12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Costin_Razvan]

It's pretty good...and Cerberus is tough as hell to fight. Katana wielding biotics might sound silly, that is until you realize just how goodamn powerful those ****es are.

Combat is just so much fun. Does your brother have his own skype account btw?

 
The problem is not "democracies", the problem is how it's applied. In Israel, corruption is a lot less than its neighbors, in large part because they have decent accountability. A democratic liberal system is more likely to allow for accountability than a dictatorship.  

Very true. That said Israel is an exception ( along with Britain I think ) rather then a rule.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 17 février 2012 - 05:39 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yea he does, though he rarely logs on.

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Very true. That said Israel is an exception ( along with Britain I think ) rather then a rule.

Last I researched about this (a year ago or so), well established democracies generally have a lower corruption rate than dictatorships. Obviously a lot of factors are involved, but the system and what is encourages seems to be an important factor in reducing corruption.

Obviously I am not really looking at the USA as an example, because a lot of its corruption, imo, is institutionalized and legalized, so technically not corruption.

[Costin_Razvan]

A few things about the ME demo. Bioware has stated several things.

1) A lot of dialogue and dialogue options were cut from it.
2) Shepard gets a different into if you imported, possibly with a real trial.
3) The demo uses a 2 month old build, so there will be a lot of bug fixes.
4) They are forced to limit the size of it to 2 gb because Xbox demo policy. It might be the final demo has better textures.

My opinion is that it's very solid gameplay wise, a lot fun, dialogue isn't horrific for the most part and the kid part is implied to have been a hallucination.

 
Obviously I am not really looking at the USA as an example, because a lot of its corruption, imo, is institutionalized and legalized, so technically not corruption.  

I'd bet good money that it's the same for most of Europe.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 17 février 2012 - 06:19 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The problem is not "democracies", the problem is how it's applied. In Israel, corruption is a lot less than its neighbors, in large part because they have decent accountability. A democratic liberal system is more likely to allow for accountability than a dictatorship.

That's exactly it, accountability. Democracies/republics/ only work well when you have good accountability and the threat of heafty punishments when politicians and civil servants cross the line, or threaten the wellbeing and health of the state.

Part of the problem in the U.S. is that corruption is institutionalized in the form of lobbyists and special interest groups. It's a relatively recent one, that began in about the mid to late 60's. And this is done through taking advantage of the loophole in the first amendment allowing citizens to approach the govornment with grievances or concerns. I think the real answer would be to deny legal "personhood" or such to groups and corporations. Which could be done, were anyone to actually think that far. It's one of the few things I agree with OWS on. Groups should not be given the same status and rights/benefits that individual citizens should. And the system is set up to be dynamic and fluid, to change with the times, so it could be done. But again, it takes people who actually give a sh*t and are determined to see this changed.

However, I totally disagree that a dictatorship is somehow better than even a dysfunctional democracy. In a dictatorship, it's the rule of one individual or party who have free reign to do as they see fit. A benevolent dictator is a very rare creature, rare enough that I can safely assume 95% of dictatorships will be complete dysfunctional messes. Even as f*cked up as things in the U.S. are, there is still alot of options available to me that would not be there under a dictatorship. The biggest problems lie in apathy and comfort, and the very crappy levels of education. Still, not all is lost. The individual states have power of their own, and some states make it a point to buck federal mandates or completely slag them off. Two major issues that come to mind are marijuana laws and the Patriot Act. A number of states have passed laws against, or refused to comply with, many provisions of the patriot act, especially when they conflicted with constitutional or civil rights.

So now you can see why I favor de-centralization in the U.S. The federal govornment is the most incompetant, corrupt entity that keeps trying to seize power and authority is not only has no right to, but is not capable of utilizing constructively. The states are different, and though some states have more corruption than others, many don't, and for the most part, are far better at managing their own systems and issues that reflect the needs and general goals of their resident people.

Right now, the only real  hope in the immiediate future is for states to continue bucking and refusing the idocy of the federal govornment. As well as becoming more independant of federal funding. Some states with stronger economies and political structures, like California, have been doing this alot, and more are starting to.

[Costin_Razvan]

However, I totally disagree that a dictatorship is somehow better than even a dysfunctional democracy. In a dictatorship, it's the rule of one individual or party who have free reign to do as they see fit. A benevolent dictator is a very rare creature, rare enough that I can safely assume 95% of dictatorships will be complete dysfunctional messes.

Benevolent doesn't really cut it. what you should be looking for is enlightened dictator. I don't disagree most dictators fail but the only differences in my country compared to the communist era are:

- We can say whatever we want.
- We can leave the country.
- People can divorce.
- Women can have an abortion.

Has the economy improved? Nope. Has the daily life of people generaly improved? nope. While wages grew so did prices, by a hell lot more then wages did btw, and we've had our salaries cut by 25% for quite a while now as well as pensions. There was a lot of stuff wrong with Ceausescu but people always got paid. ( When the crisis hit us, the first thing the gov did was to stop paying people for one week of each month ).

Oh it's all well and nice that we get foreign movies, video games, PCs, free internet and all that but to me that's just superficial BS.

While I would not want Ceausescu I'd gladly have someone like Antonescu. ( And Antonescu was involved in the Holocaust ).

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 17 février 2012 - 12:58 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Those four things you listed would be enough reason for me to prefer the new state over the old one, were I a citizen or long term resident there. Even with a **** economy. Personal liberty and the private life are things I value above all else, economy included. I've been homeless. I've also lived in cities or areas where the local economy and social atmosphere were comparable to places like Beiruit or Bogota. (Yes, I even had my car shot at while I was leaving home for work one night. Wasn't personal. Just one of the local crackheads had a beef with someone else over something. Wasn't aiming for me. :/) Yet I would still prefer to take my chances in such a situation than having a totalitarian state where I need to worry about how I think and who I hang out with, lest I end up in a cinderblock cell at 3 a.m. as an undesirable or enemy of the state. No thanks. At least I have a fighting chance against the random crackhead or degenerate. I have zero chance against the state. And I sure as sh*t would NOT tolerate living under some bastard who took part in a genocide of some description. Just the fact that they were capable of being party to a program of genocide would make me question their humanity and mental fitness. If they can take part in something like that on asenine racial ideals, I would not want to see who else they are capable of dehumanizing on political, social, or "rational" ideas. Genocide isn't something that can be chalked off to "stupid college prank, everyone has a bad moment" sort of thing.

Economies often do better when the state itself approaches it in moderation. Regulating only what needs to be regulated in the interests of the nation and public welfare. And then pursuing healthy, well thought out long-term economic policies, both domestic and foreign, to encourage long term stability and growth. The problem with the current state of the economy, is the wrong things are being regulated, while other things that have been needing intervention and regulation have run unchecked.

[Costin_Razvan]

By no means am I an expert on the issue, but as far as I know Antonescu didn't have a secret police like the communists did, nor did he actively fight against freedom of speech unless that involved politics. He used propaganda sure, and he did rule like a supreme ruler, but he also did not imprison or execute his political foes. It was his downfall in the end.

Antonescu took great pans to make it seem like the will of the people matter, when it did not at all as he was the one making all the decisions.

I just don't give a **** about having the freedom of talking about politics in a system where that doesn't matter at all.

 
If they can take part in something like that on asenine racial ideals 

You will find that most people really hated jews in that period. I think Antonescu just believed the myth of them being Soviet agents and possibly he had no choice but to comply with what Hitler wanted.

It's all well and nice to talk about what he should have done, but when Germany and the USSR both have massed armies on your borders, and both want your land...well you're ****ed. Fear really was a major factor in my country in those days.

I'd sooner have someone like him then a retarded former ship captain who oppenly steals and mocks his people, rules his country via emergency laws ( I kid you not ), is involved up to his neck in the black market and cheated on elections almost damned openly.

Because that is my current president.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 17 février 2012 - 10:01 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

 
Obviously I am not really looking at the USA as an example, because a lot of its corruption, imo, is institutionalized and legalized, so technically not corruption.  

I'd bet good money that it's the same for most of Europe.

Not according to the studies and research I did. Italy of course is a mess, but most of Europe, in that regard, are not and have less corruption rate and actual corruption than Middle Eastern dictatorships and the US. Canada also ranks very high in terms of dealing with corruption.

As for enlighted dictatorship. For me, one of the measures of an enlightened leader is when he / she allows for the system to liberalize under his / her rule and democratize after his / her death (if it's possible for him / her to do so of course). To prepare society to become a real civil society, with rule of law and institutions that no longer need one individual. Otherwise, even the best leader can do a lot of harm if society and the state end up depending entirely on him / her.  Another measure is how much this leader empowers society to enrich its civilization. That leader should use the state as a means to an end (empowering society and not controlling it), and does not see it as an end in itself. That's what seperates visionaries from power mongers.

Of course such a leader is a rarity.

The only example that I can think of in the Middle East is Mustafa Kemal Attaturk, and I disagree with him on certain policies (like the marginalization of minorities).  But there is no doubt the guy was a visionary and while he was authoritarian and the system he left behind was not democratic, he gave enough avenues and prepared society enough that it eventually was able to liberalize and democratize on its own almost naturally. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 février 2012 - 10:43 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Of course alot of people in that period hated Jews, accused them of every concievable social and moral ill imaginable. But even then, more intelligent people saw such things as nonsense. Whenever there are problems, people turn on and point the blame on those who are different, and blame them. Mob mentality. Which is what a sane state is supposed to do. Rule rationally, and not give in to mob mentality, which is based on instinct and childishness.

Funny enough, it almost reminds me of the idocy of Meredith in DA2. Exterminate the mages to appease the mob for Ander's actions, was basically the whole of her arguement. Other arguements I've seen was to prevent the Chantry calling an exalted march on Kirkwall. I don't fault Antonescu for having to look at the external sh*t. Romania was pretty much a small country sandwiched between two very large, powerful, and aggressive countries. Trying to plead neutrality would have been futile, and the Germans and Soviets had shown quite clearly what how much they respected such declarations, and Romania's oil fields made it an unavoidable target for either. Still, though, killing off the Jews was pretty excessive, to put it mildly. But if he was that paranoid that they might be spies for the commies (which everyone believed back then), then moderate measures would have been lost on him. Like, forcible relocation or expulsion, if he was that big on it. To sign the death warrants of an entire race of people, men, women, children, just takes a mentality that goes too far on the cold-blooded, or too easily bent to pressure, scale.

One of the most stupid cases of genocide was the govornment sanction annhilation of the Native Americans . It too was fueled by the retarded mentality of "Manifest Destiny", one of those philosophies that helped inspire the N@zi idocy. There were so few of them, so many of us, yet there was a great abundance of space, land, and natural resources, that settlers could have settled, and the Natives could go about their business, and seldom would the two meet, if they so desired. Yet the chosen path was kill on sight, expel, or send smallpox ridden blankets. All because of retarded beliefs and ideologies, coupled by tunnel visioned eat or be eaten mentalities. Eventually, the Indians would have been assimilated naturally, as is always the case when dominant, wealtheir cultures collide with less advanced, technologically inferior ones. People naturally gravitate toward advancement.

The situation with the Jews was obviously different in Romania, as was the situation outside it's borders. I still can't get my head around how one could possibly justify exterminating an entire ethnic group for any reason, especially when there are other ways to deal with it, if it is somehow a major problem. The kind of person capable of coming to such a descision would be the last person I'd want in power, personally. The systematic, targeted, and methodical extermination of an entire peopulation, because of the race/ethnicity they were born into, is a whole different ballgame to the normal cruelties and massive body counts of war. In the sense that declaring a war is done either for the sake of defense, or to conquor and occupy/subjugate. The end result might be the same, alot of dead people, but it's the mentality that differs. Conquest and expansion, or defense, I can understand. But genocide? I can't see the logic. And paranoid dictators are like mad dogs in that sense, once they have tasted blood, they want more. How long would it be before they turn their teeth and jaws on other groups that are considered "real citizens"? I do not trust such people to rule with sanity or competnce.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Of course alot of people in that period hated Jews, accused them of every concievable social and moral ill imaginable. But even then, more intelligent people saw such things as nonsense. Whenever there are problems, people turn on and point the blame on those who are different, and blame them. Mob mentality. Which is what a sane state is supposed to do. Rule rationally, and not give in to mob mentality, which is based on instinct and childishness.

Yea, that's why I dislike using the word "democracy". I always say "liberal democracy" (or Republic), with an emphasis on the liberal part, where minorities have rights that will be protected (in theory) regardless of what the majority wants. This is related to the very big difference between "negative liberty" (which liberalism embodies) and "positive liberty" (which democracy embodies).

A merger of the two is desirable and mutually beneficial (the best way to protect one's rights is to advocate for them, and for that you need the freedom to organize and influence decision making), but positive liberty without the negative means mob rule. The scariest form of governance (if we can even use that word in this instance), alongside totalitarian ones, imo.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 février 2012 - 10:58 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Of course such a leader is a rarity.

The only example that I can think of in the Middle East is Mustafa Kemal Attaturk, and I disagree with him on certain policies (like the marginalization of minorities).  But there is no doubt the guy was a visionary and while he was authoritarian and the system he left behind was not democratic, he gave enough avenues and prepared society enough that it eventually was able to liberalize and democratize on its own almost naturally. 

That's the problem. Finding a potential dictator who has enough long-term vision to set things up in that manner. Setting up institutions and the like, to allow for socio-political progress to happen naturally, on its own terms. The vast majority of dictators, however, are either crazed, paranoid bullies, corrupt, self serving parasites, or complete, ineffective fools that leave their countries bankrupt and on the verge of collapse.

But that's the key to the success of any entity, whether political, social, or economic. Long term vision. Thinking beyond one's own lifetime. Not just thinking up to the next election cycle, or whatever suits them personally. Such leaders are very rare, democracy or dictatorship.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
 The scariest form of governance (if we can even use that word in this instance), alongside totalitarian ones, imo.

Too right. The mob is a creature with thousands of arms, legs, and mouths, but no brains. hence why I like the idea of the Republic. Setting up of structured institutions and laws to protect and preserve society from itself. because if people don't vote themselves into slavery, they will vote themselves into oblivion. Because most people don't see beyond their own existance, into the broader picture.

[Costin_Razvan]

To sign the death warrants of an entire race of people, men, women, children, just takes a mentality that goes too far on the cold-blooded, or too easily bent to pressure, scale.

It didn't happen like that. He stubbornly refused to carry on the final solution. Yes he subjected them to harsh labor and other things but the ones he killed were for the most part people jews living in areas that the Romanian army retook in Operation Barbossa, or territory we took from the Ukraine.

I believe firmly that most of the deaths were caused due to the German pressure, however the image is far from clear. I for instance heard that German units disguised as Romanian troops were deporting jews and Antonescu didn't even know about that.

Bear in mind though I do agree with you that genocide just isn't the thing can be justified. KInda like how I view the Rachni choices and the genophage cure choices in Mass Effect 1 and 2, it's too much to damn an entire species regardless of what they have done. That said Antonescu did not damn the entire Jewish population of Romania, most of the population of the inner kingdom was not murderered for instance.

Speaking of Mass Effect btw, with the departure of the former lead writter of ME1, co-lead writter of ME2 and lead writter of SWTOR I am ever more hopeful that ME3 will be good since he had no ****ing role in it.

As for the Holocaust itself. I think it was a show of extreme idiocy. Countries lost some of their best minds as well as good soldiers who were loyal to their country and would have made a difference in the war.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 18 février 2012 - 08:03 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Ahhh, I see now. So he went mainly for the forced labor camp route. While not a nice thing, from that perspective, at least, it was more understandable, and from a political standpoint, the best route he could take, given the circumstances and pressures he was facing. And while labor camps are pretty nasty things, they are not unusual in the theater of war and conquest. And alot different from targeted extermination. Barbarossa was a free for all, everyone and everything was game, Jew or not. But Romania was in a tough spot, at least Antonescu attempted and went for a less lethal route to keep the Germans off his back, and from turning on his own population. I do not know what the strength of your military was at the time, but its highly unlikely, given the strength of the german and Russian forces, that military defiance would have been an option for Romania.

Yes, that was a major bonus for the allies, especially the U.S., as a number of top scientists that were Jews immigrated and became crucial to our atomic bomb program. As well as other scholars in other fields. I agree fully with KoP, that exceptional human minds, regardless of their packaging, are the most valuable resource a nation has. And the Jews have long had a culture that values scholarship and learning, which is why so many were in the science fields. Not to mention the numerous non-Jewish minds who were killed for their ethnicity, political or religous beliefs, and so on. I often wonder how much further humanity would be along in the march to space colinization, or other great endeavors had these people lived and been allowed to use their full potential. We will never know, sadly. And I shall be doomed to spend the rest of my life on this planet of fools.

So ME's team has been shifted around? That does sound promising. Maybe that's why TIm is no longer...indoctrinated, or whatever. Hope they have come up with a better scenario than that. DA's team still leaves me with no hope for improvement/overhaul in their direction, and until something changes, my interest will remain low. Especially if the development cycle is short and rushed. How long has ME3 been in the works? Were they working on it before ME2 was released?

[Costin_Razvan]

I do not know what the strength of your military was at the time, but its highly unlikely, given the strength of the german and Russian forces, that military defiance would have been an option for Romania.

Most felt it was suicidal to try and defy BOTH Russians and Germans.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I do not know what the strength of your military was at the time, but its highly unlikely, given the strength of the german and Russian forces, that military defiance would have been an option for Romania.

Most felt it was suicidal to try and defy BOTH Russians and Germans.

It certainly would have been. And as I said, it is unlikely either side would have respected a plea for neutrality, given your strategic position and oil fields. The Polish tried, bless them, and failed, though I admire their guts. They didn't have much choice, given German Rhetoric of enslaving or displacing them as "inferior Slavs". And the Russians just wanted to devour their country and incorporate them. It came down to a choice of be crushed on your feet or on your knees. And they had the largest jewish population in Europe, I think. Half of the Holocaust victims were Polish Jews, if I remember correctly. With the Germans, at least, Romania wasn't on their racial hit list, being Roman/Gothic as opposed to Slavic. Very difficult position to be in, still.

The Swiss were one of the few countries that could stay neutral, because they had threats to back up neutrality with. They had a heavily armed populace that was expected to serve as the national militia, so the entire male population was its army. They also could blow up the train tunnels to Italy and France. And most importantly, their position of being the world's bank. Trying to take Switzerland would have ruffled feathers beyond Europe, and might have even brought U.S. involvement much earlier, something Hitler wanted to avoid.

Speaking of Europe and corruption, I'm living in one of the most corrupt countries in the Union, if not the most. The corruption in Spain is unbelievable, given that it's in Western Europe. I do not exaggerate when i say, every week in the local ex-pat paper, that there's a story of yet another politician/civil servant/official getting busted for some pretty heafty corruption activities. From accepting bribes and backhanders, to using the Guardia Civil to harrass people, involvement with the Russian mob, to abuse of power. And quite often, they were replacing someone who was also busted for corruption. And the people who replace them are just as shady. It's worse here in Andalucia, but it goes on everywhere. I really see this country being the next to go bust. If they go back to the peso, then Europe might get out of it better off.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The ultimate irony is that in terms of Y-DNA, Slavic countries have a higher rate of R1A Y-DNA (the Indo-European / Aryan Y-DNA), than Germany. So Russia is actually more "Aryan" than Germany.

The even bigger irony is that "Nordic" countries are predominantly I Y-DNA. Genetically speaking (and not phenotypically), Nordics are closer to Semitic peoples (who predominantly have J Y-DNA, specially J1) than Indo-Europeans, as I and J share a common ancestor, IJ before they separated (with J settling in what is now the Arabian peninsula and I settling in Scandinavia), 10,000 years ago IIRC.

Shows you how idiotic n@zi racial ideology was.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 février 2012 - 06:15 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Heh, yeah. The N@zis really had no clue of their own idealogy, or what an Aryan is. Based on Pseudosciences and the like. And how the migrations of humans really effected things. I remember a number of DNA mapping studies that showed the northern Europeans being descended from near-eastern ancestry that migrated about 10-15 thousands years ago and settled. The "Aryans" came from Asia, not Europe, and their descendants are predominantly in the region from northern India to Iran. And a far cry from the tall, blond "superman" type. More importantly, though, the new discoveries in DNA and genetics shows just how mongrelized everyone is. Humans never stay put in one place, and when humans meet, they do one of two things: fight or f*ck. More often than not, they prefer the latter, and when they do, they make babies. And given studies in genetic mapping, they made alot of babies. That ended up in the damndest places. I remember one guy on a show on the BBC, who was from some rural county in England, and looked very much typically English (pasty white skin, ruddy brown hair, ect). Yet his Y-DNA was of a type that originated in central Asia, one that is commonly found amongst Turkish peoples. That was fascinating, given that the man, as far back as he knew, came from a long line of English peasant farmers.

Hell, even though I'm of German/Austrian descent, I have a short build and slightly "slanty" eyes, which come from..the German side. Due to the fact that so many Asiatic peoples have invaded or migrated through the regions in which my ancestors came from, it would not surprise me in the least to learn that I have a Hun or Mongol horde in my family tree. I'd me more surprised if I didn't. Considering what a mixed lot the Germans and Austrians are, the N@zi ideology falls even flatter.

[Eternal Phoenix]

o_O

TOO MUCH DEPTH.

*Leaves thread*

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Hell, even though I'm of German/Austrian descent, I have a short build and slightly "slanty" eyes, which come from..the German side. Due to the fact that so many Asiatic peoples have invaded or migrated through the regions in which my ancestors came from, it would not surprise me in the least to learn that I have a Hun or Mongol horde in my family tree. I'd me more surprised if I didn't. Considering what a mixed lot the Germans and Austrians are, the N@zi ideology falls even flatter.

Finland surprisingly is "Asiatic" in terms of Y-DNA. Maybe one of your ancestor is from there?

But yea any ideaology that is based on race is bound to be very flawed. I'd argue that ideologies based on nations, cultures and language are also limited. But I lean naturally towards empires, aka the amalgamation of different peoples and cultures under one polity.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 février 2012 - 09:57 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

The Finns are Asiatic in Origin, one of a few non-Indo European languages in Europe. They are more closest related to the Hungarians, as well as the Turks. They tend towards alot of Scandinavian influence in appearance, given their neighbors and subsequent conquests. I believe their ancestors originiated in the Ural mountains, and migrated there around the time the Ino-Europeans migrated to Europe.

Tracing the migrations humanity has made is pretty fascinating stuff. That's how the species evolves, by staying mobile. One good thing about empires is that, when they collapse, they often leave a greater legacy to a greater number of people from which to rebuild upon. And they often and up preserving far more than they annihilate. Rome's legacy outshined its empire in many ways.

[Costin_Razvan]

 Don't have much to add on that really, besides Hitler was an idiot and all that.
In other news, new Alliance News Story, quarians this time around. blog.bioware.com/2012/02/17/alliancenewsnet3/

[Addai]

All Germanic and Celtic peoples came out of the steppe, and mixed a great deal with Mediterranean groups during the migrations and the Ice Ages when they were forced out of northern Europe. All ideologies of racial superiority are idiotic. People moved around, they slept around, it's a beautiful thing.  It wasn't just the N*zis, either- that eugenic BS was all the rage among US "progressives" as well.  The sad part is that the Aryan version is still preached by some people.  I encounter the idiots through my blog sometimes, being that I post Germanic and Norse things there.  They bring shame on our cultures.  I'd reach through the internet and slap them silly if I could.  As it is, I do try to reason with them when the opportunity comes along.

In other news, I finally reached Chapter 2 in TW2. Halle-freaking-lujah. I watched that stupid cutscene before the kayran battle so many times I ended up going to get a book to read while it played. I really wish they'd put the autosave after the intro cutscene. *grrr*

So far I've sided with Iorveth. You guys probably figured that. Pervy elf fancier that I am, I can't leave them alone. 

Modifié par Addai67, 19 février 2012 - 10:16 .

[alschemid]

@Costin: Do you know if Mass Effect 3 will be available on Steam? Or will it be Origin only?

[Costin_Razvan]

I watched that stupid cutscene before the kayran battle so many times I ended up going to get a book to read while it played. I really wish they'd put the autosave after the intro cutscene. *grrr*

Uhm...there is a skip function for you know. Ain't surprised you picked Iorveth though.

alschemid: Origin only.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 19 février 2012 - 12:59 .