Shallow

It depends what you consider information, it's a loose word, especially in this context, define what you consider the proper formula for writing up a piece of information, and what is or isn't information, whether an equation, the result of the equation with certain variables, both, or neither, are information, and it'll almost certainly be obvious whether the answer is finite or infinite. If you don't do this this thread is just gonna be people arguing whilst not understanding their opponents arguments due to using different definitions for certain words and ideas.

I live in a majority Muslim area, people I've heard talk about it or talked about it with disapproved heavily of his actions. I do live in one of the better Muslim neighborhoods though. Pretty sure I also read on the front page of a newspaper that one of his relatives thought he was about to do something horrible, and thus likely disapproves of his actions, this however, I cannot at all guarantee.

As a person who doesn't use hotkeys, and always clicks and drags for select all, there really isn't that great a time difference, nor does it take a major hand movement, if you flick your mouse right.

Write up a couple detailed examples of what you'd like to see (complete with a couple reference photos of specific things if you feel they might be beneficial) and I might (can't guarantee I'll ever actually do it) try cooking some up for you.

I'm generally not that big on U style UIs, but the later mockups in this thread have been fantastic, love it. I'm not even saying it looks like a great UI compared to the PoE UI (which is downright horrible, I mean why would you go and put a log there?), I'm saying it looks like a great UI overall, on its own two feet. Definitely hope something like this gets modded in soon after release. btw: You might want to update the OP with some more recent pictures.

My main issue with combat only abilities is that it's being applied way too widely. What should be combat only: nonmodal buffs (it's really ridiculous that things that are always active should somehow turn off outside combat) summoning spells What shouldn't be combat only: everything else Following this simple design philosophy you get a nice and easy system that prevents prebuffing, and doesn't have a ton of horrible sideeffects. As for the issue of using per encounter abilities outside encounters, either add a timer of some arbitrary length after which, provided you don't enter an encounter, you're able to use the ability again (ideal), or, make the ability count as used until you enter an encounter regardless of how long that would take. In regards to the OPs ability, you shouldn't be able to flee from combat with a bunch of knocked out characters without them being killed by whatever you were fighting, a cool way to deal with this would be allowing knocked down party members to be picked up by party members who aren't knocked out, but it's way too late for new stuff to be implemented.

Is this real? It's almost pure propaganda. Well, what can you expect from the anti defamation league...

Honestly, besides the excessively antigg tone I didn't find much wrong with the article, it never really claims those people aren't lying, all it says is "The people are denying it.", and the article doesn't include any writing that strongly implies that they were obviously telling the truth and that Pinsof was making stuff up. It then goes on to IndieJournoPros, downplays it a bit, then says that whether or not it was abused is pretty much impossible to prove or disprove, and that we'll never know. Finally it goes into the Fez stuff, provided the guy in the interview actually said what's being claimed he said without a gun to his head, that pretty heavily discredits Pinsofs story about Fez, and Pinsofs reliability as a whole. Quite frankly, seeing as that guy didn't get the idea of the 3d/2d system himself, and merely forwarded it to Fish, I'd say I don't see any wrongdoing here, sure it sucks for the guy that Fish got Fez out first, but stuff happens, of course with the indie scene and game journalism the way it is, a gun to his head, even unintentionally, is a possibility. I really don't get what's wrong with that article, the people in the first portion of it are obviously unreliable narrators, but seeing as there's a good chance Pinsof heavily exaggerated the story about Fez, I'd say Pinsof might not be the most reliable narrator either. Oh yeah, the title is quite loaded, didn't read the title before posting...

But Anita isn't a female gamer, your point is invalid...

Are you under the impression I have any sympathy for the Chinese state? They too are an imperial power, who follow same market logic and too continue to slash their workers pitiful wages in the pursuit of cheaper labour and greater profit. Well much like NASA, Mr. Piketty and the latest Oxfam report state churning through our natural resources with a continued system of unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution is simply not sustainable and is only going to continue to create greater poverty and greater wealth divide. Nothing short of a complete societal restructuring that abolishes the pursuit of profit, the funneling of wealth and the recklessly self-destructive exploitation and unequal distribution of our natural resources will fix this continued wealth gap and eventual societal decay. Of course the cynic in me doesn’t expect such a thing to happen any time soon. Instead wealth inequality will exacerbate; wages will be cut via “austerity measures”, the far-right will gain greater societal influence; some scapegoat will be found to pin societal woes on (e.g. Muslims, Jews, what have you); the West will continue to recklessly gobble up eastern markets meanwhile the east (Russia) will fight tooth and nail to maintain economic hegemony over the former eastern bloc; Africa and the ME will continue to be a playground for the imperial powers; and I will continue mutter bitterly about the whole damn thing. Or at least that's my crystal gazing prediction. I happened to misread your point then, sorry. I have been struck by the same cynisism, however maybe not as much. I do believe in liberty and the self-realization of the ego that comes with, but i sadly i cannot see it implemented without a bloody revolution. Hopefully i am just too dumb to understand how that would be done peacefully. Any kind of major change requires bloody revolution, the vast supermajority of the elite as well as the lower classes believing in it, or someone high up forcing the other higher ups to stand down. There is a very slim chance you'll see what you view as necessary change without bodies to bury, but on the other hand what we got going now will either naturally lead to some form of revolution or a loose mixture between 1984 and Brave New World, though there's also the extremely unlikely option that spacetravel, and the medical innovations required to utilize it emerge before states start forcing brain monitoring technology on people. Bloody revolution seems like the best likely scenario, and while it includes a very decent chance some guy in power declares "If I can't rule, no one will!" before pushing a nuclear button, it still seems like our best bet.

One of the names i got was Wrd, pretty cool thing though.

It should really be a ticking clock of nonpercentile health loss, that way getting your character out of the way ahead of time, and healing your party members the second you're capable of doing so without them just going straight down again will be far more important tasks.

Nah, it was Rick Santorum http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/euthanasia-in-the-netherlands-rick-santorums-bogus-statistics/2012/02/21/gIQAJaRbSR_blog.html , didn't read the article, just posted to show he said it.

The Mormon guy and the guy who claimed that stuff about the elderly in the Netherlands were two different people. Whilst Obama doesn't say as much stupid crap as Bush policy wise I'd say he's worse, he appeals to different emotions in his speeches, and he targets a different demographic, the liberal side of the US is a lot closer to Europe than the conservative side, so of course you news aren't going to show him nearly as bad, and of course the statements he make aren't going to look nearly as stupid from a less religious conservative perspective. Policy wise I'd say Obama's been even worse than Bush, although he's been moving down the same road at close to the same pace.

Personally, I like facing hordes of weaker enemies on one occasion and a few strong enemies on another, and on a third occasion facing a mixture thereof, I will say that I dislike that every single lower level boss type enemy just turned into a horde enemy later on, and I don't feel like I've really had a good boss fight with fewer but much stronger enemies yet, the filler combat has however mostly been very fun and engaging so far though(minus a few recent exceptions I hope won't become the rule).

Mind defining what filler combat means to you (not trying to start an argument about a game I haven't played here, but everyone's definition of filler combat is different)? Secondly, I really enjoy the increased levels of character customization in IWD2, from what I understand due to the AD&D 2 rulesets all other IE games than IWD2 have the same lack of character customization BG had, right? Lastly, neither BG2 nor IWD feature things like modal abilities, right?

Only IE games I'd ever played were BG1 and PS:T, played PS:T before BG1. I played PS:T first, absolutely loved it, writing and the world were both fantastic, and combat was quite good (this is from someone who'd never played another IE game, so I didn't judge it according to other IE games, just found the general style of gameplay fun). I then went on to play BG1, honestly I loathed it, combat was way inferior to PS:T, and while the greater plot is pretty cool, every individual portion of it (besides when you return to Baldurs Gate after Candle Keep) just felt really boring, all corridors were excessively narrow making the horrible pathfinding really stand out, and the writing was trash, several of the sidequests were indeed good (my favorite being the one with the crazy cleric surrounded by undead), and some wilderness areas were fun, they were far from enough to carry the game with all its other flaws. I recently started playing IWD2 (just got through the caverns to the horde keep), I'm really enjoying it, area and encounter design blows both BG1 and PS:T out of the water, so does everything else about combat, while there haven't been any interesting sidequests, and the only one that required the tinniest bit of going out of your way to complete it was the one with the ghost in the hotel, and the game is insanely linear, the general writing in itself isn't making me want to puke. One of my favorite things about IWD2 however is the extra character customization, which I'm pretty sure neither IWD1 or BG2 come close to, and while I miss the input of unique companions from PS:T, I love being able to fully design my own party (which I know I can't do in BG2). Once I've finished IWD2, is it worth it for me to give BG2 or IWD1 a try, and if so, which one would you recommend playing first, and for which reasons?

While your argument in itself is an acceptable reason, let's be honest here, the one and only reason the American news people refuse to show those pictures, they're afraid a couple crazy muslims will kill them.

While at this point it's way to late too expect serious changes to the ranger class, I'll go ahead and type what I would've proposed a year or so ago if I had a time machine, regardless of the fact that at this time it's way too late. I think the main issue with the ranger class is that it's mainly built around one gimmick, and unlike the Cypher or the Chanter, the rangers gimmick just isn't that fun or cool, certain portions of it (the shared health pool for example) feel flat out tedious. Seeing as all the more basic roles are already filled out by the other less gimmicky classes (Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian), rangers do need to be a gimmicky, but I don't think it was a good idea making the animal companion the sole gimmick of the class, nor making it nearly as big a part of it as they did, rangers could've had a lot of potential if they'd been built with several gimmicks to specialize in as much as the player sees fitting, choosing between another step up the ladder of several abilities, including regular melee capability, every so often. The four major abilities I'd have the ranger be able to focus on would be: Moving at a significantly faster speed than the rest of the party. Subduing wild animals, improving subdued animals, and utilizing said animals in combat. Removing/slowing/lessening damage over time effects towards either a sole touch range party member or the ranger himself, much faster than a unit like the priest is able to. And slowing down or otherwise crippling enemies when dealing damage to them. For movement I'd give rangers two options, small permanent slight speed increases while in combat, or a modal ability, making the ranger move much faster than other party members, but with small constant damage to the rangers endurance while he's moving, along with abilities to decrease the cost of the modal, and increase the speed it gives you. For wild animals I'd initially have the ranger select an initial ability to subdue hostile animals when they're at low health, depending on the style of animal subdued it'd have unique bonuses/penalties/abilities, however, the animals overall stats would be scaled to the ranger characters level, the initial ability also allows a couple of npcs to sell the ranger an animal companion. Once the ranger has subdued an animal, it'll remain the rangers animal companion until killed or dismissed, unlike other party members, when animal companions run out of endurance they're instantly killed. Once the initial ability has been chosen, the ranger can later improve the level of animals he's subdued in relation to his, or bind himself closer to his animal companion, giving rangers unique abilities based on which animal companions they currently have, specializing the animal companions much more (increasing the differences between the animal companions), improving the animal companion overall, unlocking special abilities for the animal companion based on it's level, but in exchange the ranger takes half of any damage the animal companion takes, the animal companion takes half of any damage the ranger takes, the ranger is greatly penalized for the duration of the fight if his animal companion dies, and the animal companion becomes hostile to the player party if the ranger is knocked unconscious, and has to be subdued again. The removing/slowing/lessening of damage over time abilities seem fairly straight forward, per encounter abilities that can be selected by the ranger, requiring different levels. The final gimmick the ranger can invest in would modal abilities that apply various penalties to enemy units the penalties are applied percentage wise, for each percentage of your health the ranger has personally removed, the more severe the penalty. Along with that there would be an ability allowing the ranger to make a melee attack that slows an enemy down to a snail pace, however, as the ranger has no disengagement without penalty ability, he'd need active help from another party member to really make use of it. It's way to late for the ranger to receive the improvement it needs, which isn't necessarily even this, but it makes me feel a bit better about the state of a class I'd hoped could be very fun thinking of how it could've been better.

Bruce, this is total bs, I wouldn't want my niece becoming a garbageman or a hotdog salesman, that doesn't mean garbageman and hotdog salesmen are natural victims who can't be portrayed getting hurt in videogames. This has got to be one of the worst arguments I've ever read from you, it essentially boils down to "If you don't want someone you care about becoming X, then X is obviously an oppressed minority, thus X can't be portrayed getting hurt in videogames due to premium victim status.".

Not to derail or anything, but I really don't get this, I personally do consider trans people the gender they were born as, regardless of what they would prefer having been born as, even more irrespective of whether they've gotten their genitals scrambled up, but nonetheless I don't understand this. It feels to me like refusing electricity, tools, or clothing. Adaption includes altering yourself, or creating/purchasing tools, to make stuff easier/more entertaining/whatever, sure, if the leg was nonfunctional I'd agree it's stupid, and I do feel it'd be silly getting an extra leg because you selfidentify as a guy with two legs, but I feel there is one very good and valid reason to get another leg if the option was hypothetically available, it'd no doubt make legbased activities quite easier. Rejecting it because it wasn't a part of you at birth just seems odd, if you wouldn't mind, I'd be legitimately interested in hearing the arguments for such a stance, it's not really a viewpoint I've ever had much disclosure to.

While she is an idiot for dyeing the dog I do have to say that every single time I have had a dog sitting in a bath tub it has always looked 'unhappy and violated'. Doesn't mean it ain't going to get washed though, if it needs it. A bath is a bit more necessary than a dye, while I'll give you that point; that sometimes it's necessary to go through crap you don't want in life, being forcibly dyed isn't one of them. To be fair I guess she does claim the reason the dog looks upset in the photo outside the bathtub is that she's leaving the house (didn't see that comment the first time looking at it), so we don't really have 100% proof the dog would've preferred just being washed instead of being dyed, I'm still personally going to assume that's the case though.

A person who dyes their pet could potentially be a total moron instead of someone who simply doesn't give a crap about its feelings, but when that person doesn't quickly acknowledge that the animal clearly disapproves and continues dying it, and the dog looks as unhappy and violated as the dog in her pictures, all doubt is removed. Secondly, if you want you and your pet to look more alike, how about you drop your godforsaken rainbowhairing instead of covering your dog in dye?

A large portion of South Ossetia was de facto independent from Georgia following the Georgian civil war with them, during 2008 Georgia attempted to take over the entirety of South Ossetia, Russia and (to a much lesser extent) South Ossetia repelled the Georgians, in response to the conflict Russia went ahead and recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Abkhazia was also a de facto independent state that Georgia claims before 2008.

The EU thought Turkey was too far away, although they probably meant culturally. Anyway doesn't Georgia hate Russia already and have been begging for NATO inclusion like forever. Georgia has indeed had extremely bitter relations with Russia, even more so after Russia crushed Georgias failed land grab attempt.