Tigranes

I thought Georgia died? Or was that New Jersey? Or was one of them Aliens? Gah. I suppose the Xpack may not be as big or long a project.

Stephen Amber, I don't think you really understood me, but that's probably my fault - Sawyer explained it better, just now. Interplay was having financial trouble, and if it waited until TBH was released, then it would probably have died and closed shop even faster than it did. IWD2 was a one step backward, two step forward thing. Pity that those two steps weren't enough to let it survive. If anything, I would blame Herve Caen's hemmorrhaging of the company, the FO:BOS project, and the decision to cancel TBH then later develop Van Buren (though I think there was a reason for that, I forget). But those more knowledgeable than me have produced enough theories about the cause of BIS' death to justify a university degree. Point is, I think most people will agree that it wasn't IWD2. Anyway. On the general discussion: As someone who's never reaaally played tabletop D&D (never really had the chance, unfortunately), I actually liked AD&D and whatever used in the IE games... I thought they were translated into the medium quite well; above all was fun, diverse and generally made sense. I felt the same about 3E as I do now with 4E: a generally lateral move that does some good and some bad, but probably we'll all get used to it quite soon.

I've played indoor football before which has small goals and no-entry radius around the goals as well, though these have keepers. The point is, it's not really as easy as one thinks it might be to score if the team is a bit canny and positions their defenders properly. I imagine that the particular type the OE fellows seem to be playing would involve quite a lot of running, though - lots of space but still densely packed. I wonder if any of you folks it the 'enforcer' type - plays and tackles hard, crunchy crunch?

The two-and-a-half guess is correct; Fergie envisioned two projects going full steam, and one project in pre-conceptual stages that doesn't require as many people. As one of the full steam project finishes, the project-in-waiting would go vroom vroom. I find it likely that Aliens and NWN2 Xpack are the two main projects at this time, and Alpha Protocol in its early stages, though perhaps it's the other way round. But then we'd be waiting quite a while for the Xpack, won't we? And I don't really see that happening.

It is my understanding that IWD2 was conceived from the beginning as a short-term, relatively guaranteed-sale project in order to keep the cash flowing, as TBH or F3 were not projects that could be completed in a 12-month cycle. I'm sure I might be remembering things wrong, though - if so, somebody catch me on it. You seem to be propelling your side of the argument almost by yourself, though. I did mean to touch on the connections with the earlier 4E debate, and assert that as Sawyer & co. didn't exactly jump into 3E without thinking 'just because it is new', I think it fair to say that they will similarly judge 4E on its own merits (though it's not like they can continue making 3.5E when 4E is out, anyway). I think there's no evidence in the IWD2 era to say that Sawyer is in any way a WOTC apologist or fails to see its mistakes.

I admit I don't really understand Stephen Amber's core complaint. Firstly, IWD2 was going ahead due to a variety of reasons (such as financial) and did nothing to contribute to the hold-up or eventual cancellation of Van Buren (F3) or the Black Hound (BG3). I think Sawyer himself can attest to this, and if anyone is peeved off by TBH's cancellation it's him. Secondly, IWD2's 3E implementation missed things out, changed things, and so forth, but as everybody knows, you can't implement a tabletop system to a CRPG without changing, adding or missing out anything - not only is it difficult, it would be silly and wouldn't make a good game. While everybody always differs on what should have been left out, put in or changed, I thought IWD2 did feel quite distinctly different from the other IE games in the way it played and the way you developed your character, as much as could be expected with the IE engine. (I mean, even with AoO, it's still D&D, the NWN series didn't play *that* differently from IE games). Thirdly, the generally agreed 'big flaws' of IWD2, such as lack of consistency across areas, doesn't really have a lot to do with whether the game was in 2E or 3E... the real problem, if anything, was the amazingly limited timeframe; Sawyer can probably explain (and has explained) this in more detail, but nevertheless. Finally, it must be noted that as a very similar game to IWD1, if IWD2 remained in 2E it probably wouldn't have had much of an appeal at all - the reason that it occupies a good place in the IE pantheon and is still loved by some is because of the different gameplay 3E gives it, as well as some advantages only available to that latest iteration of the engine.

If only that were the case Di, then we wouldnt' have a problem whatsoever; then parents could simply choose and execute the best method for their child. But unfortunately, there's no entrance exam for parenthood, you just have to have a ding-dong and do some hanky-panky. Some parents are too busy earning money to even know much about their chidlren. Some parents don't really love their children that much, or not enough to be concerned about what kind of education might be proper for them. Some parents cannot or do not provide an environment that is suitable for any child to grow in, whether that be in terms of amenities or mental stress or opportunities. And finally, some parents just have really wacky ideas and the child never has a chance. Apart from that though, I think the key thing to do if one decides to homeschool their children, is to try and find alternative means of developing social skills. Spending the majority of your childhood with such a limited scope of social interaction isn't good for most people - its a matter of finding the social environment right for the child (which, yes, is not necessarily public schools, dear God.)

Of course not, you're an Aussie. To be honest, Edmund Blackadder's insults only come to life with the verbal delivery. Rowan Atkinson is so much funnier when he talks.

Yes, not here.

I've lurked the Codex for years, as I have NMA - both interesting places, but I wouldn't want to post there. I believe, however, that the current consensus on the Witcher is a 'sack of donkey crappers marinated in the Pacific Ocean'.

British jokes are the best in the English-speaking world, hands down. A man may fight for many things. His country, his friends, his principles, the glistening ear on the cheek of a golden child. But personally, I'd mud-wrestle my own mother for a ton of cash, an amusing clock and a sack of French porn. .

I found all the backlash at the time of the deal in the media very funny - senior US gov. officials were saying things like how its a disgrace the airforce has decided to forego an American company for a European one, and protests were held with slogans like "Our troops only deserve the best - buy American." Nobody seemed to realise (or want to realise) that actually, Airbus was preferred precisely because their aircraft were better in nearly every way than Boeing's. So, yes, the best for the American troops! Maybe if Boeing were better competition, then patriotism would be more practical.

We pretty much had to eat meat to survive as much as we did. Just how much is something nobody can answer. I'm not going to quite as much into anthropology as Gorth, but I will say this: One of the big reasons vegetarianism and animal rights appeared as popular movements in the second half of the 20th century, over other types of movements (i.e. plant rights, guh), was because these movements could be relied upon to trigger an emotional involvement within a large part of the populace. Why? Animals are more humanoid in their expression. They flinch when they are hit, they can have giant puppy eyes, they limp, they bleed, they moan and scream. And for people that have pets (animal pets, of course, are common), this is even more amplified. I'm not saying these movements have no basis in good logical argument: but I'm saying that the reason they have become as big and influential as they are now, and the reason we flinch in horror at 'senseless' killing of dogs or Japanese whaling but only a half-hearted, worried glance at the destruction of the rainforests, is all because the former we can 'see' more, there are images better suited to jerking our emotions.

I'm sorry I don't have time to contribute properly to the debate, so if warranted, feel free to agree or lambast this post, but I'll just throw one thing in: We don't kill animals just to eat their meat. If that were the case, the issue might be actually fairly simple. But we need animal bodies and whatever is in them for a ton of things in our society - the obvious ones like perfume, perhaps the less obvious ones like tennis rackets. Of course this isn't the picture, and no I'm not out to brand vegetarians hypocrits or idiots at all. The point is - the use of meat is completely and utterly integrated within our society. That means, 'true animal rights', whatever that may be, can only come about on a consistent level if we can answer this fundamental question: what exactly is it about animals that deserve rights? Is it that they are living beings just like humans? Nope, and I'll explain why. As a base example that is NOT a full argument and is largely speculative; trees, vegetables and whatnot are also living things, just like animals. If you refuse to eat meat, but eat vegetables, aren't you only favouring the animals because they look more like us, and we with our limited senses can more easily see the pain they are in? So some vegetarians decide only to eat things that are already dead. Okay. If we extend that logic not just to eating but everything we use natural ingredients for.... what happens to our civilisation if we can't cut down trees until they are dead? Which vegetarian is really willing to hemmorhage humanity to that degree for moral consistency? Nobody. So, the line isn't life. Nobody is arguing for extensive animal rights because animals are alive; it's something else. What is it? What is it particularly about animals, that everyone is raving about animal rights, but plant rights? (I mean, that even sounds stupid to us. It's simply not in our social normative system to talk about plant rights.) I know I sound pretty damn wacko here, but if I can try and communicate something down-to-earth: what exactly is it about animals that deserve extensive rights and protections? It's not that they're living things. Is it that they are closer and more similar to humans in some way? Is it because they make fuzzy eyes at us when we snap up that hatchet? Is it that killing dogs seems inherently more cruel to us than chopping down the rainforest? What? What?

The Decemberists - The Island, Come And See, The Landlord's Daughter, You'll Not Feel The Drowning Anybody know these fellows? I've always liked them.

That should actually work, N'Al - and later, if you crash trying to enter a particular area, that's probably eAR9200. (There should be an Area Code list online - that's the easiest way to check) It shouldn't crash at all, but if it does, just try re-copying Qwerty's version directly into the hard-drive, then clearing the temps folder. I take it all the 'fixes' you tried for the other games have yet to work with IWD1, for the graphics glitch? I'm not sure how to remedy that one, maybe the ohters will.

Have IWD:HOW + TtoL installed and a party ready to go, but haven't really had the urge yet. I enjoyed IWD2 a lot more and played that 3-4 times, so now I've nearly forgotten what the first one is like. I just need to get my IE urges going again, having played through Thief 2 and 3 back-to-back. I certainly consider both IWD1 and 2 too grindy to play continuously - you need breaks from all that monster-pounding, and I admit using Ctrl+Y to bypass some annoying battles. But they're still good romps if you enjoy IE.

Yes, try using Qwerty's replacement to install from the hard drive. If not, I believe the trick to fake a Full Install is still possible with IWD:HOW? I haven't tried it on it myself, but basically, you copy the files onto a folder on your hard drive, then open icewind.ini in your installed game, and change the paths to point to the hard drive. (And possibly, Installation Type=3.)

Just finished Thief 3 - this time the save didn't corrupt on me. Well, let's just say the ending was quite poor. Not that any Thief game ever really had a good story, but still.

I'm pretty sure I'm registered under Gmail myself - are you having trouble DN? As for the .ru issue, Irx, I believe it's been sent to the administrators to have a look at.

Steve's prediction appears to be on the ball here - no doubt some hardballing. Of course, this is why I wouldn't want to be buried were I dead. Just take all my useable organs, and burn everything that remains. Or if the descendants insist, put me in one of those wall locker-room things you people have in Europe, which get cleared out every few decades. Korean tradition dictates that you get buried in one of these: One bump per person. Of course, in the past, there was a firm belief that you needed to house your dead ancestors in 'good land' (i.e. facing North, or some other direction), with nothing to disturb it for a set radius, etc. Some people still insist on it, though those who do will probably die out within another generation or two. Knowing how small South Korea is, and how many people we have, and how +50% of our nation is mountainous, this presents a massive problem.

Personally, I think Obama is a man of great integrity and vision, and he clearly has ideas in his head about what he wants to do once he is in the White House, and this has very much to do with government transparency, attacking lobbyists and special interest groups, and reaching out to the people. This is fine. Moreover, his gift in oratory and the media's fawning over him leads him to transmit this rather pure vision onto the American people, which is one of the reasons he is doing so well. The only problem with Obama is, yes, 'experience': but this is a more complex and wide-reaching quality than one is led to think. For example, Obama has quite consistently lived up to his words in what he has done. But if he were involved in politics as much and as long as Hillary Clinton had been, would he have been able to keep up such a level of consistency? As the president, will he be able to fend off, outwit and outpolitik lobbyists, special interest groups, sympathetics in the white house itself and corporate interests, inside the White House where the enthusiasim of the people is not as directly effective as it can be in the elections? He certainly has enough courage, but does he have enough guile, enough know-how to do that over the course of his presidency? And especially, if there is a high-pressure and controversial situation such as a general economic depression, major terrorist attack or unrest in areas like Israel/Palestine, would he be able to adopt a sensible and firm policy and carry it through? We cannot be sure. And that is really the crucial thing. I know Hillary is quite annoying by now in pushing the experience envelop every single day, but there are very far-reaching consequences of lack of experience. It's not just that he hasn't had to deal with X situation before: he will not know who to appoint to what job, what to say and when, and how to outmaneuvre the various obstacles in his path to 'airing out' the White House. His vision and his courage cannot be doubted; his guile, yes. Combine that with the fact that 90-95% of Obama and Hillary's policies are same or similar, and you have to say, those who say they will vote for McCain if Obama loses out don't really make too much sense. I think McCain's a pretty solid candidate and he's doing well as a post-Bush candidate, but even if Hillary, say, takes lots of special interest money or whatnot, there's not much there to refuse someone whose policies are nearly a clone of Obama's.

Precisely. Now, if we take the broadest possible instance: a very social person who makes friends fast and enjoys their company, works (work friends), studies (classmates), goes to a local church (church friends), plays sports in the weekend (sport friends), keeps up correspondence with mates who are now far away, knows some internet people quite well, and has some other miscellaneous acquaintances. On first glance that is easily over 150... until you realise that for most of us, there are people in our class, church group, office, sports team or whatever that you hardly know, or don't really know them that well and don't think about them most of the time. Every single category of people I just talked about above applies to me; even discounting the fact that I am a young person (and therefore has less acquaintances) and am not hypersociable, I would take all those people and set a rough number at less than a hundred. Certainly, people who if I met on the street I could ask to go for a coffee and would accept, and have a good time? More like fifty or perhaps a bit less. Even though that includes people in the UK, the Netherlands, Canada, US, Brazil, Korea, New Zealand, Australia.

Interesting. Though, I must say, one would be hard pressed to find people whose close acquaintances number more than 150.