Messages

Well isn't that a pleasent suprise. Tim stalks Remixor!

Grim Fandango. All the rest are on a completely different (and lower) level.

ICK!!!

In your analysis of Hitman, you spoke a little of the feminine influence (or lack of thereof) and a god-like male figure.

I think we see a god-like female figure in Monkey Island. Elaine is for Guybrush the ideal woman. The ideal woman concept has appeared in many places throughout human history. The most dominant example is that of the mythological goddess. This divine being is usually described as an intelligent and beautiful creature. Furthermore, as myths are written from a male point of view the goddess is more than all attractive - physically and mentally. Actively or passively, the goddess seduces the male. He longs for her companionship, love and passion. Plenty of myths tell of men who went through great peril to win the hand of their beloved perfect being - the goddess.
So, if Hitman provides the player with a god-like male influence, Monkey Island does the same with a god-like female influence. Whereas the male god-like figure demands for agressiveness, the female one seduves. To further extend on your use of the Freudian fantasy, it can be said that the sun wishes to defeat his father, male god-like figure, to have his mother, the female god-like figure, all for himself.
Elaine is Guybrush's goddess. Despite the way she treats him, he cannot see beyond the aura of the goddess. He is seduced, trapped in her charm. He undertakes the three trials in order to win her love. In Hitman, the protagonist seeks to best his god-like figure, because his influence is that of agressiveness and naturally leads to the final confrontation. This perhaps 'justifies' the difference between the games from the most basic point of view - Hitman is an action game because its main god-like influence is male, while Monkey Island is an adventure game because its main god-like influence is female.

W0R5T 1N5ULT 3V3R!!!  

I think bringing money into the equation really ruins the wonderful atmoshpere of 'underground' surrrounding this community. I'm out.

NHell I amdrnuk how and I jkust thiugh I migy reopky ti tuis kuiveky tread, NoteL I d i bitce te tuoyos i byt I am just tool ayz to fxtghem, that uisL I sdo notice the tupus but I am tool azy to fix them, I was just in apub, got three puints, too shots and a ciupke of vodraks,. I'm hell drunk. I havebn't bothered to hckec what thre thread ias about, but I hdid see the title. Drubk ois whhee!

In some aspects, I agree with you. I don't like Sharon. When the Likkud was elected with a vast majorty (relatively to previous Israeli elections), Sharon received the mandate to act. He didn't. Instead, he played ping-pong with the Palestinian terrorists. The IDF would shoot a Hammas activist, the Hammas would respond with a terrorist strike, and so forth and so forth.  This is how this war has been going on for the last 3 years. In Hebrew, it's called an 'exhaustion war' (perhaps it is the same in English, I do not know the proper term) - a war with one basic routine with no visible end in sight. No side is progressing. No side is gaining anything.

It's the solution where we differ. As you probably know, I support a militaristic solution to this conflict. Israel mustn't wait for the Hammas' revenge, but strike again.  Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Khaled Mashaal and all who are in league with them need to be taken out as well. But, alas, I think that the assassination of the Sheikh is just another return shot in the endless ping-pong of the Al-Aqsa Intifadah.

And just a little something to Nacho - the "Road Map" has always been a ridiculous joke, and it's now longly dead and buried.

Barcik, you might not like me saying this, but I'll say it anyway: I think your Prime Minister has made one of the most stupidest mistakes in the history of stupid mistakes.

Having said that, I'm going to say something that you probably already know, but I'll say it anyway because I'm concerned for your safety:

Be very careful.

If, as I believe, you are referring to the assassination of Ahmad Yassin, I largely disagree. With or without it, the Hammas would have strived to pull out the terrorist attack, that in light of recent events will inevitably receive the title of 'vengance'.

However, thank you for your concern. I will do my best.  

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/408422.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1080108195675

I think we shouldn't expect too much of it. I am afraid the AI will be limited and that after a certain while the game will repeat itself and become boring. Like many milestones in other art mediums, this will probably be a significant but largely flawed step forward.

I don't remember!  :'(

At least... the new Prime Minister is "culé" (FC Barcelona Fan)

The Catalan press seems to very happy.

I think there is quite the difference between the various things I am allowed to say and the things he is allowed to say.

I don't think it was restraint. Were he to come out boldly and make a speech about "Aznar caused the attacks", the Spanish people would feel he is exploiting their sad situation and not vote for him.

[Barcik]

Barcik

I see what you're saying, but I am simply a steward left to run what was began, you can see how I just can't drop "A" and join up with the agdzine...even though it rocks so sweetly, I also belive that there "A" rocks sweetly in it's own way....

And together, they can rock twice as much (or rather, suck half as much)!

Considering campaigning was suspended, it's hard to claim that the opposition deliberately exploited the bombings, since there was no capacity for them to do it. Rather the the shameless exploitation made of terrorism by leaders such as our Prime Minister in the 2001 election or the wonderfuls ads being aired by the Bush campaign at the moment.

So really, why it may have had some effect on the election, it wasn't an exploited issue, and rather reflects the nature of democracy, which is what we're told we're trying to protect.

You surely know better than that. Is all political propaganda delievered via speeches and slogans, or do snake comments in well placed spots have an effect as well? Didn't Mr. Zapatero 'hint' that Al-Qaeda is behind the bombings? Didn't he indirectly point at the connect between the war in Iraq and the bombing? He sure did. Such an event, 3 days before the elections is too big for him to overlook it as a potential political tool.


SSH, I am sorry but I didn't really understand your point. Is this a reply to my previous post?

It's all very well saying that "We don't negociate with terrorists becuase if we acquiese, all the other terrorists will think they can succeed, too". But ultimately, there is a number of lives at risk that negates that logic.

Both arguments you present here (including the one you negate) are totally equal. None is better than the other. And I say it with considerable difficulty, because of my personal politcal views. We tend to see one as better than the other because of our personal beliefs, but from a hard cold point of view they are both equally bad. How to know which one is better? By the specific circumstances of the occasion. In this case, I think that the elections in Spain were a big victory to terrorists. Bin-Laden managed to sink a major European government. I am afraid of what comes next.

It's never that simple, Barcik
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/36245.html

Despite all that he said, there is still one fundemental fact here - before the attacks, PP had the lead in the polls, and they lost. Obviously, the politicials tried to take advantage of the situation, and I couldn't have expected them to do otherwise. In fact, I think it is silly from the writer to criticize them for giving the tragic attacks a political spin - this is their job. It's obvious that any incident of such scale and importance will cause a political battle of wits. But we can't forget that it was this terrorist act which formed the political settings under which Aznar and the PPL lost.

It's a sad world we live in, where terrorism dictates what goverments will fall and what governments will rise.

Makri, you described the terrorists themselves. Yet, we mustn't forget that there is always a bigger fish. Behind the terrorists stand polticians, who use these fanatics as tools. They do not acted from hatred, but from hard cold logic.