I'm an Anime/Manga semi-otaku/geek. I don't consider myself a nerd cause I am not smart enough to be placed in such high regard.

Technically most people back in the days did not speak like Shakespeare. It was the rare few 'intellectuals'/aristocracy/etc that did. The rest of society did not have what you would call 'civil'/'sophisticated' speech.
As for conservative women; it was a trend back then. The non-conservative woman is a trend today.
Back then they considered indigenous peoples savages. Englishmen were considered barbarians by Roman standards. Slaves were seen as half-human or not even that. Clearly under current ideologies that would be considered stupid and non-sensical.

Back then they believed in supernatural beings, with Gods, Titans/etc creating earthquakes, floods/etc. Clearly by today's standards that is considered stupid.

Have we become more stupid than in the past? Clearly not. What you are concentrating on are the smart people of the past; of which there were few. You cannot compare Shakespeare to your average country bumpkin. Nor can you compare a serf in the past to Einstein, or to Stephen Hawking.
Today we have tea-baggers. In the past we had angry mobs with pitchforks.
Today we have the internet, we have books and other sources of information and learning material. In the past, only priests/monks and certain people in aristocracy knew how to read.

On a social level we are much smarter than what society was in the past due to greater access to education, to literature and the like. People simply believe we have become 'stupider' because they concentrate on the smart people of the past, and compare them to the 'dumb' people of the present.

I give it 4/10. Overall greatly disappointed.

Yea. I dislike April Fools. Wonder if Bloomberg/etc would play an April Fools joke which - if taken seriously - might cost millions in the market.
Imagine if Greece suddenly said it was going into bankruptcy and couldn't afford to pay any of its debts. Woosh! Recession, here we come~

That's where mods come in my friend.
For Oblivion there are mods to make NPCs look better, mods to generate 'travellers' on roads/dungeons/etc to make the world more alive; mods to increase the population of cities; mods to make towns/cities look better; mods to add new buildings, locations, quests/etc. Mods to add monsters. Mods to add armor/weapons/1000s of new spells.

In fact I'm playing with Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul (OOO), a huge mod. It adds a lot, and totally changes the leveling and fighting system. The vanilla (original) Oblivion has every monster level up with you. In OOO this is not the case. Monsters have fixed levels, and so you will really feel like you have gotten stronger. Rare equipment is also a lot harder to get so it feels worthwhile when you do get something good. Not only that but it adds a heap of new monsters. Very cool.

Ragnarok Online. I played for, what? 6-8yrs? That War of Emperium is addictive.

I wait for the price to drop.
1. I save money.
2. Pre-owned; I save money.
3. I can read reviews by people who have properly finished the game to see whether I should buy it instead of getting caught up in the initial hype and 5-minute-gameplay review.
4. I save money.

Devil May Cry.
I've finished Devil May Cry IV on the PC, but still haven't finished the first one on the PS2. Haha.

No, a diamond sword is not a good idea. Everyone would be after it. You'll be dead in your sleep in no time; or an arrow will pierce your back and drain the life out of you whilst a million hands fumble for your sword.
Still, it would be a great kamikaze weapon. The greed of men would cause an entire army to massacre each other in an attempt to obtain the sword for themselves.

I always do.
However, I generally read it on my way back from a game purchase, and mainly to read about the characters in the game, and any descriptions you wouldn't usually get in-game. The controls for most games are more or less the same so unlike a new electronics good, there's really no other reason to read the manual.