of the world. But this would cost them what good will they had in the country and gain them almost no benefits. * Attack NK in the hopes of taking it over. But this is suicidal - the Chinese military might overwhelm the NK, but they'd be fighting an occupational war and that'd cost them dearly. Plus, SK would get pissed and lean even closer to the US. Japan would have an excuse to re-militarize (see! The Chinese are aggressive!), and the Western world would have an excuse to label China as a military threat. Not gonna happen.

So is it good or not? Let's have some constructive feedback here, folks.

Gimmicky features do not really interest me at this point. Anyone know how good the OC is for Wyvern's Crown?

The President's speech sounded good, because it hit all the keywords: freedom, bringing democracy to the world, freedom, keeping American safe, freedom, brave American men and women, and did I mention freedom? I think it'll play well with those who already support Bush, and may draw some of the more gullible who were on the edge. But he's really not said anything new - the central theme of his administration is already dead clear: everyone wants freedom, but freedom must be paid for in blood and oil.

None of the mediums used for artistic expression can be considered concrete, but writing is probably the least concrete of them all. Whereas with music and art there exists the visceral qualities of tone and color, and with film the recorded act, language, taken down to its principle roots, is simply a collection of symbols with no inherent meaning or worth. This abstraction, in turn, allows expression at a higher level, which is necessarily ambiguous. What this has to do with game writing, I've yet to figure out.

Your friend is right. How long they could keep it up, though, is up for grabs. Whether "social harmony," as used by the Chinese government, is a long-term goal involving Orwellian thought control or simply a transistory stage in keeping with national security issues and threats to the government... Is anyone's guess.

Stocks in oil and the defense industry?

Eh, Israel should just accept that it's going to be fighting a permanent war from here on out. Not something any nation should have to do but those are the unfortunate cards history has dealt. Even if Iran and Syria are crushed the terrorists will not be diminished, unless the entirety of the ME is nuked, which is something that Israel do not have the moral authority to do unless it itself is nuked first, in which case what would be left to save? We live in an age of diminishing natural resources and growing worldwide tension - an age of cataclysmic climate change poised before the brink of natural and political disaster. What lies at the end of the tunnel, I don't know - all I know is that this is the age whence man's sense of morality and foresight will be definitively tested. If we succeed, the result is mere survival. But if we should fail, then not only us, but our children, will bear the consequences, and they are dire indeed.

Then how did most of the Hispanics currently in the US, the majority of whom aren't Spaniards at all (or at least, to begin with), take up Spanish, transplanted from half-a-world away, as their official language? The great irony of the situation is, of course, that Spain, in its heydays as a fading European nation, would yet have its linguistic legacy carried on in the Americas, as a lasting influence of its culture long after it itself might disintegrate. What Spain, as a nation, could never achieve in California, its force as an immigrant language seemingly will. It's always possible to force people to assimilate. The only question is how far you're willing to go. History is overly focused on the armies and the great leaders, and too little focused on the cultural memes that will define the future of humankind.

Federalism, Hades. Federalism.

That the UN *should* be the police man of the world should not even be up for debate. Police men, by definition, are those who uphold the laws of a community. The police men of the world are then, by extension, those who uphold the laws of the world. International law should not be established by one (US), or even a group (modernized), of nations. I think we can all agree that the US and the modernized nations only have their own best interests in mind, and not the majority of the world's population, which live in developing countries. To allow such a force to police the world would be to create an oligarchy of the elite - the police force would then simply be a corrupt extension of the rich and the powerful, and terrorism might, then, become even justified as a form of resistance. That the UN *could* be the police man of the world is a much more polemical argument, and something of a tragedy. The inefficiency of its bureaucracy and the deadlock of the Security Council are both very poignant issues that vastly undermine what the UN could be. But its fulfilmment should be the ultimate goal - for there to emerge a world nation, the UN, and not the US or Europe or China or Russia, must be the police man.

And there you just nailed exactly why Iran will continue pursuing its nuclear program, regardless of what the US does. But then I could've told you that in the beginning - this discussion is pointless, because nothing said here will affect anything in the world, and nothing the US or the UN babbles will change the basic facts regarding how power is kept and exercised in this world. Embrace powerlessness; it is the joy of life.

I guess we should count our blessings then now that religious fundamentalism is making a comeback in the US

I couldn't. It was a no-rest area, or at least that's what NWN told me.

Yeah, modules rarely get that right for some reason - after instant leveling at the start, wizards and clerics need a mandatory resting period.

Africa is worse off than the Middle-East, but no one cares?

Why 70%? As opposed to, say, 90% or 10% or 50%? Odd number... (except it's even, meh ")

Talking from a financial standpoint - JE & Kaftan are absolutely correct - Blizzard is a company that can start off with a prototype, playtest it heavily throughout the period of a few years, decide to scrap it completely, and develop a new one until they get it "just right." And if they never get it right (ie Lord of the Clans & Starcraft: Ghost, which wasn't developed by Blizzard but was under the Blizzard "seal of quality"), they simply discard the game in order to preserve their reputation. Try doing that as a developer under publisher pressures. There is also the matter of Blizzard's unstoppable marketing, PR, and global localization teams. They have the money to spend on advertisement, and, along with the "quality" word of mouth associated with Blizzard (due to the above), this is a potent advantage compared to smaller, less well-established companies. Talking from a first-contact point of view - Blizzard's success back in the heydays of the RTS genre and their masterful acquisition of key development teams (ie Condor->Blizzard North) is what gave them the financial resources necessary to accomplish the aforementioned feats. In this manner, they're very similar to Bioware - BG and BG2 built the basis of Bioware's fanbase, namesake, and finance, which in turn allowed them to spend ~4-5 years in the development of NWN 1 which, despite the less-than-stellar OC, guaranteed its success via the sheer abundance of features. Finally, from the POV of a gamer - Blizzard games are must-buys for many because of five reasons: * They're always high-quality, because Blizzard simply does not release games that they do not consider up to par with their reputation. This also tends to mean an absence of bugs, the presence of significant polish even in the smallest of details, etc. * They always have stellar gameplay - Blizzard have a good sense of what constitutes interesting and addictive gameplay, and this is something that they're willing to iterate as long as needed in order to get right. * Excellent production qualities in terms of art and music - despite losing much of their artist team post-WoW, Blizzard seems to make excellent acquisitions in terms of artists in the industry. * They always have mass appeal - the Warcraft world is like a watered down version of the Warhammer world (same with SC and WH40k) that trades the gritty, dark aspects of WH for the much ligher, "epic" atmosphere of an adventure narrative. Their art style, being Disney-esque, is very approacheable to players of all ages. * The above is also in part due to Blizzard's focus on *streamlining*. Blizzard's games are always easy to play and they're always adorned with simple, user-friendly interfaces that require minimal effort on the part of players trying to learn it. Compare this to, say, Bioware's NWN or SoE's EQ 2, both which actually required you to *learn* the user interface and both of which had a generally clunky feeling throughout the game. The same streamlining is present in Blizzard's gameplay - you're never really in doubt as to what a spell/ability/unit does, because the information is presented in a simple, easily accessed way, and the game mechanics themselves are designed in such a way as to not require complicated descriptions (as opposed to, say, D&D). For this aspect of Blizzard's games, I like to use an example: In a Blizzard game, the spell Magic Missile would simply say: Magic Missile (Rank 1) Casting time: 1 second Mana Cost: 5 mana Does 1-5 damage to a single target. In a SoE game, on the other hand, the spell Magic Missile would say: Magic Missile (Apprentice I/Apprentice II/Adept I/Adept II/Master I) Casting time: 1 second Recovery time: 0.5 second Recast time: 0.0 second Concentration: 0 Target: 1 Range: 20 yrds Power Cost: 5 Mastery: Evocation Inflicts 1-5 damage to target * +1.5 for each two caster levels past the first * Interrupts casting If target is not Epic * Does 100% more damage against magic vulnerable targets * In PvP, the spell instead does 1-4 damage, and does not interrupt spells Other companies have, as of late, tried to adopt this aspect of Blizzard games, but in trying to do so they've generally equated streamlining with shallow gameplay, forgetting that Blizzard's games are always "easy to play, hard to master." Anyhow, those are my feelings with regards to Blizzard's success.

The best reasons for abortion, imo, are these two: 1. The controversy inherent in defining the time when life begins (ie at conception, at the point of brain development, or at birth). 2. To prevent the government from dictating people's moral outlooks. If there was no controversy as to when life begins, then the abortion issue would be one-sided because it'd fall under either clipping a mass of flesh or murder. However, because such a controversy exists, the issue becomes a matter of morality - and laws should not be in place to dictate morality. Personally, I would never support abortion except in life-threatening situations; however, I would also not support the government taking away another person's right to choose his own moral priorities. This, I think, is the essence of the pro-choice argument (and not the "zomg I want the choice for women to have an abortion anytime they want cause I'm selfish and most definitely will use abortions in place of abstinence and contraception~" that the pro-life side keep trying to paint it as).

I'm kinda curious about you, Hades. On one hand, you strike me as someone who wants the US to be isolationist - ie not to meddle in the affairs of other nations, and yet on the other you appear to be a hardened moralist who wants to see economic sanctions, which are most definitely the instrument of US neo-colonialist intervention, being implemented against authoritarian regimes. I understand the whole "we shouldn't do business with bad governments" angle, but you do understand that a sanction on the part of the US is not merely a hands-off approach for us, but an aggressive policy of containment, right?