alanschu

From a plot related perspective, I'd wager not even the Elder Scrolls games are non-linear, which is what we were talking about: non-linear plots. I haven't played through the main plot of either Morrowind or Oblivion, but I don't remember approaching them from a different perspective. They are more of an open sandbox game, with lots of quests in it (and a longer main quest).

Fallout is an excellent example that I had missed. It's definitely the most recent example. NWN2's plot is more linear than BG2 and NWN1. BG2 had the "get the money" chapter 2, as well as the decision to either go straight to the underdark as well as go back up to the surface (off the top of my head). NWN's non-linearity was too small scale for my liking, but it at least was present. But I find non-linear plots to be exceptionally rare. I wonder if it was more to do with time constraints. Making the world react appropriately (or at least to Obsidian's standards) to you butchering random civilians may have been something that would have taken more time than they were allotted. It seemed like things were getting the axe down the stretch, and it's possible that they didn't want it to just be "attack person X, and person X fights back" type of stuff. Because all the stuff you said about possibly losing the game can be taken care of by making plot related characters invincible. At the same time, maybe they didn't want people to randomly kill people to see what inventory they had, only to have them reload if they didn't like the outcome.

Baldur's Gate is a linear plot. PS:T is a linear plot. Baldur's Gate 2 was a bit less linear, as you could choose to not do some stuff when it came to acquiring money to track down Imoen, but even then, the plot is still pretty linear. At least there were ways to go through parts differently, but these ways were similar to the small branches that a game like KOTOR or NWN2 has. I'd also argue that the NWN plot is linear as well, as I don't particularly care for referring "Go get 4 things, but you can get the four of them in any order you want" as being particularly non-linear. The only RPG with a non-linear plot I can think of off the top of my head is Ultima 7, where you could literally solve parts of the main plot in a vastly different sequence of events. Not optional, go wander off and do whatever you want (which I don't consider to be non-linear gameplay either, since it's essentially just extra exploration that has no bearing on the plot) type stuff, but actual plot related quests that helped unlock the mysteries going on in Brittania. Even Oblivion (what I have played so far) has a linear plot. It may open up a bit more, but all the "non-linear" stuff is just extra, not particularly related to the plot at all. As for killing innocents, I don't particularly care. I never liked the wholesale slaughter of strangers in the older games because I thought it was not particularly punishing enough. And in games like Baldur's Gate, you can just run to the temple and buy back some reputation. I'm thinking he's referring to the comment that "the game looks horrible" that you made many pages ago when you switched out of your native resolution, which I would attribute more to your monitor as well, since the game looks pretty good to me at 1024x768.

The monitor will affect the quality of the image, since it's not in native resolution (like taks, this is the main reason why I'm still using a CRT monitor). Because the game does not run very well at high resolutions (one of the main reasons why, if I were to go for an LCD, I would not buy a big one is because the native resolution is far too high, and I'll be more inclined to spend more money on high quality video cards), you have to drop down the resolution, which would result in a larger hit in image quality than a CRT would probably experience. The "problem" is that the game doesn't run very well in high resolutions (if you want to call it a problem), so you have had to make some sacrifices. The funny thing is that if I could get an LCD that ran in native 1024x768, I'd probably get it. This way I could get more use out of it without having to buy top end cards all the time. I typically play at that resolution on my CRT anyways (which is only a 17" and can't get a very high refresh rate at high resolutions unfortunately, which hurts my eyes).

Just beat the game. Really enjoyed it. Played as a Tiefling Rogue/Assassin. Was a manipulative jerk. Didn't mind Neeshka. Plan on playing through as Human Paladin next, as well as playing with toolset and planning my story.

read forums on bioware, you can see many female players post. Heck, it's the 21st century EDIT: and about romances, I love them, atleast if they are somewhat plausible, of course the 'emotional increase' has to be much faster than in RL so it happens at all in the timeframe of the game. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He's not talking about the people that play the game when he says GENDER=MALE.

Magoo is my hero.

Oh, and one more thing, any of you that wish to play the game MP, know how to get a hold of me.

I felt the need to interject here, despite my recent posting habits. I find it rather absurd that someone that openly admits to buying a game guide, and prefers to read ahead so that there are "no surprises" in the upcoming parts of the game, is bitching and moaning about somone "spoiling" the tutorial. And since I also used D2D and am currently installing the game, I will slink back into the shadows. Good day.

Was this entire thread not about logical assumptions (look at the context in which Mothman is using the term logic, and see how much of it applies to the actual definition of logic)? I'll admit that my use of the word "logic" was not really accurate (though I doubt it's presense in this thread was used correctly either), but unfortunately this sort of stuff is what people consider logic. And the awesome thing about this "logic" (and philosophy in general) is that it's not too hard to manipulate it. If (1) Heterosexual males are not attracted to males and (2) little boys are sexually molested by males. (3) Homosexual males are sexually attracted to males. Therefore (4), the people sexually assaulting young males are homosexual males. It's not logically sound, because the premises are not all true. However, the only way to verify these premises is to have empirical data indicating that it's not true. Otherwise, people can (and WILL) continue to draw the same conclusions from this logical inference. Another use of "logic" in this thread was relating to environmental experiences: (1) Environmental experiences can affect the character of a person, and (2) hanging around gay men is an environmental influence. (3) Therefore, hanging around gay men will affect the character of a person. These premises aren't true (thanks to empirical studies that don't show any indication that homosexuality is contagious), but people insist on thinking that it is true, regardless of the findings. The problem is that people believe the premises to be true (and if they do believe it's true, then it's logically sound to them), and then make conclusions (and worse yet, government policy) based on those conclusions. If not for empiricism, you aren't going to be able to verify whether or not the premises is true, and won't be able to verify that your logic is, in fact, sound. I will concede though that what I was referring to as "logic" before, was not truly logic. As a counterpoint though, I doubt "logic" was ever really used in this thread correctly. I was more talking about the (inaccurate) deductive reasoning that people often do, and often refer to as "logic."

I was referring to the scientific, not the philosophical, usage of the term empircism (which includes the entire idea of forumlating hypotheses and drawing conclusions from data). I guarantee you though, that if you went somewhere making claims about the state of the world, using logic as the foundation of your argument, no academic will take you seriously. Logic leads people to make "commonsense" assessments of situations. Since it was already mentioned in this thread, a common notion is that homosexual men are more likely to molest little boys. Logically, this makes sense, as a homosexual man is attracted to other men. So if there was a man that would be more likely to molest a little boy, it would make more sense for it to be a homosexual male rather than a heterosexual male. However, the empirical analysis indicates that this absolutely is not the case. When making statements about the world, using logic as your foundation, your argument becomes significantly weakened.

People have sent me messages requesting to stay, so I may consider hanging around longer. Before I go, a few last quips. Logic is, and always will be, trumped by empiricism. It's a foundation of the scientific method, and logic and commonsense have routinely been shown to not coincide with actual reality. Furthermore, understand that any comment regarding social sciences can only be made with respect to what has been empirically found. Going around making comments about how people shouldn't say stuff hanging around homosexuals won't make some people homosexual because "you just don't know" is an exceptionally poor argument. This statement can be applied to anything. I am entirely open to the possibility that homosexuals may turn other people into homosexuals, but given that the literature and research unequivocally refutes this claim, I'm not about to rescind my statements simply because "it might be." It's possible that our understanding of gravity, with the weak and strong nuclear forces isn't correct either, although our current evidence says it does. It's what science and the scientific method is all about. And just to reiterate, science and logic are not common bedfellows. Logic is overrated, and without empirical evidence can (and frequently does) lead people to incorrect conclusions. And for any of you that questions the validity of homosexuality's presence in nature, I suggest reading Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity Other pages I quickly found on the internets: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20..._gayanimal.html http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality...sexual_behavior But seriously, read the book. It's very interesting and not written at too high of an academic level. As for why I cite that it's natural, because if something exists throughout the animal kingdom, I'm not going to judge it as being "right or wrong" if it seems to be something that exists throughout species. To ascribe the label of "wrong" to it implies that it must be a choice. Given that creatures of significantly less intellect and reasoning abilities than humans share the same homosexual tendencies, I'm not convinced there's much "choice" in the matter. Furthermore, given the rather large body of research indicating that homosexuality is strongly influenced by biology, I see labelling it "wrong" as being similar to labelling left-handed people as "wrong" (heck, you can even choose to be left-handed), or a chinese person as "wrong." And to be quite frank, I find it rather odd that many people against homosexuality are so quick to say it's a choice. I mean, did these people wake up one day and decide that life was too simple, and that they'd rather be part of pretty much the most stigmatized, ostracized, discrimated against group in the world? Did they go "Hmmm, you know, I think it'd be neat if I adopted a lifestyle that made it more susceptible for me to become a victim of hate crimes and to become a social outcast?" Why someone would *choose* a lifestyle that, for the most part, is going to make life far less bearable and enjoyable, seems pretty illogical to me.

All right, for my grand finale of posting on this forum. Lets start from the beginning: I'm curious where you dug this fact up? I think it's a logical conclusion that one can make, but history has taught me that "commonsense" notions are not uncommonly incorrect. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm The fact behind these conflicting statements is that most pedophiles are not homosexuals! Or to put it another way, most homosexual molestation is not done by homosexuals. One study involved 175 male adults who had been convicted in Massachusetts of child sexual assault. They found that none of them were homosexuals; all of them would fit the description of a fixated child molester. http://www.mcgill.ca/studenthealth/informa...erhealth/myths/ Studies have shown no correlation between a man's sexual orientation and a tendency to sexually abuse children Child molesters tend to not be classified as either homosexual nor heterosexual, and restrict their sexual attraction to children, and are often attracted to both boys and girls. No it doesn't. You're making a logical fallacy here. You say that it is a common fact that biology and sociology that group behaviour can influence individual behaviour, and then state that homosexuality must fall under these conditions. Environmental factors include things like "harsh postnatal conditions" and "low morale and downward mobility." Environmental influences go far, far, far beyond social influences. They typically refer to anything that happens outside of the womb and outside of genetics. You're misinformed because those "documented cases" don't actually demonstrate people switching their sexual preferences. Those documented cases are quite often homosexuals that have repressed their homosexuality (there's a social environmental effect) to avoid stigmatization and alienation. Furthermore, it is also not uncommon for these homosexuals to actual have heterosexual relationships, and even marry and have kids. The desire to fit in and be accepted is exceptionally strong. But deep down they are still homosexual, ashamed of their attractions and willing to do anything to stop it. This would also include homosexual males that enter reparative therapy. If someone is openly ashamed of their lifestyle (here's some more social environmental pressures), seeking consul to repress it isn't that difficult. It also ignores bisexual individuals. Hanging around gay people can influence you. You may like the food that they eat or the music that they listen to. Hanging around gay people will not make a heterosexual gay. Just because you're not saying it doesn't mean that that is not the foundation of your opinion. My example of the Catholic Priest was used because Catholic priests were sexually abusing little children. If you're concerned about homosexual males (which typically aren't child molestors) molesting your children, then you should also be concerned about Catholic Priests molesting your children. In fact, given history, you should be MORE concerned with a Catholic Priest doing it, because they seem to be doing it more than homosexual troop masters. That's why I cited the example. You HAVE judged them. YOu have falliciously judged homosexual men as being more likely to be a child molestor. This is not true! Furthermore, you then support the BSA in their decisions to refuse admission to homosexuals as a "precautionary measure." I am just baffled by this statement. You want to know why I think homosexuality is right? Well, for the record, I don't think homosexuality is right. Nor do I think it is wrong. I find it utterly absurd to think you can try to place something like that as being either right or wrong. It just is. For homosexuality to be "right" or "wrong" is to put some sort of morality associated with it. Given that homosexuality exists throughout nature, I'll even say that homosexuality is natural. But I'm not going to be absurd and claim that it is either right or wrong. It'd be like claiming that being white is right, and chinese is wrong. Or that being Christian is right, and Islamic wrong. Or even something simple, like right-handed versus left-handed. As for the organizations you mentioned, I have no beef with them. And I wouldn't have any beef with the BSA if they weren't actively trying to promote myths about homosexuality. If one of your organizations was say a woman's group, that exluded men, and then justified it on false information, and used the group to spread false information about men, then I'd be significantly less understanding. At the same time, the groups you mention are examples of minorities as well as a heavily disenfranchised part of our society (women). I can recognize those groupings as being places to find support in dealing with the difficulties of living in a different culture, or looking for support in dealing with systemic inequalities between male and female. I also doubt they're getting huge amounts of public dollars from the government. Another concern I have with the BSA, is that they are teaching children (whom are exceptionally impressionable) that homosexuality is indeed "wrong." Not really. Homosexuality is typically considered a sin by religious people. If you have people that have strong religious convictions and believe that homosexuality is "wrong" and hence, a sin, it's not too surprising that they wouldn't want those people in their group. Especially when their handbook says The Boy Scouts of America maintain that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing his obligation to God as well as comments in court hearings such as "If a youth comes to a Scoutmaster and admits to doing wrong, like stealing, lying, cheating or vandalizing, the normal procedure is to counsel the youth privately and sympathetically...If the youth admits to being a homosexual, the Boy Scouts' policy is to instantly terminate his association with Scouting." http://www.religioustolerance.org/bsa.htm Note, Quotes are now bolded and italacized, since I've hit the limit for quote tags. You're also now making the mistake of generalizing them by saying that many are racist. You don't know that, so don't say that. Heck, you don't even live in the U.S.! I don't know that? How would you presume to know that I don't know that? Simply because of the (absurd) statement that I don't live in the United States? Never mind the fact that you probably don't know where I grew up. As for them not being racist, tell that to the Native Americans. I'm sure they are huge fans of the heavy amount of stereotyping of natives that boy scouts commonly do. And prior to the Mormon Church becoming the powerbrokers of the BSA, the Mormon-sponsored troops did indeed have troubles with racism. I was never affiliated with the boy scouts, so I can't speak for their organization. So despite the fact that you were never affiliated with the BSA, you felt it prudent to point out that I don't even live in the US? And from Colrom: It would be refreshing to see you follow your own instructions to others more often - with or without the accompanying disrespectful language. Okay then: http://webpages.marshall.edu/~woods18/homosexuality.htm http://www.gapimny.org/newsletter/older_issues/10myths.html http://www.dignityusa.org/faq.html http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american..._of_LDS_in_Utah http://stereotype.drumhop.com/ http://www.religioustolerance.org/bsa.htm http://chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/M...4Abernethy.html http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488 http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm http://www.mcgill.ca/studenthealth/informa...erhealth/myths/ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/...ey-pillard.html http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm And those ignore books, such as DNA and Destiny: Nature and Nurture in Human Behavior and other fun little things I have read up on when scouring my University's libraries. And on a final note, later everyone. This board just frustrates the **** out of me, and I am finally done with it. Have a nice life.

And I don't have tolerance for those that state unequivically on behalf of a group that they don't belong to, and have the audacity to state that opinions from the "insulted" group are wrong. I'm not the one embarrassed. As for my "mob," you've already joined the mob of people that feel that their opinion is higher than that of others, and are willing to speak on their behalf because they are incorrect. I am reminded of the White Man's Burden. I did. The really awesome part is that you don't seem to care that despite her hardcore religious conviction to covering her face, she had no problems not covering it during interviews.

Actually I'm not sure that that is true.

It does?

Schizophrenia also does not mean multiple personality disorder, which is referred to as dissociatve identity disorder and sometimes multiple personality disorder.

It's ironic that you're continuing the press an issue that many of those to whom this would actually apply to, feel is a moot point. I think you're embarassing pretty much everyone else by continuing to press this issue, even when those that are most affected aren't actually insulted, nor are they making an issue out of it. It's a typical pink response, of which people like yourself feel you should champion the rights of others, even if those other people don't feel their rights have been infringed upon, because it makes you feel better about yourself. You're just like pretty much the rest of the University population I have the pleasure of seeing every day of the year. But hey, stretch things out to compare it to the Holocaust for dramatic effect.

Games on my RADAR at the moment are NWN2, MTW2, and Splinter Cell: Double Agent.

http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis/p20-pe02.html

Like Alanschu said in the spam forum, if they were going to put it in, wouldn't they have put it in NWN1? Then again, there were a lot of things with NWN that they had apparently planned to connect to BG that they never got around to doing. Got a different team this time around that might be very interested in including BG touchstones. We have a week to get our hopes up. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, the different team has even less ties to Baldur's Gate and Imoen than the previous team did, so I'd be much more suprised if they included Imoen (a character Obsidian/Black Isle did not create) into NWN2 because of BG2 (a game that was distributed by Black Isle, but created by Bioware). I'd be surprised if the NWN2 team was more interested in linking their game to an older Bioware game.

I think that that may be possible, but family planning seems to be correlated with economic security though. THere isn't a huge amount of births in places like the USA and Canada, but Africa is quite high.

Actually, it does change it. I don't want "private companies" that are pretty much publicly funded, doing whatever they want with tax payer dollars. And I certainly don't want them using taxpayer money to promote intolerance. I honestly don't know how you're okay with this, unless you yourself are intolerant of homosexuals, because no matter how much you spout off that they are a "private company," they receive more public funds than many public companies do. The instant you A-OK'd their decision to not allow them to do so you certainly did imply that. Especially when considering that sexual abuse upon little boys is NOT restricted to homosexual men (in other words, yes, heterosexual men have committed sexual abuse on little boys as well...not just homosexual men). Start citing your sources bub. Besides, nurture != choice. It's not all biological, but there is zero evidence that hanging around gay people makes you gay. That's because you've been woefully misinformed. Probably from church related sources. As I just said, there is no evidence that hanging around gay people makes you gay. (And even if it did.....why is that necessarily a bad thing?) I see no logic or reasoning. I see you towing the company line of your religion. It's the same type of logic and reasoning that says don't leave your children alone with a Catholic Priest. And at this point, I would greatly appreciate it if you never called anyone a hypocrite again. A "precautionary measure?" Precautionary against WHAT? You're still buying into the church's dogma that one, homosexuality is bad, and two, that homosexuality is contagious. You say you don't judge a person's character by their sexual preference, yet A-OK the decision of a company heavily funded by taxpayers (i.e. not as private of a corporations as say, every other private corporation out there) to ban people specifically because they are homosexual. And no, they aren't banned because they as a "precaution," they're banned because the Boy Scouts of America are a right-wing conservative group, that highly values the church (in fact, it is heavily, heavily supported by the Mormon Church). Because they exercise the exact same judgement on athiests. No Athiest troop masters. No athiest boy scouts. Then you say you judge people based on their actions, when the actions of the Boy Scouts of America is to discriminate based on religious, racist (yup, many of them are racist too), and sexual orientation. Unfortunately, it's a recent phenomenon. When the Mormon Church started to really get involved, they added to the Scout Oath that people must have a duty to God, and morally straight. It's odd that allowing homosexuals and athiests wasn't a problem before the Mormon Church hijacked the organization, and utilized it's popularity and pervaisiveness to spread its intolerance. But I suppose banning people because they are athiests is just as precautionary as banning them because they are homosexuals. Face it, the BSOA are an elitist club. Which would be fine, if they were actually a private corporation. But they receive mountains of public funding, and frequently utilize public schools (which are not allowed to host elitist, discriminatory organization) as host locations for their troops. The BSOA are still cashing in on their history, and people are ignorant to the recent changes that have gone on at the highest levels. And it's perfect for those in charge of the BSOA to perpetuate their intolerance, because they have the good history of the Boy Scouts behind them. Fortunately, it's getting tougher for them to receive public funding and gain access to publicly funded instituitions as people learn more about the current state of affairs of the BSOA. They used to be a good club, but it's sad that they've become what they are today.

I believe 2.3 Kelvin or so is the temperature everything will reach. Though, as you say, entropy doesn't destroy matter.

If she didn't appear in NWN, I wouldn't hold my breath about seeing her in NWN2.