Azarkon

Question: From your experience, what makes a NPC character compelling to players?

I would hardly term not invading Iraq as hiding from conflict at all costs, unless you buy into Bush's doctrine that a preemptive strike is the only path to peace.

I suggest you read this: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Caribbea...tions_Cuba.html Wow, another whole new perspective! Are you going to launch into a tirade against the UN, now, given that they voted 184 to 4 to end the Cuban embargo? Or so I quote: "The embargo has been the source of almost unanimous international criticism. Annual votes in the United Nations General Assembly that call on the U.S. to lift its sanctions pass with exceptionally large margins (173 to 3 in 2002; 179 to 4 in 2004). In the 2004 vote, only the U.S., Israel, the Marshall Islands, and Palau voted against the resolution (with Federated States of Micronesia abstaining)." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...go_against_Cuba Showcases the failings of democracy, perhaps? And Bush was so confident about its benefits on the world, too. Face it: democracy is nothing more than another form of control. No one willingly elects the poverty of their own nation; it's a lack of choices - as in the case of modern party-based elections - and the predominance of monetary assets that define the elected dictatorships of the modern world. Oh, and the refusal to reform the education system certainly helps, too. Keep the population ignorant, and they'll certainly never know who they're voting for.

US intervention was a given in almost every one of those armed revolutions, though, mostly to install puppet regimes loyal to our interests. When such a regime does not exist, the common response has been to isolate, contain, and sanction (ie Cuba) - can't exactly run a happy country when the US forcibly cuts you off from the rest of the world.

You can't preach isolationism without practicing it, Hades For example, if you want the Mexicans to keep to themselves, it's natural that the US should do the same, in order to have a consistent ideology.

Well, to be fair, their problems are at least partially due to the US's alliance with the Spaniard elite that runs the country. I'm not sure that the poor, predominantly aborigine immigrants can rebel against their white leadership without Bush intervening.

From an individual's perspective, that's a good attitude to have. There are some problems, however, that you can't solve that way. Mexico is one of them, unfortunately. I believe we will see that in the coming years.

Pretty hard to do so when your country has no schools for the poor, I'd think. There are two types of non-refugee immigrants. The first is well-to-do in his or her own country, and comes to the US in search of even greater wealth and opportunity. Such an immigrant does indeed go through the troubles of learning English and the American custom before entering, because he or she's already part of a nation's elite, and can afford to do so. The second type is what we're talking about: the dirt poor immigrants looking for either a way out of their permanent poverty or at least a way of supporting their impoverished families back home. You can't expect these types of people to have English schooling - if they did, they wouldn't be trying to immigrate. So the question is: do you allow only the former type of immigrants in your country? And if so, how far are you willing to go in terms of moral decency? We have laws, post WW 2, that guarantee the safety of refugees because despite being illegal immigrants, to send them back would be a death sentence and no government with a semblance of humanity would condemn whole slews of people to their deaths (as happened with the Jews when they were turned back by other countries trying to flee out of German-occupied Europe). Illegal immigrants are not exactly formal refugees, but they're close - their country is not only dirt poor, but run by drug lords and gangs under whom no people can truly be free and happy. It's therefore extremely hard to deter them - and as the article quoted earlier states, they're willing to go to extraordinary lengths to enter the US. Thus, it's one thing to say that these problems are not the problems of the US, and another to mobilize the army (who, unlike the average police, don't fool around with their weapons) against unarmed civilizations.

But why? If the law was overturned tomorrow, would you shed a tear? Or would you accept it nonchalantly and make a 180 with regards to your attitude towards "illegals" (now legals). Have you no opinion other than the desire that all laws be enforced?

Because shooting moving targets is so easy that you can always just aim for the knees, right? I recommend you examine the following article: http://www.americas.org/item_121 When armed guards patrol the borders, people get killed. No questions about it. The only argument that makes sense is Hades' - why should we care? Then debate its use instead of hiding behind the argument that IT'S THE LAW. Recognize that the illegal immigrant "problem" was tolerated, even encouraged, for a long time by the government for the sake of cheap labor. That they're cracking down now is a political maneuver, not a legal issue, and therefore any arguments regarding whether the law is just must take into account its political and social context. Not merely the fact that the law exists.

Guess how fast they'll discover that the soldiers can't shoot? In order to be effective, soldiers must have the authorization to shoot people crossing the border. If they are authorized to do that, then it'll be a massacre. Of course, deploying the army to the border is just another way of indicating that Bush is "tough on <insert group here>." I doubt it'll make any difference in the long run aside from wasting more tax dollars. You might find this interesting: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/11/194909.shtml The founding fathers also decreed that black slaves were 3/5th of a person and not capable of being citizens. Stop acting like the law is God's will. The advantage of a democracy is that you have the ability to change the law (for example, Bush has the ability to grant amnesty to all current illegal immigrants, thereby making them lawful citizens/immigrants). So long as you're unwilling to question it, that freedom is worthless.

Cracking down on companies that hire illegals is like trying to stop outsourcing. Ain't gonna work. But building a fence won't work, either, and by any measure of morality and practicality it's infinitely worse of a solution. Have fun throwing your dollars away for Bush's new Great Wall.

If that's how you feel, stop responding to me now. I have no intention of engaging in a useless debate, and it'd certainly be useless if you're not even willing to consider my viewpoint. Like I said, politics is emotional. You make it sound so easy. Tell me, why does birth guarantee you US citizenship?

Not particularly. The first thing Hitler did was strip the Jews of official citizenship by way of law. Definition of what a citizen is indeed: are people who lived in a country most of their lives citizens? Are people who work here "illegally" undeserving of basic rights, as Bush claims? Citizenzhip is precisely what Hitler sought to prevent the Jews from having. If he thought it was that important to deny, you can easily see why illegal immigrants must not be granted citizenship. I assume you see the first connection. The second connection is less what Bush is doing and more what he's implying. Sending troops to defend the borders? Why? Because illegal immigrants are the enemies. They are intruders - and must either be expelled, non-violently if possible, or shot down, which is ultimately what the soldiers are there to do. Thus, they are dehumanized - they are the abstract Other, rather than individual human beings. No attempt is made to empathize with them, because they are deemed below the possibility of empathy. They're selfish, greedy, dirty Mexicans here to drive down the American economy - they're all that's wrong with this country. Funny, Hitler said the same about the Jews. I need go no further. I am not implying that Jews in WW 2 = illegal immigrants today. However, the similarities are there. I'd rather not argue about them - either you see them or you're dead set on the mentality of trying to distinguish between them because there's no way that the US can be like Nazi Germany. No way, we're the good guys. I'm sure the Germans thought the same about themselves. There's really no point in arguing, though. Political discussions are not rational; they're about how you're raised and therefore emotional. There's no point in a rational discussion of emotion.

The definition of citizenship. What makes you an American citizen? And why should it?

There are similarities.

Try to see beyond what the law dictates, please. Hitler legalized the killing of Jews. The law, besides maintaining order between people, is simply another form of power play.

Humans are much too territorial. Besides, it's all very much hypocritical: Europeans came to the Americas uninvited. They respected no borders. They were illegal immigrants. But they remained, just the same. Conquered, even. Somehow became the de facto American civilization - as if they owned the place. It's power, not right or wrong, that determines a man's "ownership" of his land. The need to project power, to attain and abuse it, is what unites the Bush administration and Hitler's Nazi Party. Keep the Mexicans out of America. Keep our troops in Iraq. It's all a power play.

There are similarities.

Kinda like what Hitler said of the Jews, you know. "They don't belong here, they're illegal immigrants polluting our great Aryan nation."

The quality of that video was superb. Looked very much like the WH40k opening - did the same people make it?

I'm not surprised. Speaking of the CG quality alone, the trailer/intro didn't look bad at all. However, it was a bit too short and lacked the impact of truly amazing CG ala WH40k. Still, I'm not sure why Gromnir had the impression that Blizzard's CG artists were much better - did you see the WoW intro?

There are CGI companies out there that make intro FMVs on contract, and given the quality of work I saw in Warhammer 40k intro (one such contracted FMV), it seems that they're about as good as Blizzard. Was this made by the Obsidian/Atari artists?

I think part of the reason devs don't want to confirm or deny game lengths is that it tends to drastically differ between gamers. If I say that you'll at least play 20 hours, I'm making a guarantee - which in turn will lead to disappointment if some guy beats the game in ten. Lower estimates, in this case, tends to be "safer," since you won't be left in a situation ala HoW, which might've motivated Feargus playing it safe this time around by underestimating the game length. We also have to factor in any non-linearity, since the playthrough gamer might ignore side quests and go straight for the goal, of course, and that might make the range of gameplay vary widely between 20-40+ hours. To be honest, I tend to believe Sawyer in that even Obs don't really have an accurate estimate of the actual game length.

Don't treat this issue as a MMORPG issue, as it really isn't. Say that your friends took up snow boarding as a hobby. Would you join them, given that you hate snowboaring and don't want to spend the money? If not, then there's no reason for you to do it here, either. Of course, having friends means following the bandwagon every once in a while. It's part of the doing-things-together aspect of friendship. Which of course leads to the age old adage that you should choose your friends wisely :D