Funnily enough, of all the games you could have chosen, I would argue The Witcher 2 had a storyline that was almost too complex for its own good, to the point that keeping up with the happenings of all the characters and factions took serious effort.

lol, france wants to be different On a serious note, this is just a beginning when countries move deeper back in to their religious pasts. Religion as a whole is on a downslope in the west and this will lead to extremism backlash. he fact that religion is still the primary rule in middle east, the information era in these countries is reaching breakout point, it comes from the west and thus it looks like an attack against their religion.

What they don't realize is that it's over all ready. Information is virulent, it spreads and it wants to be free. It is uncontrollable and for religions that ideologically depends on manipulation and blocking of certain parts of it, will fail. For Islam, it means huge changes, much like Christianity had but in much smaller timeframe: we are looking at deeply ingrained theologies to shift almost 180 degrees in a matter of years. It will be a bloodshed at some point unless we give them more time (which means that we have to divide in order to unite, we have to divide the world in two factions, religious and non-religious..).. Forcing anything to happen creates a lot of pain.

Wow. Interesting discussion going on here, and I say "interesting" because there's a lot of conflict between people who share the same vision of what society should be, but place blame for the reasons why it's not (in the context of this video) in completely different pieces from one another.
I've never posted to a thread this long before because I assume that it will get lost in the shuffle/argument/whatever, but I wanted to share how I broke the scene down and what I gathered from the video.
The fundamental problem here, which is subjective so I understand if someone doesn't agree, is that:
"most people" would not be comfortable walking down the street in this neighborhood.
"Most people" want safety, or more specifically; as much of a chance to not fear for their lives while existing.
What would remedy this? The hard rule of law? Or let it pan out as-is. The former has never stopped me from an action that society might not agree with. I don't run people over or shoot guns into the air because I believe in not hurting others, and both those actions either do, or have a decent chance to.
On the other hand, I really believe this is one step removed from a war-zone. Not to mistakenly define this scenario as a binary gradient between order or chaos, but if one group of friends became violently entangled with another group of friends, that's exactly what would result: armed, faction opposition.
Most people seem to argue over the solutions we know of, rather than the problems that exist, but it seems to me that none of those are working.
So I guess my question is: how would you make these neighborhoods "safe" for non-violent people to live in that isn't attributed to some form of government?

You're ignoring the entire record of human history... No gov. means a void that people will try to fill. How many warlords are there in Somalia?

From chaos and disorder, the wielder of the biggest club will eventually float to the top. Whether that club is literal (feudal/tribal) or a democratic faction, or a totalitarian regime/police state is immaterial.

But hey, the internet is the panacea for the furious crowd. Now people can soapbox day and night as they order in pizza and consume litres of sugar filled beverages before ordering something else pointless on the internet. Slacktivism at it's finest.

Apathy is the new outrage and it's all the rage.

I think most people are this way with their learning. Enough to make the dough and serve the role. AND FUCK ANYONE OVER THAT GETS IN THE WAY -- or show enough indifference as to maintain the state that keeps them employed.

That's the joke of reality. That's the truth. There ain't nothing beyond THAT. This is it. Humanity. We'd have to split off into a colony or a faction within a faction to gain anything close to anything that is fair or Utopian. Goddamn man. Goddamn it, it's just how it works.

And then within that colony, the same indifference to change will form and the change that does come will only serve the top. Always. That's ALWAYS how it will be. Even beyond this world. Beyond humanity. There is CAUSE and there is REACTION.

What is helping with that though is that because the right keeps moving the goalposts, so many people who were once Republicans are now RINOs according to the extremists. Just like this video suggests, Will may be a fictional character, but he's describing exactly what a lot of moderate Republicans are going through right now. The right wing extremists have decided to pursue a personal vendetta against Obama and all the moderates in the party are going "wtf?"

Sorry, but that's the most basic sign of a downfall. when you keep purging your ranks for not having enough ideological purity, you're not exactly planning for long term success.

When all the big historical Republicans heroes like Lincoln, Nixon, and Reagan, and maybe even HW Bush couldn't win a Republican primary in today's climate, you know you're losing touch

I dunno though, speaking more generally however, there's got to be some way of inducing politicians to not play games like this. The whole 10% approval yet 90% incumbancy rate should hopefully shock people into doing something. We've got a bill that passed both houses of congress, signed into law by the president AND upheld by the SCOTUS, and yet a small faction is holding gov't hostage over this.

I don't see how it's even legal to defund something that is law. If it's law, how is it legal to interfere with it like that? If you don't like it, pass a new law repealing it....that should be the only way to stop an existing law (other than Supreme Court of course)

I've heard this numerous times before from conservatives that we need to enforce the laws already on the books....well...ok. Let's do that.

And one small faction of the Republicans promised even before the 2010 elections that they were going to shut the government down. They've continued to make exactly that claim for 3+ years now...why would anyone be surprised they have done exactly that. It's not even an issue with the ACA, they're out to destroy the government.

And if it wasn't for a ball-less, spineless Speaker of the House, they couldn't have done it. All he had to do was offer a vote on the compromise "clean" funding resolution the Senate sent back to the House, which would very likely pass. But he appears to be more concerned about losing his position than he is about working to make things better for the citizens of this country.

I despise the two party system, but one side, (or to be more specific, one subfaction of one side) is demonstrably more harmful than the other.

I'm all in favor of abolishing parties in this nation, this "but they're equally bad" argument is bull.

Government was actually designed that way though, sure we don't like shutdowns (but then again, here's the problem, some people DO want the gov't to be shut down so that corporations can run everything) but government WAS designed to be slow and not easy to change laws. It has the side benefit of being very resistant to tyranny since it requires so many people and multiple branches to agree

It's one thing to not like how government works, but its quite another to be willing to shutdown gov't over ONE piece of legislation that has the support of the people and the branches of gov't. It's quite another to have a faction completely and utterly oppose the president purely on the basis of the color of his skin.

The big tent GOP is being left behind and that tent is getting smaller and smaller. Gerrymandered districts are pretty much the only reason they are still retaining control. And typically when a company isn't doing so hot, they tend to not actually change tactics, but they do change their name so people with short memories get fooled, so then they called themselves the Tea Party, well that's not working out so well since again, they haven't really changed at all, so now they're rebranding themselves again and calling themselves Libertarians, but it's the same bullshit, just a different name.

No one ever said the ACA is perfect...no one. It was a compromise, What the public WANTED was single payer, but this was the compromise. You want to tweak it? change it? improve it? I'd agree with getting rid of all the exceptions people of talked about,

but you don't threaten to shutdown the gov't over it. especially when you've already failed to repeal it 40+ times in the past. Shutting down the gov't and waging message warfare trying to blame it on the president when it's 100% a congress issue is deranged behavior and basically counts on people being stupid enough to not know how the gov't works (like @lantern53) to believe the message.

People are dumb, but they're not quite THAT stupid, most people do know that it's the Tea Party holding the gov't hostage and not the President. This little stunt is really not helping their chances in the next election so in a weird way, I'm glad they're doing this because it just hastens them getting kicked out in 2014

Anecdotally speaking, a lot of my coworkers are conservatives and every single one of them is saying "fuck the Tea Party"

I see @lantern53 has no idea how gov't works. You see bobknight33, err I mean lantern53, There are three branches of government. Only one of them can create laws.

After much compromise, congress passed a law called the ACA. The President agreed and signed it into Law. It was ALSO upheld by the Supreme Court. So you see, ALL THREE branches of gov't are OK with this law.

Now this faction in the House of Representatives are trying to pass a law that says "sure, we'll fund gov't...but only if you de-fund or repeal the ACA. That's not governing, that's called taking a hostage. The senate isn't going to agree, so there's deadlock. See, the president isn't even involved.

He would ONLY get involved if both housed agreed with this, but guess what, even if congress agreed with the Tea Party, The President has this pesky little thing called a veto, which sends it back to Congress and they need a whopping 2/3rds majority vote to override him.

sorry, ain't going to happen. But hey, I'm happy that I could give you some remedial education since you refused to pay attention in class.

So in actuality, The Tea Party can keep having their little temper tantrum, They're all but digging their graves in the next election.

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

i like ron paul.
we dated for a bit because we had so much in common in regards to civil liberties and a non-intervention foreign policy.
i had to dump him due to his free-market corporation obsession.
it had just turned creepy...
he still calls on my birthday though,very sweet.

the american people are against any military action.up to 80% of the population kind of against,but what have we learned over the past 10 yrs?
the american government ignores the population and relies on bobbleheads like blitzer and this other cunt to promote the propaganda.

"so let me just say,that after being briefed the gas attacks took place"
ok..im listening,please continue.
"and that the assad administration is responsible"
the assad situation is responsible?
really? are you sure? because as far as i can tell there is not one shred of evidence.
well,thats not quite true.isreali intelligence says the assad regime is responsible.
and if the isreali intelligence says its assad then it MUST be true right? they wouldnt,,you know..lie.

whoa whoa whoa mr quigley.
am i correct in assuming that your entire argument is basically "trust us"?

you sir,are a whore who would sell his integrity to the highest bidder.you have lost any right to speak on this situation or for any of your constituents to show you any form of respect.
i revoke your right to participate in human affairs and i bid you good day.

i said good day!

and look at our little slut blitzer trying to snipe from the bleachers.
oh blitz...
you sold your soul a looong time ago.
nobody listens to you anymore.
they are just transfixed by the beard.

to imply that military force is a righteous and just course of action due to 100,000 people dying ignores the fact that america has used chemical weapons.

so when THEY use chemical weapons it is a crime against humanity but when WE use them it is justified?
nice logic captain propaganda.

and if we are to take your argument to have any validity.then i am forced to ask this question:
"if the united states has the right to invade another country for crimes against humanity.that the invasion is for humanitarian reasons (as if bombing and killing is humanitarian),then explain to me why so many countries were NEVER invaded by the united states,even when THEIR crimes against humanity were far more egregious?"
see:rwanda
see:east timor
the list is NOT short.

cant answer?
then i submit that your argument is no argument at all.
because if you were a true journalist you would have asked "where is the diplomatic solution?"
"why are we we going in to drop a limited sorte of bombs?"
"in what reality could that produce positive results for the region?"
"where is the international political pressure to bring these factions to the negotiation table?"
"where is the evidence that assad's regime is responsible?"
"why is the obama administration ignoring the military commanders advice of non-intervention?"

i could do this all day.

there is a bright spot in this otherwise dreary and dystopian picture.
the american people are not as politically gullible as they were 10 yrs ago.
we SEE whats going on.
the world SEES whats going on.

welcome citizen to the united states of empire.
please have a seat.
be quiet and obey.
your government is in control.

its not a country, a country cant do anything. there are people, persons doing this.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are our allies, yet are the sources of the terrorism moreso than Afghanistan.

The FSA are civilians responding to their countrymen being MASSACRED, women, children, old people, by the GOVERNMENT, the SAA.

Really clueless people who think the FSA are terrorists and SAA is legitimate. Disinformation is winning despite the clear video evidence that Assad is massacring civilians of opposing religious factions. I see this clearly, but then again I watch the actual videos from places that dont put commentary on them. Its disgusting what they, the leaders of Syria, have done to the children of Syria using the army as a tool. You do not attack civilians or give militia leeway to do so.

Support the FSA.

Great game. There were way too many unexpected plot directions for this to be considered predictable. Two of the things Yahtzee criticizes in this review (the psychotic nature of every faction in the game and the "I got mine" selfish ending) were directly related. In the end, SPOILER ALERT the inhabitants of this psychotic shoot-first world were not worth saving, or at least not worthy of Ellie's sacrifice, and the fact that Joel lies to her so she can't even consider making that sacrifice was a nice cherry on top. It was a gutsy, thought provoking ending. How often do video game plots make you ponder bigger questions?

Negative reviews are Yahtzee's schtick. If he started making positive reviews, no one would watch them.

Yo, play Ingress with me. It's an augmented reality game with two factions fighting over actual points of interest in reality: Post offices, fire departments, police stations, parks, college campuses, jamba fuckin juices.

Each location is a portal that you fight over and DESTROY for your factions. I am in the Orange County Resistance. If they want to stop us from playing, then they're going to have to stamp out all of our freedoms.

Fight the power peacefully and practice war in augmented reality!

@poolcleaner me: Garden Grove, Stanton, Westminster, Fountain Valley, Irvine, Costa Mesa. Civil Disobedience in the form of gaming.