Firestarter

The problem is simple. Bicycles are gay, spandex is gay, and bicycle helmets are gay, and we like manly Presidents. This isn't France. John Kerry is an unappealing blend of George Costanza and Niles Crane with the charm of neither. His doleful eyes always make him look like he's about to burst into tears, and it doesn't help that his wife is (by far) the more assertive of the two. Can you picture President Bush saying "Yes dear, no dear, yes dear" to the First Lady as she berates him for ordering a substandard caviar? Can you picture Kerry saying "Yes dear, no dear, yes dear" to Teresa? Which couple do you think is more likely to have signed a prenuptial agreement? Case closed.

Dido, White Flag "I promise I'm not trying to make your life harder, or return to where we were But I will go down with this ship, and I won't put my hands up and surrender There will be no white flag above my door; I'm in love and always will be..."

... I feel ill.

Okay, let me specify what I'm looking for over here: 1. Random battles - gotta have 'em. I don't like games like Bahamut Lagoon where all the battles are set and you can't just wander around and look for trouble (and gold, and XP). 2. Stats allocation - this is a secondary priority, but still pretty important since random battles are fairly standard in console RPGs. Most games have automatic level-ups and automatic stats progression, like Chrono Trigger, but I like to make some decisions in character development beyond just buying the best equipment. The skills system in Star Ocean 2 is a good example. If the stats progression is set, it has to be standardised - I can't stand random stat increases, as in Lufia II. 3. Good battle system - the 2D fighting system in Tales of Phantasia is ideal, and the grid layout of Treasure Hunter G/FF Tactics are all right, but I'd settle for the usual Chrono Trigger/Final Fantasy action bars if the rest of the game made up for it. 4. Added customisation - anything like the gem-socketing system of Diablo II, or smithing, mixing, or creating items is a definite plus. Phantasy Star IV had it, as did Tales of Phantasia to a lesser degree. If anyone with more console experience than I have could help me out here, I'd appreciate it. And if you could give me an idea of how the title you have in mind stacks up in each category, that'd be great. Thanks.

Wow, so many games, so little time... honestly, I'm a bit overwhelmed by all the recommendations, but I think I've come to a decision - if I understand correctly, the PS2 can run PS1 games as well? - so I'll pick up a PS2 on Monday. KOTOR, FFX, and Revelations in particular sound great. Thanks a lot, guys - you were all really helpful, and I'd never have been able to make an informed decision without you. I'll let you know how things pan out ASAP.

How the hell did I get pulled into this?

Jer - FF10 still has save points, I'd imagine? Are there any characters who die suddenly (or become permanently unavailable in some other way for storyline reasons), like Aeris in FF7? That really annoyed me; I'd spent ages building her up and when she died I just quit the game in disgust. The battle system and character development sound great, though. Thanks, I'll check it out. Rant - could you go into a bit more detail on XenoGears? I've heard good things about it and read a couple of reviews, but is there anything in particular that really makes it stand out in any of the aspects I mentioned above? Thanks. Andrew - my wife just picked up an SNES (so older games are probably better, at least for right now) and I'm thinking about buying one of the new systems, though I'm not sure which yet. Is there a particular platform which tends to get more of the kind of RPGs I'm looking for? Bruiser - yeah, tell me about it. Some people just can't handle having their little feelings hurt, it seems, and feel the need to make petty sniping attacks months later if I venture onto what they appear to regard as their "turf." Whatever, I'm just here to talk about games...

Sorry, I just imagined you were as ignorant about games as you are about history, basic logic, morality, politics, common sense, and pretty much everything other than Batman comics. Searching the forum wouldn't make much sense (although I've browsed a bit already) because I'm looking for specific elements in a game rather than general comments about whether one particular game is better than another. So if you aren't going to be helpful, kindly shut up. And if you feel like flaming me, take it to NHB. I'm waiting here for someone else to respond to my original topic.

Anyone else? Preferably someone who knows what the letters "RPG" stand for?

Kerry on Meet the Press: "Never has the United States of America been held in as low a regard internationally - and polls have shown this - as we are today. We're not trusted and this administration is not liked." Maybe we're liked, but not well-liked...

I can't imagine a woman demanding innocents be slaughtered in her name.

Thanks, Spicy. I'm not trying to attack everyone who doesn't share my religion in a broad-based way, or claim that they're all following false doctrines and are thus damned to hell (as some evangelicals might - not to name names) - I'm just trying to show that honest theological debate isn't a simplistic, irreducible matter of faith. It really does matter if the Bible contradicts itself. It matters if it appears to say that God commits horrific genocides one minute, and commands you to turn the other cheek the next. You can't dismiss it by saying "He must have been right to kill all those people because he can't be wrong." It's not that easy. Some acts can't be justified; it doesn't matter if you're God or a short Austrian painter. If you posit that 1. God committed genocide (because the Bible is the inerrant word of God), and 2. God is always right (because he's God, and God can't be wrong) then you are nothing more or less than an apologist for a mass murderer. Frankly, if a Christian attempts to reconcile such cowardice and degenerate evil with a megalomaniacal view of himself as "Christ's ambassador," he ought to be recalled. Such hypocrisy is bad for public relations.

No. Sin is individual, not collective. A nation cannot sin. That's a privilege reserved for a single, solitary human being. Not at all. I'm "operating out of a base" (sic) that man has to prove himself good or evil on his own, by thought, action, and intent. A newborn infant cannot be good or evil because it lacks self-awareness, knowledge, and power. It can't make meaningful choices. Murdering such an infant is an act of evil. And according to the Bible, God has committed such evil. So either the Bible is wrong or God is. The only reasonable option is to bet on God and assume the Bible has been corrupted by its innumerable writers, compilers, translators, revisers, and editors. Oh really? You seem to be confusing judgement with power. My judgement (whatever it may be, after I hear God's side of the story) will stand regardless of what God might try to do to me. Toss me in a lake of fire? (Ooh, scare me!) Doesn't matter. If God were an evil child-murdering bastard before that, he'd still be an evil child-murdering bastard afterwards. No punishment he could inflict would change the facts. Thing is, you're confusing yourself with God. Anytime I criticise him, or judge him (provisionally) you feel the need to come to his defense and shriek ever louder that He has the Final Power on That Day (hey, capitalising random words really does make an argument more compelling!) to Damn my soul To Everlasting Torment and damnation by His Divine Grace while The Holy light Of Salvation shines Upon, Envelops, And transfigures faithful Christians Like You. Presumably a couple of cherubs are going to be busy wanking you off as well. Relax. I doubt God's really as insecure as you are. If he needed to resort to bullying and punishment, if he refused to explain himself and just replied "What you think doesn't matter because I'm God and I SAY SO!" whenever anyone criticised him, he'd be a pretty worthless god to follow in the first place. I guess what I'm trying to say is this: maybe God did order Saul to slaughter the Amalekites, and Joshua, the people of Ai. Maybe he killed the first-born in Egypt and maybe he didn't. Maybe he was just saddled with the blame for man's atrocities; it certainly wouldn't have been the last time and it probably wouldn't have been the first, either. But whatever the case, to defend such hypotheticals - to claim that everything's all right no matter what the facts, because he's God and if he wants to murder children that's just dandy and here, I'll hold the little bastards down while you cut their throats, Lord Jesus - is not only ignorant but corrupt, degenerate, evil, and yes, un-Christian.

I'm not sure which irritates me more, the simplistic (though often justified) attacks on Christianity or the circle-the-wagons mentality SP exemplifies. Probably the latter. This is nonsense. You're being overly defensive and granting an invalid point when you don't need to, and then tying yourself up in knots trying to defend the indefensible. chaosrage is just plain wrong here, and you're merely adding to the confusion. No, God can't snap his fingers and eliminate sin. Sin is an inevitable consequence of free will. And if God didn't grant his creations free will, the act of creation would be meaningless. We'd all be little Gods running around the world, perfect in thought and deed, without even the capacity for error or sin, and in the final analysis God wouldn't have created anything. He'd just have extended and shaped himself in a new way. So either you can condemn the act of creation itself as cruel (arguably valid, though moot) or you can accept the fact that God couldn't have done anything differently. Omnipotence and omniscience don't transcend basic logic. And you're wrong here. This is what really gets me. God has "every right" to butcher people (including women, children, and infants) who choose not to venerate him? What a load of reeking bullshit. By his own rules no such right can exist. Ever. The Bible is flatly self-contradictory in philosophical and theological terms. I don't consider that an argument against God's existence or New Testament tenets; the world is God's creation and he can do whatever he likes with it. But I'll judge him as he judges me, and one day I'll demand an explanation. If you just meekly accept God's (admittedly alleged) evil and condemn only man's, you're a coward, and you're sacrificing your supposedly Christian principles on an altar of fear, blind faith, and stupidity. Informed faith requires us to question everything. Even God.

I've got to agree with the Church on this one, frankly (although I agree more with Kerry's opinion on abortion than with hers, so no, I'm not just bashing Democrats here; and yes, I do disagree with the Church's position on the war and the death penalty as well). Abortion is only a political issue because it's an issue of morals and faith. (When does life begin? Whose life is more valuable, and is it ever right to trade one for another? Is all life sacred or not? Who has ultimate title to our bodies, we ourselves or God?) As such the Church has every right to take a position on the issue, according to her understanding of God's will (and remember that catechism that says the Apostolic Succession is expressly guided by the Holy Spirit?) and divine precedent. Agree or disagree with the opinion itself, it's simply not arguable that she has the absolute right to exclude from communion (which is blessing, forgiveness, and tacit endorsement) people who advocate and would be willing to legislate and enforce a point of view fundamentally opposed to hers.

Thanks for that revelation, Mayor. As I recall, it didn't do much good for approximately 3000 Americans, either.

I didn't even realise that was aimed at me - I just saw a post by Jobber, shrugged, and moved on. Now that I have made the connexion, though, I believe the necessary and sufficient response is: Go to hell. But because I'm such a nice person, I'll point out in addition that Mike is entirely correct, and also that there's another world of difference between reporting, researching, or organising humanitarian projects (which, it seems, is what the Japanese were doing) and shrilly advocating the right of terrorist cockroaches to murder decent people, and making it easier for them to do it (which is what the "human shields" and "solidarity supporters" do). The latter is providing aid and comfort to the enemy. The former is not.

Richard Cohen whines, mystified by the fact that Americans would support a man of principle, in an unintentionally hilarious column demonstrating conclusively how completely out of touch with reality the Democrats really are. You might want to read Peggy Noonan's column, Mr Cohen. She gives a reasonable explanation for the facts which confound you: "I think Mr. Bush is admired and liked after three years of war, terror, strife and recession because people have eyes... You can agree or disagree with him, but it is hard to doubt his guts, his seriousness and his commitment. And Americans respect guts, seriousness and commitment."

... Seconded.

I really don't understand foreign people.

I thought that was Patti Russo in the video, and she definitely did do the vocals. If it was someone else, where can I find her name? (And phone number...)

I've been looking for it for a while. I'd better get a link if you find it, buddy, or I swear I'll kick your ass so hard... <hears the rasp of the "cater to every fantasy I've got" line and swoons> God, that voice, recalling her face and her body just melts my spine. We won't even mention the scene with the female vampires (or whatever) licking and biting her neck and body and lips...

Her voice is pretty damn good, breathy and deep, still maintaining a delicate tone (I'm listening to it now) and excellent rhythm, but to be honest, it wasn't really her voice I was talking about.

I'm not all that fond of Meat Loaf, but the girl who sang that line was fucking amazing.

I'm over two inches taller than you. Half a foot in heels. I find this vastly amusing.