Doesnt really matter for MMO players though even if Helios days were numbered in SWG.He'd just move to and proceed to screw up another mmo .

I mean geez, mmo devs are the plague that never ends. Thye do horrible jobs were they are, and then when the game gets sick enough, they just move on to the next host.

They never die.They never face a cure. They just go on, and on ,and on doing harm to the things they end up attached to.

Terrorists are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention .

In order to be covered they would have to meet ALL of its requirements.NOT just the ones their surporters choose to single out.If someone can point out even ONE reguirement they do fail to meet, they simple are not covered.

Now findiing such a requirement is easy.

"Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict."

Theres one reguirement found in under 2 minutes that terrorists fail to meet.

Now that doesnt mean its okay to torture them.It simply means that they are NOT covered by the geneva conventions.

The problem is , as always, the laws are so out of date that they dont cover the modern issues explicitly.

Add in that the VAST majority of people are motivated in how they interpret a given law based on their own biases and its very easy to see why international law itself is flawed.Which shows beyond question in the failure of nations to settle on a simple definition of the simple term "terrorist"

Its one of the main reasons why the U.N. is the complete joke it is.

Yes, that trailer was awesome.

Perhaps they should go into the business of making animated movies.

The one thought that occurs to me, and stays with me though is "How much the actual gameplay will NOT resemble the movie ".

So yes, the trailer was awesome.But to me, it just shows they didnt think the ACTUAL GAMEPLAY was exciting enough to use as an advertisement for the actual game.

 I firmly beleive the UN is a complete joke.

I cant think of a single issue they have solved.In fact if you take the time to look closely, you'll see that many of the worlds trouble spots are results of the UN being involved.

They took it upon themselves to create borders and countries as they saw fit .The borders of the Middle East were almost entirely created by the UN.Along with those borders were supposed to come the upholding of certain promises.Most of which never were delivered upon.Like most of the things the UN proclaims, issues resolutions about,or gets involved in.Its all talk and wasted money.

Can you imagine a law enforcement agency that strives to reach a middle ground with those breaking the law instead of striving to capture and punish them ?

The day you can picture such an agency of such abosolute loonacy  ,you will be able to begin to understand exactly what the UN is.

"Otherwise the battle between the French, the British, the Spanish, spreaded over more than a century make no sense."

By "battle" i can only assume you mean WARS.And it makes perfect sense.At the end of those wars the rulers involved conceded defeat/acknowledged victory and redefined ownership of any lands involved as victory and loss dictated.And in fact many were final.Which was something that american indians wars(vs other american indians) were not meant to achieve.

In the case of wars waged by american indians against american indians the indians didnt concede ownership.They couldnt as they didnt believe in ownership.They felt they had the right to fight for the same land anytime they had need of that land.In effect, the wars never really ended.This is why "counting coup" and horse raids were so much a part of the american indian cultures.And inversely these cultural traits were why their wars didnt really end and were so low intensity.Force of arms was one of  the constant deciders in rights.it was totally acceptable for the american indians to steal horses from enemy tribes.

Im trying to find a very simple way to say it all.Bare with me if i fail.

American indian cultures allowed a constant state of warfare in which enemy tribes were forever enemy tribes and as a member of one tribe you had an open right to fight or steal from the other tribe as you wanted or needed.

European region cultures didnt aim for this constant state of warfare.If you went into a french territory as an englishman and stole some french horses during peace time,you were a criminal who was english to the french.AND often a criminal who was english to the english.Not just an englishman fighting the enemy .

Hmm, maybe :Europeans fought wars in an attempt to make things final.American indians fought wars for short term gains,that they fully expected to have to fight for again.

Fighting for Ownership is the attempt at a final solution.Fighting for Right of use is the attempt at a tempory solution.

Yea, i like that . I think that last line somes it up very nicely.

Okay, first off most american indian tribes DID NOT beleive in land ownership.So the land could not be stolen from them.

What they did beleive in ,was the right to use the land.This "right of use" often was gained by force against their neighbors ,who just happened to be american indians themselves.And later the american indians tried to keep using thier system after the europeans came.

The indian tribes where however fairly matched(militarily) and willing to fight season after season for the use of the land if it was necessary.Their wars were for the most part small scale and pretty much never ending.A skirmish ended with one tribe having the right to use the land and the other planning to regain that right.

The europeans were far superior militarily and had the belief that they were entitled to the land they won forever, that once won ,they owned it and shouldnt have to defend it agian.Their wars were higher intensity and fought to reach a conclusion.

Simply put, the europeans came along and fought for the land ,much the same way the indians were already doing with each other.The real differences were that the europeans didnt lose very often and fought for what they thought to be a more final conclussion.Permanant ownership.

Its not too hard to understand why they do this.

Its the same old " if you cant do something right, make sure no else is around who can do it right either" method of succeeding in business.

It strikes me that there are some VERY low standards for success being expressed here.

Look at the customer bases of the early mmos.The market share was completely untapped and yet they scored such low customer bases.

The mmos themselves were not of high quality and they garnered a very small share of the possible market share.

Than look at Wow.Its comes along and blows them all out of the water customer base wise (except the asian mmos,which already were scoring customer bases way above the western mmos).

It seems like to me ,many of you are using how badly other mmos have done,to say "look at this mmo,it was a success becuase it wasnt quite as badly done as the others"

Thats kind of like going into an area in which you know theres a large amount of infectious deseases with four other people.Than saying your trip was a success becuase you only came back inflicted with 1 desease,while the others in your goupr all came back with 3 or more deseases.

They are simply  NOT getting it right when it comes to MMO design.And they are getting worse rather than better.And its reflected in just how badly most mmos are doing.

Too many "visions" not enough common sense and hard work.

No, there arent.And for good reason.

And even worse,except for standouts like WoW,the "new" MMOs are getting less and less successful.

Look at the first MMOs on the market, many of them are still going.Not strongly,but still surviving none the less.

Now look at all the more recent mmos.Look at how many of them have failed, and are currently failing (soon to be dead).

And its not becuase the market share is all tied down already,its because they dev teams are turning out games more and more that are still in the design phase when they go retail.

Forget about paying for betas. That was the good ole days.NOW your gonna be asked to pay for games in which there never was so much as a finished design concept to beta test.

Wow, if the fact that they STILL cant see that NGE was HUGE mistake,and the best they CAN do is claim it was just the "delivery" of it that was bad ???? Well what more needs to be said or seen ?

They took a slightly successful game and drove away MOST of its player base with a design change decision that was so insanely bad ,it was just short in measure of stupidity to setting their own servers on fire .

And the only thing they can "see" as something they did wrong was "delivery" ???

Its soooooo very sad that the thing hurting MMO's the most is the people making them.They set new standards of coporate incompetance on a regular basis.

No matter what happens to E3,if it gets smaller or grows even larger,it will still be what is always was.

A useless marketing event for the sake of marketing alone.All hype and little to no actual content benefitting the prospective customer.

It as bad as one of those shows the actors run in which they all slap each other on the backside and proclaim to the world how awesome a job they are doing.And of course the seasons in question movies were mostly bottom barrel.

Much like the games are each season lately.

All hype and buzz words meant to sell a product.And the worse the product,the more hype its given.

NO real benefit to the prospective customers at all.

Game industry would be better off staying home and actually putting the time ,effort and money into actually making the game, instead of making the hype.

Sorry, but i dont think either company, Mythic as an independant or EA, are capable intelligent companies.

EA kills most things it touches and Mythic puts out below average MMOs.

The really scary thing is, these two companies together are far more likely to accentuate their negatives than miracuously turn into some kind of " good"  conglomerate company.

Simply said.

Mythic and its products will go even futher downhill.

EA will become even more disliked.

And as always, the customers will be talked into following and buying the next unimaginiative,flawed,bugged,unfinished box of empty promises these companies can throw out the door.