deganawida

Actually, my family and I (we're Oneida, of the Haudenoshonee) prefer "Oneida" first and foremost, and then "American Indian".

Would there be casinos? Those casinos are funded, for the most part, by a few select European (primarily French) companies that take advantage of the unique legal situations of the reservations. Most money doesn't actually go to the nation, but to the company that fronts all the building and setup costs. It's just another scam perpetrated by Europeans upon the indigeneous people of the Americas.

Who'd take the UN in? The UN building is on Seneca land, according to signed US Treaties, but was "donated" by Rockefeller to the UN. I'll only speak for myself, but I would rather see the 5000+ treaties that the United States and Canada made with the various American Indian nations honored than see y'all kicked out, and all Indian artifacts returned to their respective nations (Give us back our Constitution!). That would be more than enough room for us. Heck, might even see the stone move back to New York.

David Hayter, no question.

MGS2 was an atrocity. That said, I've been waiting for this announcement for years. Can't wait to see Solid in action on the silver screen.

Why on earth not? I do. Helps keep performance up.

Personally, what I would be interested in asking is whether Feargus believes that OE will be focused solely on making RPGs, or will they eventually branch out and experiment with other genres? I know that many of the developers at OE have diverse tastes in games, and I think that it would be interesting to see what they could add to games other than RPGs. Of course, I would still desire for OE to remain RPG-centric, but I think there's merit to the idea of trying other types of games (both from a creativity and financial standpoint).

That has to be the funniest thing said thus far.

Just saw that at Gamespot. My reaction (and also my choice for the poll about the name) was WTF? How am I supposed to pronounce that?

Heck, there's a number of states in the current US that could fall of the face of the earth for all I care, why would I want more territory added?

The desire for rapid leveling in a computer version of D&D led to the monstrously imbalanced and utterly ridiculous Action Point Enhancements of DDO. One hour per level is far, far too rapid. I stand by my earlier statement: 10-12 is as high as a 20 hour game should let you get.

Soon.

Chronicles of Prydain ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yup.

"Munching of cheap and cheeze" coupled with your avatar has led me to create a new nickname for you: Gurgi.

Too much coffee is not a good thing. EDIT: Heck, now that I think about it, coffee period is not a good think. Drink some tea, for crying out loud, preferrably sweet tea (sweetened with Splenda is best).

You could still replace the PC with another if the first died though. If it's just a matter of digging out the shard. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly. The shard is what's important, not the one in whom it is embedded. To further clarify, ask yourself this question: Would the githyanki still have reason to pursue the PC were the shard not embedded in him, assuming nothing else in the story changed? The answer is a resounding "no". However, the githyanki would still need the shard, so the story could progress with minimal interference. Now, take BG2 (oh, and Volo, Irenicus is most definitely the protagonist of BG2, as he defines all the action in the game save for side-quests; the protagonist does not have to be the hero, which is why Gromnir's old MacBeth argument is so very apt in describing the plot of BG2): Could that game had proceeded had the PC not been the Bhaalspawn? Again, the answer is "no". The entire reason that Irenicus sought out the PC was due to his Bhaal essence, which was part of his nature. In conclusion, "Chosen One" stories are guided by the principle that there is something intrinsic in the protagonist's nature which renders him important. A bit of sword lodged deep in your body is not part of your nature.

Okay, now I'm confused. Every game where the PC is the protagonist is "Chosen One"? If you make the PC not the protagonist, though, then what is the player supposed to do? The protagonist always defines the action; that's the definition of "protagonist" (and one of the reasons why I didn't like BG2's story much, as Irenicus was the protagonist of that game).

Like Gromnir said, this isn't a Chosen One story. The "Chosen One" is a storytelling technique in which the protagonist is important by his very nature, either by deign of prophecy, ancestry, or power. Fantasy stories where the protagonist is the Chosen One include Feist's Magician and sequels, Goodkind's Sword of Truth, Brooks' Shanara, and Jordan's Wheel of Time. However, the case with NWN2 appears to be just what Gromnir said, that the protagonist is simply some poor schmuck who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The protagonist's importance is incidental; what is really important is the item, and the item would be important whether or not the protagonist was involved. Stories in this vein include, of course, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn. A good test to determine if a story is of the "Chosen One" vein is if one could insert any other random person into the plot and have the story continue unaltered.

That, to me, is what makes the early levels truly epic, as opposed to the tacted-on, poorly-developed, and throroughly-munchkiny "Epic Levels" from the ELH. It is more emotionally gratifying, to me, to get knocked down by a lucky crit at level 1 and succeed on my stabilization check at -9 while my party tries desparately to kill the CR.25 goblins, than to handily dispatch a dragon.

I take it no one listened to your ideas at the DA forums about that? I was in favor of your idea, but don't remember if I ever posted about it.

Heh :D I'd say no more than 10-12. That places it in the high end of the mid-levels (high levels, according to DMG, around 15 & 16, with 19-20 at very high), which is reasonable. I'd prefer in the arbitrarily-assigned limit of 20 hours capping at 8-10. Regarding the Gargantuan dragon, I don't know. It could be a cameo, or there could be a "trick" to lower its CR.

Blast it all, Volo, how is it that you can, with bad spelling and your bloody roofles, get people to understand what I could not? [dangerfeld]I get no respect.[/dangerfeld]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> BEEEEEPPPPP!!!!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!!! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!!!!! "Suppose" is the operative term there, and it sets up a supposition (see the second definition; also see synonyms), which places that whole passage firmly in the realm of the hypothetical, per my previous assertions that such comments were made as hypotheticals. An implication would be if I had started that statement with something along the lines of, "It's my believe that...", or "I think that we'll see...". In other words, incorrect, try again, so long.

Well, you did try say "if they made it 20 hours they are likely to put in content to have it last 3 times". Quote me. Go ahead, quote me even implying that. The closest that I came was making a hypothetical where a game could have multiple play-throughs of 20 hours each, with each play-through offering enough of a difference to make it worth its while and feel different, and that hypothetical was made to prove a point that game length need not be linear.

That's funny, considering that I never made that argument. What I have argued is twofold: First, that judging a game solely upon length and no other factors is folly, and second, that a game could theoretically have multiple play-throughs of 20-hours each, and provide a longer gaming experience than one in which game length was purely linear (even if it were only 3 play-throughs, 3*20>40). Nice try, though.