Ginger_Warrior

The game isn't short, it's just LoZ - you just want it to last longer and longer! I have to say, I was amazed when I read CUBE and it contained 30 mins of video footage from the game from E3 '05. The graphics were simply astounding on the video. However, when I got the real thing it didn't exactly blow me away. TBH, I'd already seen this level of graphics when I played Starfox Adventures (a great game, might I add). So, nothing was new here. Graphics have never impressed me anyway, but even so, I guess when you have that level of graphics you can't really improve on it much at all. Having said that, it was as if every inch of the Hyrule map had been worked on individually. Great work Ninty! Graphics: 10/10 So, moving on from graphics, controls. I have to admit, I was not impressed in the least bit here. It would probably have been status quo on the GC, but the Wii left a lot to be desired to tell the truth. I was hoping that to draw a bow, you could pull the Nunchuk back and aim the Wii remote like a proper bow and arrow, and let go of Z to fire. Instead, I hold the remote like a laser pen, which in reality is exactly what it is anyway. Also, same goes for the swordplay. I was hoping for proper sword fights - I swing the remote, Link does the same move on screen. Instead, swinging the sword in proper fashion doesn't constitute anymore realism in the game than just sitting down swinging the sword lazily. A big thumbs down here and something that Ninty need to work on. Fishing was better but only mildly, it was still hard to control at the best of times. A mere 6/10 here. Control: 6/10 Audio, well I have to say I truly felt nostalgic after listening to the music. Whoever composes music at Ninty is a genius, 'nuff said really. It really brings out the atmosphere of the game. Truly amazing. The music going around the new Hyrule Field is great! The sound effects are also excellent. Just one gripe, when the batteries start dying in the remote, the sounds of the slashing of the sword and the grappling of the clawgrips can't be heard. I'm gonna look up on this though, the thought of having sound come from your body is pretty cool. Audio: 10/10 And now the last catagory I'm going to review, gameplay. A good 30/40 hours at least and without being big headed, I'm one of the best gamers in the world (and it's proven with my track record on NWC (Wi-Fi connection)) and it still took me this long to do the game! And then, the side quests. Hyrule field is simply massive, it's sinful to have Midna warp you everywhere when you can go horseriding with Epona and it literally taking you about 45 mins to get from one end of the map to the other because you get distracted by caves and ledges and chests etc! the storyline is one of the most compelling I've ever seen, a complete breath of life really from Ganondorf and the same old Triforce story! Another problem though, it would have been so cool with a map the size of Twilight Princess to have a Golden Skultula token hunt, like in OoT. The golden bugs just doesn't have the same effect when all you gotta do is press A to catch them (or blow them over to you with a boomerang - wowwee, so hard! ). Gameplay: 9/10 Overall 35/40 for me (mental maths tells me 87.5%) [i realise this is kinda a review within a review but I thought it pointless to create a new thread when one already exists lol]

It really annoys me when I see threads like this. As my sig says, I come from NoE, and it really annoyed all of us there when we saw people labelling Ninty as "kiddy" as though it's a bad thing... What is sooo bad about Ninty being kiddy? Their kiddy games are their best by a mile... Super Mario, F-Zero, Mario Kart, LoZ (well, not as kiddy, but certainly a lot more kiddy than other adventure games)... 4 great series of games!

It's basic aminal nature to have your family gain as much territory/luxuries as possible. The difference between us and animals is the fact we can write, but the mentality is still there. Only, because we class ourselves as 'intelligent', we've decided to hide our greed and selfishness with the name of 'capitalism', which sounds slightly more glorious. But don't fool yourself, capitalism only works at the expense of other people. In our world today, it could be argued that the people who suffer from this globalisation are poor African impoverished farmers, and Indonesian mill-workers in the employment of about 10 cents an hour for Disney. That pretty much sums it up, but I hear you ask, "why don't we do anything about it?". Well, you're right. People in the 60s actually cared about the world. It shows with the miner's strikes, and protests against Vietnam, and civil rights movements. Nowdays, the only protests I can think of in the past 5 years in Britain or America was the Iraq War protests. The fact is, it wasn't deemed as uncool to be interested in politics. Indeed, some people thought being a Communist was cool. Nowadays, if I walked into school (well college...) and said that I actually cared about the world and its politics, I'd be called a geek who has nothing better to do than watch the news. The world hasn't got any worse, it's always been our nature to be selfish. No-one (not even Gandhi, or Martin Luther King Jr., or anyone) rises above this, they are all driven by their own motives. It's just that nowdays, people seem to to think it's cool to be apathetic about politics, until it actually comes round and hits them.

Well,it certainly is a great post and definetely the best one I've seen on this topic of Iraq. But I do have a few points. Freedom is a very broad word. If I ask you "What is Freedom?", it's one of them questions where we have a vague idea but we've never really had to sit down and think about it really. For me, freedom is the ability for one to live by the way that one wishes. In this sense, I believe that, for example, the people living under Hitler's or Lenin's rule were actually free. In Russia, there is a clear sign of a socialist popular movement, the evidence being the November Elections where the SRs (Socialist Revolutionaries) actually have a massive majority. In Nazi Germany, any people admired Hitler for the way he basically ripped the Treaty of Versailles apart - they felt free for the first time since pre-WWI! Both of these represtn freedom within themselves - both were popular movements even though there was no democracy in place. People had the freedom to set an autocrat as head-of-state. So really, can you say that you are making the Iraqi citizens "free"? Firstly, you lied to the about the reason for going to war. This isn't freedom! People live in constant fear of sectarian viloence. This isn' freedom! People don't actually have the power to change the political system, because a) The Americans have decided the system of government, not Iraqis and B) they can't vote or else they're blown to pieces by a suicidal bomber. This isn't freedom! You are right, here's famous saying: "Anyone who would sacrifice a little bit of liberty, to gain a little bit of security; will deserve neither, and lose both" It is improtant that people have control over their own affairs to a lesser or more extent. But the Americans staying there is not making the Iraqis free; if anything, it is making them more oppressed as the situation becomes slowly worse and worse. The coalition has to allow Iraq to manage its own affairs now - I don't think that there is much more the armed forces can do for Iraq. Not to mention the biggest point of all - most of Iraq wants us to leave! If we proclaim to be leaders of the free world, we should at least grant them this request...

Here's an idea I just congured (sp? maybe conjured) up: How about a new room is released, called the Warehouse, where members can build like places to store all their skill related stuff. For example, why not have like a little basket thingie where we can store herbs, seeds. Or a cupboard where we can store raw meat/fish/vegetables. And then maybe to just make it more interesting, a place to store all of your rune essences/staves/runes/tabs? That's it, the only magic related thing you'd ever need in a bank would be a home teletab. That's it really, and TBH, that's all that would be needed skill-wise. Maybe weapons rack to store bows/weapons if they're feeling generious. Above all else, Jagex could twist this to their advantage, and increase the effects of the money drain. People would go apo over this improvement - bank space is a subject ALL players feel strongly about. Plus, it would create a profotable business selling point for all builders - eventually they'd have something useful to sell!!!

Agreed... but it does highlight the kind of attitudes that people have towards war really. They seem to think of it as: (for example, WWII) "millions of women, soldiers and children died. Dresden became one massive fireball, massacreing thousands. But hey, we killed the evil Nazis right? So surely all those lost lives must be fine?" (Of course, only to open the door to Stalinist Russia anyway). I'm sorry but this attitude seems to lie with some of the soldiers you see in interviews on news programs. It seems to be a case of "100,000s of Iraqi innocent citizens are dying, but we gotta stay there and blow the brains out of those damn terrorists before their 'acceptable sacrifice' means anything. We gotta protect freedom!" The question I raise with that is, freedom for whom? The US, or Iraqi citizens? In relation to the post... I'm sorry but that soldier has to wake up to realisation of war. People die. The conditions are (colourful word here). Blood pours etc etc, no-one forced him to go there. Maybe this will enlighten him that perhaps not everything in this "war against terror" is rosy, and perhaps he'll just perhaps start to question the propoganda that's being fed to him and the rest of the world.

See.. this is what you don't understand. They are not interested in picking off every single coalition soldier in that region. I agree... the political wishy washy isn't working, and Iraq needs an autocrat which will slowly guide it to a democracy, instead of just hoping that democracy will establish itself and presuming that this is what the Iraqi people want. But the Middle-Eastern Terrorist are exactly that - Terrorists. They're NOT soldiers. They are not fighting a war against you, and a military one anyway. They set out to spread terror, because they know that the press coverage will destabalise the democratic Iraqi (which they simply don't want to exist). Therefore, their initial thoughts when they see an American soldier (at the clever ones anyway) will not be "oooo an American soldier let's shoot him", it'll be "let's wait until they've gone to another area of Baghdad and bomb that marketplace over there, and then they can get the blame for being so neglegent". You simply aren't going to win this through guns... in fact I actually have doubts as to whether you can win this. I support my troops too. I'm no patriot (I actually class myself as Irish, not British), but that doesn't mean I like people dying unneccessarily. Thus, I want the UK forces to be withdrawn immediately, and I would say most of the Labour Party, and the majority of the population do as well. Unfortunetely, it just seems to be Tony Blair that wants them there... just so he can have some kind of legacy.

Let's be clear about one thing first... Democracy isn't the absolute "best" form of government. There have been many cases in the past where an autocrat has done better simply for the fact that they are a good leader, and that because of the nature of autocracy, there's a lot less Bureaucracy. So to say that Iraq HAS to have a Democracy with universal suffrage in order to advance is not a particularly valid statement. This is something that the Americans seem to be misunderstanding. Ever since the Cold War, and the irony of the black civil rights movement during that time (read about the racism in the south, the most horrific of which, the "Emmett Till" case, 1955); America has been on a mad campaign to portray itself as the leader of the free world. This means that it now denounces any form of "oppresive dictatorship", and saying that all countries in the world will be better under a free capitalist democracy. However, if you read the polls, watch the news, study the reports by revisionist groups, and read newspapers you seem to get an idea that a fair bulk of the Iraqi population feel that they were better off under Saddam. I agree with them quite frankly - Iraq cannot exist in this state. When the "great" British Empire collapsed, we literally drew a box in the Middle-East and called it Iraq, not caring to think of the racial groups involved. The problem stems from this. All three races want autonomy of their own affairs, and some will do anything to get it - including the slaughter of their own people. This is just something that the Americans cannot deal with. I'm sorry but it's physically impossible to "fight" terrorism. All you do is spread terror yourselves; you solve one problem, and create a bigger one in your wake. Obviously, you cannot talk and negoitiate with them. I'm sorry to think what seems to be the unthinkable, but Iraq has to split up into its three race groups. Now I'm not saying that this will solve everything - it'll create problems in itself; but if you want the situation in Iraq to end, and US soldiers to stop dying, then Iraq has to be devolved into three new states, and the coalition has to be withdrawn immediately! As for your comment about removing all non-essential personel. This is just as stupid as it is ill-thought-out and narrow-minded. It would escalate the problems. For two reasons: 1) OK, the Middle-Classes have gone. How will that force the terrorists out their caves, so you can fight them on "your terms"? This is more than just a battle tactic/strategy! They know they'll die in a battle with you - believe it or not they ARE clever people! All the stupid ones died in the months immediately after March 2003! 2) Let's think in the mind of a terrorist here: "The Middle-Classes have gone. Hey look lads, a complete vacuum of power in Iraq!!! Come on guys - let's seize control of government in the name of our race!!!" (And don't think the coalition could stop this... this would get world-wide press coverage, it would be a complete embarassment and they'd probably elect for a laissez-faire approach) This is more than just a issue of "Clever, Superior Americans" vs. "Dumb, Inferior Middle-East Terrorists"...

Hiya. I'm a part of a clan and we're looking for someone who will help us make our site look more appealing by making a signature for us. We already have all the images and Fonts etc. already collected. It's just all of us are (insert colourful word here) at art lol. -------------------------------------- The Clan's Logo Basically, this is how we want the logo to look like: Background: We'd like these 4 images to be used, showing people performing skill-related tasks: 1) Woodcutting Picture 2) Herblore Picture 3) Fishing Picture 4) Construction Picture (Obviously, you'd need to crop them first) Size: Preferably about 800 x 100 pixels please. So about 200 x 100 per image in the background. Name/Text: We'd like 2 names: 1) B.E.A.S.T. (in the top left corner) 2) Brotherhood of Eager Accomplished Skillers in Training (smaller, in the bottom right corner) Font Face: I'm a big fan of this one myself. I already know the text as normal takes a lot more than 800 pixels lol. So maybe you could shorten it in size a little? Border: Whatever takes your fancy really, I'm not too bothered. -------------------------------------- The Signatures Really, we're looking for the same kind of style as the signatures that advertise blogs and other clans, like the "90+ Combat Affliction" one. But obivously instead, we'd like the images from above to be used and "B.E.A.S.T. user" for text. -------------------------------------- I hope that you can help me and my clan. Obviously I can't pay you or anything like that but it would be much apprieciated (sp?) and I'd put an advert for you on our forums :D If you need any more info, PM me or put a reply here. I'll give what info I can. Thanks, Ginger Warrior

Says the person with 1 post... I'm sorry to turn this into a flame but it seems all of you have already done that against joker. All he asked for was a sig! A polite "I don't want to make one for someone with 3 posts and isn't respected" would have sufficed! It's perfectly within is right to ask for someone to help him for God's sake!

With heinsight, I think a more beckoning question would be "why did we put Saddam Hussein in power in the first place?" Go check it, it's true, we put him there.

It's not that I don't have the guts to realise that, it's just I don't believe that that is the correct way forward to stop terrorism. You can say that the way to win a "war on terrorism" is to go into every Middle-East country with even the slightest whif of Al-Queda and wave your guns at them to stop them from organising attacks against the US. But I'm sorry, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has only made things worse. Al-Queda has GROWN, not declined. Consequently, the occupation of Iraq had lead to the July 7th bombings in London. Can't you see that using violence to quell terrorism is actually only feeding the fire at its base? All it will do is alienate people against the US, thus making it more susceptable to attack!

For the soldiers comment you made, I just laughed. I'm sorry and maybe this is a bit judgemental, but I would say most of the army is actually uneducated, and by that I mean they didn't enter higher education and don't have a subject that they specialise in. Under this sense, I wouldn't say most people are educated. I would only say they were if they had a degree! You live under the American Dream of Manifest Destiny (it still hangs over from when the "kind" Americans took over the Great Plains, their excuse being, "we'll educate them undrer a Democracy and Christianity and they'll have a new light"). You seem like a person that just takes everything the mass media and the government says to you without even bothering to question its nature or provinence. Now you can bleat on about the Democrats all you want, Bush has created a situation where frankly, no-one wants to be seen standing next to him, except Condey Rice. Bush has succeeded in alienating everyone away from him. I ask you this. China in 20 years looks set to the world's most largest economic superpower (and possibly military power, given the satellite space missile incident a couple of weeks back). Yet your president seems more focused on fighting a losing war, that nearly everyone, including the Labour Party here in the UK, wants to end and for the troops to be withdrawn immediately? I ask you this, why isn't he investing into the economy and Social Security? Gordon Brown is doing just that over here and we've got the strongest growth in our economy since the Industrial Revolution! Invest into your economy instead of fighting this stupidly pointless war, and maybe you'll have a chance of competing against China in the near future... As for the election thing, I'll tell you how he got in power. I seem to recall in his first election an incident about miscounted votes in the state of Florida (which coincedently, is run by G. Bush's brother, but far be it from me to say that the election was rigged without proof...)! I have no doubt in my mind that Bush will go down in the abyss of history as one of the worst Presidents America's ever had!

hmm, so i only got one opinion, wow, that means im most likely wrong. and the reason he is over there is because he wants to defend his country to the best of his ability, unfortunatly, the liberals wont let him. btw, im joining the marine corps as soon as im old enough, because i love my country. I don't mean to flame you, but I'm sorry; as a right-wing soldier (which judging by his langauge he clearly is), he's bound to be alinated against the Democrats anyway... And because it IS one soldier, the other guy's right, it doesn't paint the full picture of what soldiers think in Iraq...

Well that's fair, it's clear that that particular soldier wants to stay and fight. He seems to hate Democrats though, and glorifies his "commander-in-chief" (which I would point out is actually G. Bush). I would question his political alignment, if he's a Republican, he's almost certainly gaurenteed to dispise the way the Republican Bush is a sitting duck because the Democrats own Congress, regardless of his situation in Iraq. Anyways, this is going off-topic...

In the US, you have the right to freedom of speech, so long as you don't cause slander. In the UK, press censorship is controlled partly by the state, and partly by the state-funded British Broadcasting Cooperation. Thus, we don't have FULL freedom of speech.

You seem to be under the illusion that the UN actually has power... if only! I can understand that frontline infantry doesn't feel happy about the situation in Iraq. However, since as I can only speak about British soldiers, I will do so. And there have been major cases in the UK about the US-lead coalition (led by Bush and Blair) not equipping soldiers with decent armour, and not having a proper exit strategy! This is a direct result of G. Bush's foreign policy, which under the US Constitution, the president does have the right to dictate. Thus it IS G. Bush's fault the situation in Iraq has turned so bad.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it gone beyond the point where the presence of a foreign (supposesdly) glorious western army would actually be a bad thing! I think the Sudanese refugees would want the US or a European Army to defend them! @ Ambassador, I couldn't agree more. It's actually censored in this country to take a picture/vidoe of a homeless, destitute man. Yet while we impose these laws to protect our own people, it seems somewhat acceptable to go and film a picture of a poor starving African girl crawling with flies, depicting them in a lower light. Well... I have one thing to say, welcome to Democracy, which comes with the handy package of Free Media!

I know you do, that's how I found this post :

I agree with you on many of the things you have said Locke although I have to disagree with you on this. I believe the US was completely justified in going into Iraq and deposing Saddam. I just think Bush screwed up in how he went about it and what to do after the dictator was overthrown. I am like you in that I believe the US should not be involved in anything that doesn't have anything to do with their national security. Iraq did have ramifications on the security of the US. Earlier you made the point that weakness invites further aggression on a country and that a country has to retaliate or face further attacks. I completely agree with this statement. To me Iraq falls into this category. Why? The first Gulf War by my understanding never officially ended. A cease fire treaty was signed under terms of surrender for Iraq to comply by so that the war could stop. Iraq broke the terms of the cease fire treaty repeatedly which gave the US the right and the obligation to demand the terms be complied with even if it meant forcing them to at the end of a cannon. Failure to force Iraq to maintain the peace treaty showed weakness. Again this was Clinton not backing up US policy and making the Arab World think of us as having no backbone which invited things like 9/11, the US embassy bombings, the USS Cole being attacked, etc. If I was a country that had the US declare war on me I would sign a peace treaty in a heartbeat with them and then wait for them to take their army home... wait a few years and then break the treaty if they aren't going to retaliate. If Iraq could get away with it why couldn't I? This directly undermines the security of the US and the world as a whole. Bush should have gone into Iraq to depose Saddam for breaking the peace treaty and used his reasons like possible WMD's and other things that he used as his primary reason instead as side topics that would just be a bonus if it really was found Saddam had developed WMD's. Doing this would guaranteed there wouldn't have been any political embarrassment when no major WMD's were found. (Who knows... maybe they are there and Saddam had them hidden away amazingly well and had the people burying them shot to keep the secrecy... we may never know the full truth... If he hadn't had any WMD's I don't see why he would kick the UN weapon's inspectors out of the country. Either way it wouldn't have mattered in this scenario.) This way US peace treaties would be assured of being complied with in the future. The US doesn't appear weak willed. Legally the US has every right to invade. The US could have appealed to it's allies from the first Gulf War explaining how this wasn't a new war but merely a continuation of the first Gulf War because the terms of cease fire had been broken. Politically the US would have had the upper hand and been right to act this way. To sum it up the war in Iraq is the right war for the wrong reasons in my opinion. This seems to be turning away form the situation in Darfur, but I would like to comment further on this. I was indeed at the Stop The War Coalition march in Hyde Park, London, March 2003. In my opinion, I don't see how the Americans can justify the reasons that they have given thus far for the war in Iraq. It's turned that Britain has a guilty part to play in this as well, with the accusations of the "sexed up dosier" on WMD in Iraq and the 45 minute claim. To be frank, you have to dread into what the American and British actions after the war were. Of course, Bush (or rather the US Army) has mishandled the situation engrossingly. I don't blame G. Bush 100% for this, the Americans seem to have a history of not knowing how to fight wars properly, and especially what to do after. The European countries have a much grater knowledge on war-time mobilisation, simply because we've been around about 1,500 years longer than the USA. To look at why they went to war, you have to look at what happened after the war was over, behind closed doors. Oil rigs are running fine, as are pipelines, yet Baghdad suffers constantly from Electricity shortages, which the US Administration admits is nothing to do with "insurgent" (off-topic: I like this name, considering they were there before the US/UK coaltion turned up! lol) activity. This beckons the question, in a world plagued by fossil fuel shortages, where is the oil going? Anyways, tI've not been studying the Sudanese Civil War in any great detail, so I can't really comment. However, for both Iraq and Sudan, we should look at Russia and the Bolsheviks for understanding of what needs to happen for true peace to be restored. On March 3rd, 1917, Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown in a popular movement. Revolution had sparked off. The Provisional Committee formed to make the Provisional Government of Russia, and because it was mainly made up of middle-class liberals, was afraid of the growing threat of the workers' revolution. It tried to stop it, much in the same way that the US Army is trying to quell unrest in Iraq, however, it was ultimetely unable to satisfy the needs of the starving war-time workers. In these conditions, the Bolsheviks became more popular and seized power. The whole point of this story is that a popular revolution cannot be stopped via suppresion. The US army cannot to the sectarian violence in Iraq through combat, the will of the people is just too strong, and it's gone beyond a battle of "winning hearts and minds". Iraq, and I would use this philosophy for Darfur as well, HAS to undergo a revolution; and if during that revolution, the country has to split in three, so be it! Iraq's just lost an autocrat, there's a massive vacuum of power in Iraq, and a full-scale overhaul of the government is needed to restore a parliament that can deal with the violence. Likewise, the Sudanese Government seems incapable of dealing with the vilence by itself, or with the UN Security Council's backing, thus unless help comes soon, it will have to start making concessions. What can we do? Well I'm sorry to say, but there's physically not a lot we can do. The obvious one is to question the condidates running for elections in your local area via, and see what they would propose to deal with the situation in Darfur. As for the US, I can understand why it would need a base of power (ie. Iraq) to monitor terrorist activity in the Middle-East, and to bascially do their dirty work for them. However, there are other way to do this than to attack every country with a terrorist cell... mnearly every country in the world would have to have war declared upon them in order of this philosophy. The way to do this is to invest in countries... picking wars will only make the US more unpopular and thus more susceptable to attack. Investing will make the population of a country see more favourably upon them.

lol short article, I think he's running out of things to talk about :P My favourite examine option has to be the Piglet's at Draynor Village "I sahll call him mini-pig". My GF was round at my house when I examined it, she was in fits lol! I like the way that Jagex can make references to historical events, such as the Soviet Union (which is still a part of history that plays a MASSIVE effect on our world today), and yet not be serious about it and not cause controversy, and make it into a fairy tale. As for the Recipe for Disaster quest, the way that you could go out of the room and talk to people about how you defeated the enemy - shades of LoZ: Ocarina of Time on the N64, with the bit where you learn the Song of Storms!

An interesting and constructive article, as I have come to expect from you Editor... Great Work! :D I too find it a bit creepy that Jagex DO have the power to watch everything I say. Not least because I do have some rather controversial viewpoints, that in the eyes of Jagex, would almost certainly result in a Forum Ban on their official RS forums. I think the issue that really needs to addressed here though is not whether Jagex should get along with their fansites (I think this is beyond question. It's the same as politics, as more people join Jagex, more people will join fansites such as Tip.It or RuneHQ, for whatever reason be it good or bad.) I think this because at the end of the day, the more members a website has, the more power it starts to gain over the company it associates itself with (think of Trade Unions and political pressure, the two aren't much different). This will probably likely never happen, but Tip.It as it grows gains more threat to Jagex in the form of (at the worst-case scenario) boycotts. As I said, very highly unlikely (some would argue an impossibility), but it puts Jagex in a place where does have to get along with fansites, or else lose popularity with the members of that fansite. This becomes ever so more crucial as the population explosion of RS continues. I think the issue that really does need to be addressed is why Jagex haven't already acknowledged the creation of fansites and the influence that they undoubtedly have over the game. Paul and Andrew seem to be under the impression that those two alone are in charge of running Jagex, and while this is theoretically true, it's not in reality. RS has an estimated members populace of 750,000. Can two people in an office in London really control 750,000 gamers whom live all over the world, in the US, Canada, Asia, Central Europe and Australasia? And not just that, but keep in touch with what all these people want? Certainly the BA update showed how much Jagex can miss their audiences' wants by. The way I see, Paul and Andrew have to realise that RS is no longer a small national company and can no longer realistically be run by two (albeit very clever) people in an office in England. To use an old line, they have to start letting the baby grow. One way to do this is to let fansites have more of a direct relationship with Jagex. There would be so much for Jagex to gain - it would be more in touch with its audience, it would have a better control of players around the world, and (off topic a little) would also give players and mods a place to refer people to if the knowledge database (KB) has holes in its information. Under the circumstances, it is completely beyond me why Jagex haven't already affiliated themselves with trusted fansites, such as Tip.IT and RuneHQ. They have an area for fansites on the KB, yet no fansite mentioned. Strange, no? Using fansites to help administer the game would be a cost-effective way for Jagex to remain in-touch with its audience (a skill which Jagex in fairness have lacked in months of late), give more ideas for suggestions, without compromising the safety of it or its players, or alienating anybody away from RS. Many would say this will never happen, I say that it has to happen sometime. Either that or privatisation, and if that happened there would be greater monitoring of fansites for information about players' thoughts anyway, I feel. Sooner will be better for Jagex in the long run...

Another point on the Barricades... try not attacking them just so you can get passed them and don't use them to protect your own lives, use them to prevent the enemy escaping with the flag. Your free teleport to the waiting room means a lot less than the enemy scoring in a nail-biting showdown! -.- BTW, not sure if anyone noticed this, but a wall has been placed so that people can no longer hide behind the stairs on the waiting-room floors...

There shouldn't be an apostrophe in the above cases, objects(animals too) cannot possess other objects. Final word should be 'yourself'. You're right up until the point over animals. Animals live, and this is regardless of the point anyway becasue objects can be possessive. For example: The tree's branches. The branches belong to the tree. It would be this if there were more than one tree: The trees' branches However, this, as you suggest, would imply many birds, and the nest would be lost so it wouldn't make sense: ... a birds nest. It should be bird's, or birds'. Therefore, it should be skill's (the level belongs to the skill), and bird's. Its' however IS wrong. A possive 'it' doesn't contain an apostrophe, hence it should be 'its'. 'You' is perfectly correct. It is written in the third-person narrative tense, and thus could be 'you' OR 'yourself'. In this case, both mean the same thing.

A fascinating, thorough, and above all else - a correct viewpoint on the RuneScape community! Unfortunetly, the kind of people that this quote most relates to won't have the patience, or perhaps in some cases the intelligence, to understand or even finish the article, and will merely brush it aside as some geeky adult trying to be clever... needless to say, I couldn't disagree more! -.-