algroth

He left the building.

I'm pretty curious as to how the port will be done. I can't imagine how a party RTwP combat would translate to a console controller, but we'll have to see what they came up with.

I know, I'm just messing with you is all. It's fun to argue!

Yes.

Sabres it really depends, they could be top heavy, but they also could not be. Depends on the construction. Weapons like the ones I mentioned also all had some form of full hand covering hilt, as people stopped wearing metal gloves. They didn't call crossbows "Knight Killers" because plate armor was all that effective against them. With the gun technology in Eternity (they have freaking pistols and cannon) historically speaking they are well past the age of plate armor. Well, as Jerek mentioned above, it's not necessarily that plate and guns did not share a common time - again, they were worn regularly till the late 17th century, over a century after the pistol's invention, and even more after the incorporation of cannons in European warfare (which came before small firearms - obviously armour was also not designed to withstand cannonfire either). Crossbows also far predate plate armour, their common use going as far back as the mid-11th century, nearly three centuries before full plate armour appeared. I don't know the origin of the term but it could have just as well been referring to its ability to penetrate mail and gambeson, which were what knights usually wore as armour in the 12th and 13th century (again, as far as I recall). Plate armour must have been effective to first gain traction and then endure through all these periods, as otherwise it would not have been worn. Consider, too, that plate armour was also very expensive and hard to make, all of which would contribute to its decline once it did eventually become obsolete.

You can "one trust to the right spot" and kill with many things; a knife, a pencil... You wouldn't enter a medieval battle with a dagger in hand if you have options. Daggers are essentially medieval side-arms, but made so they can be main weapons & used in open battles in RPGs, so RL references & how good daggers are in RL meaningless here, talk about daggers for what they are in RPGs. And again, I'm not questioning daggers' place in the game; I like daggers when a rogue dual-wields them the best and I frown upon if a paladin or priest wields it If you can find a valid concept and the game allows it so you can make dagger wielding paladins & priests, good for you. You would never enter a battle with a dagger in hand because it's a side-arm, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't employ it in battle. Especially in later periods where plate armour started to be used, a dagger was an effective sidearm to have because given its size and length it was very efficient and accurate at getting between the plates of the armour and dealing a lethal wound to your adversary (in close quarters and once the other knight was disabled, that is). This is my understanding anyhow, and I don't see why it would be so incongruent with the world of Eora too. Why do you guys need to tell me how awesome a dagger is in RL again & again? Daggers are awesomER in RPGs, cos they are so good so you would employ daggers as main weps in open battle. How do you guys interpreting me not liking certain character concepts' wielding daggers to me questioning daggers' merits? The point is that you can carry a dagger as a side-arm in the game thanks to weapon sets as well, meaning that if you *wish* to play a paladin with a dagger you can and it would not in strict historical terms be wrong either. Besides the paladin and priest as portrated in Pillars is pretty divorced from its D&D counterpart - I don't see why a member of the Steel Garrote or a priest of Skaen would feel wrong when equipping a dagger. In the end it's really about how you imagine and portray your character, their job is simply to cater to every possibility (and once in a while make you think of possibilities outside the standard fantasy norm as well).

Actually if anything the dagger makes sense as a major weapon in Eternity. With the advent of firearms (not to mention the cross bow) heavy armor because largely pointless, because those weapons could punch right through it. Thus people started wearing lighter more mobile armor, and when in melee started using lighter more flexible weapons. Like the Rapier, Sabre, or "Side" Sword. My understanding is that in Renaissance times plate was still pretty damn effective against firearms (though eventually it would grow obsolete), and also crossbows, and was thus commonly used up until the late 17th century ('commonly' for those who could afford it, that is). Also 'heavy' armour wasn't really that cumbersome - there's plenty of tests on YouTube that you can see of people in full plate showing off just how flexible full plate was, even being able to *swim* in full gear. The weight may seem scary at first but it's distributed through your whole body, thus making it relatively much lighter than when simply lifting it (of course you would only really use such armour for an actual battle, and not for travelling or the likes the way characters in an RPG do). Games ignore just how effective armour was usually - even a thick enough gambeson could provide excellent protection against arrows, slashes and the likes. Also my understanding is that sabres are pretty top-heavy weapons and thus not very nimble, whereas rapiers used to be very heavy, on average heavier than arming swords even. The change that came with the implementation of full plate was especially with regards to a new focus on piercing: slashing against plate was pretty useless, so swords were adapted to best be able to reach and pierce the "weak spots" in the armour, these being the parts that were not covered (slits, joints and the likes).

You can "one trust to the right spot" and kill with many things; a knife, a pencil... You wouldn't enter a medieval battle with a dagger in hand if you have options. Daggers are essentially medieval side-arms, but made so they can be main weapons & used in open battles in RPGs, so RL references & how good daggers are in RL meaningless here, talk about daggers for what they are in RPGs. And again, I'm not questioning daggers' place in the game; I like daggers when a rogue dual-wields them the best and I frown upon if a paladin or priest wields it If you can find a valid concept and the game allows it so you can make dagger wielding paladins & priests, good for you. You would never enter a battle with a dagger in hand because it's a side-arm, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't employ it in battle. Especially in later periods where plate armour started to be used, a dagger was an effective sidearm to have because given its size and length it was very efficient and accurate at getting between the plates of the armour and dealing a lethal wound to your adversary (in close quarters and once the other knight was disabled, that is). This is my understanding anyhow, and I don't see why it would be so incongruent with the world of Eora too.

it's not an excuse, it's a fact. a rabid dog does not care who it's biting when it feels threatened. I agree, it's not something we should try to excuse, but simple wishing for it not to happen is not enough. So let's just cater to the wishes of unstable bigots because clearly they're not in the wrong here, it's the immigrants who are. Makes perfect sense.

I saw The Net today, enjoyed it greatly. It's a film very much in the style of The Lives of Others and Omar amidst others, about a North Korean fisherman who upon getting his fishing net entangled on his propeller and drifting off to the South Korean shores, is accused of being a spy and is thus faced with the most oppressive and authoritative face of liberalism and so-called 'freedom'. There are two ways the film could have gone about this, one being to demonize the capitalist culture of South Korea and show its 'true face' as the real dictatorial and oppressive system, the other being the humanitarian position that sees in both systems similarities and an opposition to true freedom for the individual; needless to say, the film goes for the latter. The protagonist is no less the common 'brainwashed' North Korean, he is supportive of his government to a fault, he's been indoctrinated and it's the only lifestyle he's known - but is enforcing an alternative lifestyle out of your culture's belief that it is how he's ensured freedom, not in its own way acting against the individual's freedom? Above all else his wish is to be reunited with his family again, yet this is an act that is made impossible both by the South Korean *and* North Korean authorities; thus the conflict's axis turns to be not between North and South, but between individual and state - in either iteration - instead. It's not perfect: some of the characters are written a bit too one-dimensionally as villains, and that does lend the film a slightly preachy tone from time to time; likewise, I think the film could have done without its last ten or so minutes. All the same, it's an interesting case told from a unique perspective, which ultimately makes for a quite moving and compelling film. Worth a watch!

Nice Canadian Volo letting others know that not all Canadians are nice.

Really digging this band right now:

John G. Avildsen, director of Rocky and The Karate Kid among other films, died. R.I.P.

Not to mention that it's hardly 'wrong' either, as the dagger was commonly employed as a sidearm by knights.

Remain in Light in its whole is pretty funky too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k96zk09uyjU And live even better!

Have to agree with the comments made on the portraits so far, I also feel they seem a step down from those in the first game. Also I do find the dialogue interface a little weird (maybe the character portrait can be made smaller or removed?) That aside though, liking how it's looking so far!

How's that funny It's a Polish thing. Advice to others: the link contains real-life gore and results of violence. Thought I should mention it as the poster fails to (and also fails to adhere to the forum ToS). It's all fake, that's the point of the video... Ah, I see. Didn't look too closely (or for very long), my bad.

Loving what I'm seeing so far. The lighting is still a bit rough as well as some of the environmental effects but it's par for the course with pre-alpha footage. Really hyped!

How's that funny It's a Polish thing.

Tubular Bells is alright, though to my mind the album of Oldfield that is head and shoulders above the rest of his work is Ommadawn:

Problem is Marvel doesn't really have any major female characters. All the well known female marvel characters are X-Men, so Fox has the rights. They have really been pushing Captain Marvel to be their Wonder Woman in the comics, but she isn't catching on like they hoped. The movie might help with that. In terms of the MCU, however, they have both Scarlet Witch and Black Widow on whom they can base a film, being that both have in their cinematic incarnations a fair bit of following. Besides, is Captain Marvel really less successful than either Guardians of the Galaxy or Doctor Strange? I think the MCU by now have a strong-enough following to make of a middling comic book series a successful cinematic one. In all honesty I wouldn't be surprised if all three heroines above have already been looked at as potential candidates for their own solo films, but perhaps they've yeat to hit on a project that would be appealing and have them at the lead. Dunno, but either way I don't think it's their lack of bankability as characters that has kept them from having their solo ventures.