TheFirstMonk

I'm excited to know what Survival is like. I wonder if it'll be the survivors in some area and have to hold out as long as possible and scored on how long they last.

 

Unfortunately, it seems that the DLC is going to cost some monies too.

Yeah, Survival could be like that zombie mini game in COD where you fight endless waves of zombies. It could be something entirely different though (I hope). I don't mind if it's going to cost some money as long as they keep it small (like 10-15 dollars) and as long as the content is worth it. If not, I might not buy it right away until the price dropped a bit.

Btw, I like your sig.

Happy Birthday.

I'm glad it elicited the same "HOLY. ****. IS THAT WHO/WHAT I THINK IT IS??!?!!?" reaction that I got the first time I saw it. So special, it just had to be shared

 

(*clap clap* for the Inner Space reference. Good on ya.)

 

Not only have I seen that pic before, I once saw that movie. I'm too lazy to look it up but it was her and Dan Ackroyd(?) as cops who go undercover in a sex resort of some sort.

 

And no amount of alcohol or therapy has been able to "bleach" that from my memory.

Lol, me too, Shropshire. I didn't see the whole thing, but I saw about 5 minutes of the film on Comedy Central once. I was so confused when I saw her. I did catch a glimpse of a young Laura Harring, and it probably would have been a better movie if she was starring in that getup.

I looked up the film just now on imdb.com, and it's called "Exit to Eden (1994)," so if anyone sees that name on a list of programs, beware.

I rented the unrated DVD version this past weekend. I was mildly entertained for a while, but it just didn't have the same "darkness" and the action was surprisingly flat-feeling.

 

The movie did have one big positive aspect though - it reminded me that I never played Max Payne 2, so I bought it for $7 on steam and am playing through it now. LOVE IT!

Heh, I didn't get the game, but I did play the demo of Max Payne 2 a couple years ago. I thought it was pretty fun. I won't buy it now because I'm thinking about getting Stranglehold instead (kinda similar play mechanics, but I'm a fan of John Woo...so Stranglehold it is. )

My best time in Dead Man Walking mode was 10 minutes, 44 seconds.

Happy (belated) birthdays, guys.

Happy (belated) birthdays, guys.

My new computer works now. I got the replacement video card last Thursday. I wanted to test it for about a week before posting about it here in case it went bad. So far it's doing okay.

Thanks to everyone who helped me pick out components, gave advice on putting it together, and gave me tech support with the bad video card I had:

http://www.gamrs.co/forums/in...showtopic=37623

http://www.gamrs.co/forums/in...showtopic=37746

http://www.gamrs.co/forums/in...showtopic=37788

Way to get my hopes up.

Yes, you must be disappointed that it's a missed opportunity for you to run to a safe place while we battle the zombies on the streets, and then shut the door in our faces while saying, "See you guys later!"

Um... I fell ill. Very ill. Was in the hospital until today. Sry about the lack of communication but I wasn't really awake until yesterday, so we will just move these maps over to this Saturday.

 

 

 

 

 

Shaftiel

Sorry to hear that, Shaft. Hopefully you are feeling much better.

Happy Birthday. I remember reading about the Challenger in history classes and seeing it every now and then on the news (anniversaries of the tragedy mostly) growing up. Try to enjoy today though.

Lol, I laughed so hard at the end. "Hooray for you!"

I think I'll stick with giving myself the thumbs up sign in the mirror. Much, much cheaper to do.

Wow, that tank has super reach.. I will need to remember that next time I'm a tank. I'll start recording demos. When I play VS it's with friends but we're all really good. So I knocked 3 of them off the roof. Another time I punched a lift and incapped all four of them. I have no idea how it happened, it was just in my way.

 

That bug fixed itself for me. Ummm.. Not sure really. One day I had the bug and the next it was gone. Maybe just try a restart?

Lol, that sounds pretty cool. I once spawned as a Tank at the saferoom door on the first level of No Mercy. I ended up incapping all 4 survivors (1 was a bot) in the saferoom. I was beating up the guy playing Bill in the saferoom, and his teammates were lagging behind. They closed the door behind them without realizing I was in it. I just ran around the room hitting them.

Yeah, I tried restarting. Unfortunately, the bug seems to show up even if I exit the game and rejoin or restart Steam. This bug started to show up for me after the first major update for L4D after Christmas (the one that fixed a lot of the exploits). I dunno, I guess it's something in my files that's missing or something.

You liked those? I wish JackieChan was recording earlier today. He killed all 4 players in 1 hit lol. (he used a tree)

Heh, that tree sounds like it was the huge tree trunk in Blood Harvest. I saw this video when I was looking at the two I posted above:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WldVroXcoNk

The tank takes out all 4 survivors using a car in No Mercy.

Happy Chinese New Year.

Happy Chinese New Year!

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ox_(zodiac)

Thanks for the link, Ebil. I didn't know there were elements attached to Chinese zodiacs. The Year of the Ox is my year, so it was fun to read up on it.

Heh, I saw these videos on youtube. They're videos of a guy using a tank to take down all the survivors. I like the way he edited the music and the video together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXvWUWUOBvk...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rY-XLHuFRU

There's two different videos (3 if you count the 2 segments in the second video as separate).

By the way, I'm getting a bug in L4D where at the end of each map, there's a segment in the loading screen between levels where the Survivors have their stats shown. For example, who took the least damage, how many infected they killed, etc. Depending on who has the highest scores, a portrait of Bill, Louis, Francis or Zoey is shown. Sometimes the portrait doesn't show up, so instead of getting a picture, I get a blank spot. Everything else is there, stats and stuff, but the picture isn't sometimes. It seems to be random but consistent.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to mention that the second video has some language in there that might be against gc rules. Some of the audio of the survivors seems to be recorded, and at one or two instances, one of them swears.

I could be wrong, but I think PChan is referring to using methods similar in nature (i.e. inhumane); I don't think he meant the US was literally raping women and children. He'll probably post here later to clarify what he meant.

 

I do not consider prisoners wearing women's underwear on their head or terrorists being waterboarded anywhere similar to the so called "protectors" using the women and children of the country that they are in as their own personal sex slaves. The moral equivalency game doesn't fly with me.

 

by the way, edit up your quotes a bit. There is too much confusion with that.

I know. I'm still not used to the multi quote feature. Working on it.

He's been scrimming a lot in CS recently from what I've seen. Maybe there was a schedule conflict.

Yeah, Preacher recommended that same card to me, and I (finally) got a working one recently. It's pretty cool.

I think if you wanted to get a new fan for your video card in the future, they are called aftermarket coolers (?). Someone here probably knows more than I do.

frying jump kick!

I was actually going to write "Kung foo kittiez!" but it seemed too obvious.

 

 

if the UN peacekeepers did that, then what they did is wrong. but that does not excuse the US government from doing the same thing; what they did was wrong and constitutes of torture, be a man, step up, admit to it

 

So the US is regularly raping women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

I love it when people try to equate the US to terrorists in the acts a few idiots do.

I could be wrong, but I think PChan is referring to using methods similar in nature (i.e. inhumane); I don't think he meant the US was literally raping women and children. He'll probably post here later to clarify what he meant.

For the first part, I thought you didn't mean to say, "Considering..." because it seems you're describing a reason not to keep Gitmo open since I interpreted your previous arguments as generally to keep it open or at least long enough to prosecute the "real" terrorists. Arguing to keep non-terrorists incarcerated permanently because they will eventually evolve into a threat sounds like creating an unnecessary problem (incarcerate person indefinitely, abuse/mistreat person, person becomes terrorist, incarcerate person, repeat).

"Considering the fact" is just a way to start a sentence. I don't understand why you spent 2 posts dwelling on my choice of sentence structure. I think you may have missed the "meat" of my posts. No biggie, but moving on...

 

I know that the recidivism rate of inmates of the American prison system is known to be quite high, but I still don't see how that's a reason to keep people in Gitmo indefinitely from that sentence you wrote above, "Considering....". It would seem to be a better alternative to try to avoid "creating" terrorists out of people who originally have nothing to do with terrorist activities, which is what that sentence seems to imply; I would find it plausible that some of these detainees were originally not threats to national security until after their treatment at Gitmo. Old stories like Patrick Chamusso's are not unheard of. Again, this is an argument for shutting down Gitmo.

On still dwelling on that word... Moving on...

 

(You also pointed out the 11% out of the 520 released as being confirmed or suspected terrorists (89% currently designated as non-terrorists), which would contradict your earlier estimate of 25 out of 200 something as being innocent with the majority being possible terrorists if potentially released. Hehe, jk. )

Your point here is flawed. Let me explain. Since 7 October 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantainamo. Of these, approximately 520 have been released. 11% of those 520 turned out to be terrorists AFTER they were released. As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain. 50-60 of those 270 men (some Uighurs) are cleared for release but remain in Gitmo because China and the other countries they came from want them dead for acts of terrorism in their home nation and no one else wants them alive. Why won't other counties take them back? You must ask yourself this. Maybe it's because they are dangerous since many of them are trained terrorists or perhaps criminals of various other crimes. I assume that perhaps a small number (I just threw out the number 25. It's not based on any facts) of them are innocent and the rest are BAD people (terrorists, criminals, etc.). Perhaps you can help me with an actual number, but I don't think there is any legitimate way to support an actual figure of who's good/who's bad. Yet, I do know that 99% of these people I would not want living next door to me.

 

I would not trust an internet poll unless they showed proof that their sample was random. If it was a poll conducted properly without people choosing themselves as participants, I apologize. (I was taught in statistics that most internet polls have nonrandom participants, and therefore are flawed.) As I've mentioned before, the numbers could be more or less than 60-40; it may be 60-40, but there is no way to know for sure without controlling as many variables as possible.

I don't trust those polls either. I spent 4 years in college majoring in this so spare me the technicalities. The reason I post those polls is because I find the people who vote on them laughable. I find it laughable that 70% of CNN poll voters back Obama's decision to close down Gitmo without really thinking over what to do with the people in that place. I find it even more laughable since a couple days later, these same general voters changed their mind by 10%. Perhaps it was due to McCain's interview with Larry King, or perhaps they finally thought it over logically rather than jumping on the "Obama train." As I said before, I'm extremely glad Obama is our president, but closing down Gitmo without a plan is not a wise move.

It's not a question of whether or not they deserve it. It's more of a question of whether or not we have the authority to withhold or violate their basic rights. When we grant a body of government or a group of interrogators moral absolution for inhuman methods, such as torture and unlawful imprisonment of suspects, our judgment is placed in doubt, and justice becomes muddled with revenge; the difference between the two is that justice demands order, whereas revenge only encourages further chaos.

You mention authority here, but as I said earlier, one fifth of the men in Gitmo are not wanted by any country, except China, who wants them dead. So, who's really violating these people's basic rights? America, because we are holding them? China (or whatever other country these terrorists were taken from), because they will be executed if brought back in their country? The rest of the world, for not stepping in to "help?" The UN, because they don't seem to care? You decide, but the fact is that these are not good people if nobody wants them and nobody knows what to do with them. Albania is the only country to have so far accepted Guantanamo detainees, taking in five members of China's Uighur ethnic minority on humanitarian grounds in 2006.

 

 

Food for thought on treatment of Gitmo prisoners:

Supporters of controversial techniques have declared that certain protections of the Third Geneva Convention do not apply to al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters, claiming that Article IV of the Geneva convention only applies to uniformed soldiers and guerrillas who wear distinctive insignia, bear arms openly, and abide by the rules of war.

The "Considering..." was actually supposed to refer to your entire sentence (I used the ellipses to refer to the rest of the sentence to keep the post shorter) and the argument you were proposing; I wasn't criticizing you for using that one word, lol. My bad. You honestly thought I was focusing on the word "considering." No wonder you seem annoyed; I probably would be too.

As for the 11% out of 520 vs the 25 out of 200 something joke I made, I know that you were just making a possible estimate of 25 out of 200 something as an example of a possible proportion of innocent versus guilty for an argument to keep Gitmo open. I was merely making fun of the fact that the proportions/percentages of both cases happened to be in the opposite directions numerically of each other in terms of the innocent/ guilty (yes, I find coincidences funny). Hence, the "Hehe, jk." at the end.

I read that article about detainee-turned-terrorists that you referred to. That's why I mentioned Patrick Chamusso's case, which was documented a while back. The possibility that Gitmo "creates" terrorists out of mistreated prisoners who don't originally have an terrorist affiliation is plausible, which is one of the reasons to close it. It wouldn't be an accurate claim on my part that all 11% of the 520 engaged in terrorist activities after their release because of their treatment at Gitmo, but removing that variable is important to reduce the number that did.

I also wasn't lecturing you on statistics; I was merely clarifying that more people may support or oppose your viewpoint, and that the internet does not generate reliable polls, which you have now made clear that you already know. I wasn't being intentionally condescending if that's what you thought because your response "spare me the technicalities" sounds like you're agitated at what I posted.

As for the "authority" part you mentioned, I was referring to the part of the post where you wrote about them not deserving fair treatment. Fair treatment isn't something that can really be justifiably withheld because in doing so, justice is lost, and our judgment is placed in question by the international community, which is what my quote was describing.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/178856

Terrorists like al-Nashiri, who took part in the USS Cole bombing, are eluding justice as a result of the violation of their rights at Gitmo; they claim their treatment at Gitmo as the reason for their confessions. Therefore, they now have a loophole to discard evidence since they can claim information was extracted by force.

Addressing the rest of your response on the violation of rights, keeping prisoners in Gitmo indefinitely is no more a viable solution than releasing them with no place to go. I do not support the idea of granting them all asylum in the United States or simply releasing the remaining prisoners without analysis or foresight as to where they are placed. I believe we also agree on the fact that the Obama administration has to have a comprehensive plan on what they're going to do with the prisoners after the closure, but I still think Gitmo cannot be a permanent facility to house suspected or uncharged terrorists for an undetermined amount of time because it impedes our pursuit of convicting actual terrorists on legitimate grounds.

I have heard the argument that the Geneva Convention does not apply to Al Qaeda and such organizations because they have no uniforms or insignias before, and it's a disturbing interpretation. If we believe the idea that the Geneva Convention does not apply to certain groups of people in a conflict, we not only allow ourselves to do whatever we want to them: we start to believe we are justified by the law to do so. Ignoring the Geneva Convention would create a lack of restraint in practicing certain methods of physical and mental punishment and would erase boundaries that are meant to limit ourselves. These boundaries do not hinder us from carrying out justice; they prevent us from granting ourselves power that we should not have.

In addition, after reading some of the posts here, I find that some of the meaning in my posts is lost or misinterpreted by others, which leads to misunderstandings. I admit some shortcomings on my part since I can only devote so much time to attempt to write thoroughly and succinctly about politics and post it on the internet; it is difficult for me to carry a conversation in online forums apparently.

I don't think you meant to say this, "Considering the fact that they've been in that place with terrorists for so long makes me wonder as well if they'll end up turning into terrorists anyways since I'm sure they must hate all Americans now," because it sounds like you're suggesting that keeping people who were not originally terrorists in Gitmo would convert them to terrorism because of their ill treatment and/ or proximity to actual terrorists. If this were indeed a possibility, it would be a reason to stop admitting people into Gitmo; otherwise, a cycle of conversion would be self perpetuating. (I'm not being sarcastic or disrespectful. )

 

 

I did mean to say that. My logic on this is based on the American prison system. When "suspected offenders" are released from prison, how many of them do you think commit a crime and end right back in prison?

Sixty-seven percent of former inmates released from U.S. state prisons in 1994 were back in jail within three years, according to a study conducted by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa060702a.htm

Keep in mind, that 67% are dumb enough to be caught twice. Makes you wonder if the rest are just getting away with their crimes.

 

Funny thing too is today CNN's top story is about that same point I brought up last night.

Detainee-turned-terrorist numbers raise eyebrows

 

Questions arise over report 61 Gitmo detainees have returned to terrorist activities

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/24/git...nees/index.html

 

The report, released days before President Obama took office, says 18 former detainees are confirmed to have participated in attacks, and 43 are suspected to have been involved in attacks. That figure would be about 11 percent of the roughly 520 prisoners who have been released from the Guantanamo facility, which Obama on Thursday ordered be shut down.

 

Oh, and today's poll on CNN says "Has Obama acted too hastily in ordering the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility?"

40% say YES, 60% say NO..... This is just 2 days after the last poll that asked the same question, lol. I wonder why that other 10% changed their mind.

For the first part, I thought you didn't mean to say, "Considering..." because it seems you're describing a reason not to keep Gitmo open since I interpreted your previous arguments as generally to keep it open or at least long enough to prosecute the "real" terrorists. Arguing to keep non-terrorists incarcerated permanently because they will eventually evolve into a threat sounds like creating an unnecessary problem (incarcerate person indefinitely, abuse/mistreat person, person becomes terrorist, incarcerate person, repeat).

I know that the recidivism rate of inmates of the American prison system is known to be quite high, but I still don't see how that's a reason to keep people in Gitmo indefinitely from that sentence you wrote above, "Considering....". It would seem to be a better alternative to try to avoid "creating" terrorists out of people who originally have nothing to do with terrorist activities, which is what that sentence seems to imply; I would find it plausible that some of these detainees were originally not threats to national security until after their treatment at Gitmo. Old stories like Patrick Chamusso's are not unheard of. Again, this is an argument for shutting down Gitmo.

(You also pointed out the 11% out of the 520 released as being confirmed or suspected terrorists (89% currently designated as non-terrorists), which would contradict your earlier estimate of 25 out of 200 something as being innocent with the majority being possible terrorists if potentially released. Hehe, jk. )

I would not trust an internet poll unless they showed proof that their sample was random. If it was a poll conducted properly without people choosing themselves as participants, I apologize. (I was taught in statistics that most internet polls have nonrandom participants, and therefore are flawed.) As I've mentioned before, the numbers could be more or less than 60-40; it may be 60-40, but there is no way to know for sure without controlling as many variables as possible.

We need to let a judge who understands the US constituation decide whether we have the right to detain someone.

 

That is IF (a very big IF by the way) they are tried under US law. They may be tried under international law, perhaps foreign law, or perhaps no law at all.

 

Secondly, I disagree with you. These people don't deserve "fair treatment."

It's not a question of whether or not they deserve it. It's more of a question of whether or not we have the authority to withhold or violate their basic rights. When we grant a body of government or a group of interrogators moral absolution for inhuman methods, such as torture and unlawful imprisonment of suspects, our judgment is placed in doubt, and justice becomes muddled with revenge; the difference between the two is that justice demands order, whereas revenge only encourages further chaos.

Also, I still think Glenn Beck's article/ logic is flawed.

Congratulations.

yup...do like Glenn Beck...I find this interesting...typical...and it does apply to quite a few instances. This one makes me giggle at the ignorance...sorry Minnesota folks.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481689,00.html

 

The other story that everyone else is covering is President Obama's plan to close Gitmo. It is important and I'll come back to it.

 

But there is one thing today that ties all of these things together. One thing that is universally true: government programs make you feel good, but they only make things worse. Let me give you a recent example that will make blood shoot out of your eyes.

 

In Minnesota, there's a recent state law that requires a two percent mix of biodiesel in diesel fuel. They say this will all help save the planet  which makes people feel really good  and that is so easy and effective, they'll gradually raise the minimum biofuel to 20 percent.

 

Sounds great, right? I mean, who doesn't love those trees?

 

Let's look at reality. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that on Friday, the Bloomington School District had to cancel all their classes because some of their buses couldn't start. Why couldn't the buses start? Because apparently this biodiesel blend turns into a gel when it gets too cold. Hello! It's Minnesota in January!

 

Even worse, school nurses had to treat some kids for hypothermia after they hung out at bus stops for hours in negative 20 degree weather, or because they were on buses that stalled and of course the heaters don't work without running engines, which they can't do because the darn engines won't run on gel. Then the geniuses decide that the way to overcome this is to let the buses idle all night. Perfect, since they're trying to save the environment.

 

Do people care about making good decisions anymore or are we just making stuff up that makes us feel all warm and cuddly inside?

 

Lawmakers put children's safety at stake because they don't want their buses to run on a politically incorrect kind of fuel.

 

This is exactly like President Obama's order to close Gitmo without any real plan for what to do with the prisoners. Sure it makes us feel warm and cozy inside, but did anyone actually think this through?

I don't really see the connection between these two situations that Glenn Beck is trying to make. Closing Gitmo has more dire consequences and is of national interest; the biodiesel law in Minnesota seems to be a miscalculation and is limited to one state. I'm not debating technicalities, but there is a difference between a green law in Minnesota and a mandate that has to do with national security. He casts doubt on the validity of the green law because of its shortsightedness and subsequent failure of practicality (which is fair), but he attempts to project that law's inadequacies on the upcoming decision on Gitmo. This is at best a faulty analogy.

And as for this quote, "Do people care about making good decisions anymore or are we just making stuff up that makes us feel all warm and cuddly inside?", I would say this is also a bizarre statement. Beck is making a distinction between making a good decision and feeling good; they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I've heard former Pres. George W. Bush say in interviews he'd rather make the right decisions than be "popular," which is a similarly strange outlook on dividing two characteristics permanently when it is entirely possible for them to coexist at times.

This is exactly like President Obama's order to close Gitmo without any real plan for what to do with the prisoners. Sure it makes us feel warm and cozy inside, but did anyone actually think this through?

 

Great quote. I've wondered this myself. Yes, I know that out of those 200some people, not every single one of them is a terrorist, but is it really worth setting free potential 200 or so terrorists so the innocent 25 or so can go back home? Considering the fact that they've been in that place with terrorists for so long makes me wonder as well if they'll end up turning into terrorists anyways since I'm sure they must hate all Americans now. Not to mention that some of the men who our government knows planned 9/11 were still in Gitmo and I honestly don't know what Obama did with these people. Do they deserve a fair trail in America? Hell no. I voted for Obama because I like most of his policies and ideas, but this is one of his ideas that I profoundly disagree with.

 

By the way, a poll on CNN the other day asked "Do you agree with Obama's decision to close Gitmo?" 70some% of people agreed and 30some% didn't. I honestly don't think those 70some% realize the negative impact of setting these people free.

I don't know how many innocent people are currently in Gitmo, so I can't disprove the possibility that there are more guilty than not guilty that are incarcerated. However, this study in 2006:

http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

shows on page 2 and 3 some numbers that would suggest a number of people were not guilty (during that particular period of time).

I don't think you meant to say this, "Considering the fact that they've been in that place with terrorists for so long makes me wonder as well if they'll end up turning into terrorists anyways since I'm sure they must hate all Americans now," because it sounds like you're suggesting that keeping people who were not originally terrorists in Gitmo would convert them to terrorism because of their ill treatment and/ or proximity to actual terrorists. If this were indeed a possibility, it would be a reason to stop admitting people into Gitmo; otherwise, a cycle of conversion would be self perpetuating. (I'm not being sarcastic or disrespectful. )

I wouldn't take the CNN poll too seriously. Internet polls are unreliable in terms of receiving a proportional amount of people from different areas. For example, in an experiment, one would prefer a random selection of people from a diverse population, rather than having people from only a small pool. People choose themselves to participate in online polls, which lowers the chance of accurate results. Also, the way the question is worded could also affect the results. If the question merely stated whether or not to close Gitmo, then it is possible that some people favor closing it along with transferring prisoners to another facility and that some people favor not closing Gitmo until the prisoners have all been charged or released. So it could be much less or much more than 70-30.

I will agree that there are undoubtedly some terrorists interred at Gitmo, and, like you, I am also concerned about what Obama is planning to do with them. He is most likely debating over whether they should be placed in another secure facility, rather than grant them asylum here or let them return to their base of operations. However, it is well-known that confessions can be discarded in trials if there is evidence of torture or other kinds of physical/ mental abuse or a suspension of rights of the prisoner to obtain them; this works against us, and it is one of the reasons Gitmo should be shut down, not merely because it feels "good" to shut it down. In order for us to legitimately pursue and charge terrorists with crimes, it needs to be done with preservation of rights. Otherwise, guilty parties may be set free based on the argument that they were "under duress" after being abused when a confession was procured.

I'm not sure if I saw this correctly, but was there a Jedi using melee attacks? That sounds pretty cool!

I seem to remember this being in SWBF2 already

Heh, sorry. I've only played Dark Forces 1 and 2, Dark Forces 2 expansion, and Jedi Academy, so I'm only used to playing Jedis with lightsabers and force powers; melee is a new concept for me (minus the punching in Dark Forces).

I'm not sure if I saw this correctly, but was there a Jedi using melee attacks? That sounds pretty cool!

Has anyone tried the PC demo for this game yet (there should be one on FilePlanet now)? I played the demo of the first FEAR and thought it had some pretty cool parts. I would download the FEAR 2 demo and try it out myself, but my new computer is still without a decent graphics card. Just giving a heads-up in case anyone was interested.