algroth

Sorry, but no. The equivalent to the keyboard would be the engine, in this case Aurora, or even the computer itself, not the end result which is by all means comparable to music. In music too, some pieces have different purposes than others, études for example acting largely as practice material, but it doesn't make them any less subject to review as musical pieces. If Neverwinter Nights ought to have been all about the editor, and existed as a tool opposite to a game, it should have been all about the editor: that is simply not the case, however, and it is still a *game*. As such, it is not a mistake to evaluate it for its campaign, which is by all means dire, if the editor is nevertheless a part of the whole and can be looked at as well.

Jesus, it's like they've told you the whole movie. Looks interesting though.

Well, the only time I remember it coming up in my playthroughs was when talking with Eb, if I recall correctly. I can recall it coming to effect on a subquest involving a woman that owned Lethian's Crossing's lands, but I don't remember this being explained with much detail there, more like "she's the only daughter remaining of this bloodline, hence she inherited all this land that I want for me". Regardless the problem in both cases, I think, has a bit to do with one of my personal overarching criticisms with the game, which is that it paints the world and experience in pretty broad strokes and seems pretty lacking on plenty of the finer details regarding interactions, lore, certain options and resolutions and the likes. To me the case you mention above is something akin to the lack of recognition a priest of Eothas got for worshipping Eothas in Pillars: it's just the exception to the rule that would have required its own dialogue trees to account for your character's background and wasn't given them. With this in mind and considering the fact that depending on which faction/storyline you follow, any of the four regions may appear as first for you, I reckon the chance of each of these encounters being the first time the player could come across this bit of world lore is what made the devs be more expositional in each case, more so than wanting to lecture the player on feminism. I mean, to this regard of repetition I felt it a lot more tedious to hear the Disfavoured and Chorus members repeating ad nauseam their thoughts on each other, or the Tiers for that matter.

True, I perhaps misunderstood and assumed this applied to all of the Known World and not just the Tiers. Though, echoing my initial thoughts and the game's argument, if this is a more universal split then it also makes sense that a woman should lead the defense and a man should lead the conquest. All the same the above seems to apply more to titles of property than specifically of power, as several of the leaders outside the Vendrien Guard are also male (e.g. Stalwart, the Unbroken, the Bronze Brotherhood, Halfgate... Lethian's Crossing is an intriguing example because the "mayor" or elder of the town is male but the one to own the lands is female, for example). Generally, though, I think the "gender politics" are pretty well-justified and sensible in this case, so as to not present an issue of pandering to feminism and whatnot.

I would agree on other titles but I do think that the way they justify this in Tyranny is pretty solidly done (i.e. men rule the seas, women the lands, due to one's interest for conquest, exploration and expansion and the other's maternal instincts anchoring them to the "nest" so to speak). I think the line of thought here is more practical than simply "wimin are strong", and probably explains why, despite what seems like a matriarchal society, the military/conquest branches are run by men (Nerat, Ashe, Tunon).

Great trailer! Cate Noirette? I'll have some of that, yes please.

ROBUST stuff, of course!

I would agree with Katarack about this, but having said that I also think the conditions are there to deliver another such "fluke". But yes, to expect it will reach that level of greatness is probably a mistake.

Personally I found Pillars much bigger than Baldur's Gate II, with expansions especially. That is not a dig at the latter, mind, I still think it's a better game overall, but I'm not too worried with the size, and as much as I like my RPGs to be sprawly and ambitious there does come a point when they may burn one out, regardless of how good they are.

The Bags of Holding were awesome back in the day because they helped reduce the incredibly frustrating mechanic of inventory management. I think making the inventory unlimited was a good move, and it doesn't really break my immersion since I can always accept it as a gameplay convention. The reason to why is because I imagine a lot of us are the obsessive types who would have likely picked up EVERY LAST PIECE OF EQUIPMENT until their bags were full, and proceeded then to sell everything at the nearest merchant before venturing into the dungeon once again: in the end it's less a challenge than a grievance that is tediously but easily bypassed by backtracking. I think the best solution to the above, which is already being applied into Deadfire, is to not have every xaurip drop a spear when killed. In a way, randomized enemy drops makes it harder to properly gauge how much money one could make by the end of the game, but it also keeps that final number more in check opposite to having *every* creature of a kind drop the same loot. I like the idea of being able to invest on certain companies and the likes, but my one issue here is how it is applied: I think that the more "automatic" gold collection becomes, the less meaningful it is, and by this I mean, if all you have to do to see a steady trickle of gold is to buy some stock here or there, then you'll get to the point eventually where just buying time will get you the gold you need, and don't need. Now, if these are tied to a more meaningful and complete game mechanic, by say, being able to have a say on how the business is run in each company you invest in, then maybe the income can become meaningful once more, and you may even experience losses if you handle the businesses poorly.

I feel like I'm missing some sort of reference here? :D What website gives you access to many many stores and shops?

Rewatched some films the last couple of days... Don't Look Now - I still have trouble getting into Nicolas Roeg's schizophrenic sense of pacing, but it does aid this film really well in generating an eerie and tense mood. The chase sequence at the end of the film is some truly wonderful stuff. Demolition Man - Here's a film I wouldn't mind seeing a remake of, seeing that it's a topic so applicable to the present day and which is really in the end a good premise very poorly executed. The film too readily opts into favouring the Stallone action vehicle side of things over the satire, and the film suffers heavily for it. It could have been much smarter and acerbic than it is, but it as it is it only "has its moments". Blade - One Wesley Snipes movie led to the other. I really enjoy this despite the fact that it has clearly aged poorly: the CGI is horrendous even for its time, and 90s fashion in general just seems dorky in today's context. Despite that, there are some interesting ideas and clever moments, the action setpieces are nicely shot and choreographed, and overall it's a film that doesn't bog itself down with unnecessary set-up or franchise teasing (even as the film does indicate to there being a greater world and overarching conflict out there), it just feels like it limits itself to telling a good two-hour story and works well just as that. There are some people who view this film as the start of the comic book movie craze but I think it's quite distinct and formally different to the genre as we've known it since X-Men to say it was something of a curious precursor but less so than it might have been for the bullet-dodging trenchcoat-wearing martial arts movies that would follow. Arrival - Spoke about this before, it's just brilliant and still likely my favorite film of last year. I like how it echoes the conflict of understanding time in Western culture and certain Eastern ones, whereby one understands time linearly and the other cyclically. Very interesting stuff, very moving, and it's criminal that neither Amy Adams nor Johann Johannsson were nominated at this year's Oscars.

It's a zero sum game because if the item on the merchant isn't the relative *best* item of that type for that part of the game, it won't get bought, and if it is and gold is plentiful, it will be. Why would you buy incredibly expensive items if you can get a better one from somewhere else? This is where the limited gold comes in handy; you can't simply buy all the best stuff, you need to make choices on which items you buy and which slots you'll depend on drops to fill. So: there are only so many inventory slots to fill, and the ones you can fill with drops, you won't fill with vendor items, and the ones you fill with vendor items will prevent you from fully enjoying their weaker drop-based counterparts. Hence, a zero sum game between vendors and drops. The point is, gold becoming so abundant that you'll be able to afford everything isn't something that just happens automatically. Dragon Age Origins for example had a very limited supply of gold and you would never be able to get everything you wanted, considering that there were those 'mandatory' skill and stat books and back-bag extensions that already devoured a huge chunk of your treasure. Unless you exploited that double-sell glitch of course. That glitch was way too easy to do for my liking, and I found myself struggling not to use it on every single play-through. The thing is that item quality isn't necessarily a linear scale, more so than a pyramid of tiers: many items offer different abilities which may or may not seem better to the player according to the use and strategy they give to these weapons, as well as their own preferences. Yes, there may be the occasional Carsomyr or Celestial Fury that is simply better than any other weapon of its kind available, but then which is a better set of armour, Shuruppak's Plate, Red Dragon Plate, or maybe just the Firecam Full-Plate Armour? Those are some Baldur's Gate II comparisons, but Pillars of Eternity has also made it so that it is easier and more convenient to carry several different types of weapon as primary, secondary or terciary sets, since not only do weapon use bonuses apply to a gamma of weapons instead of a certain specific kind, but with weapon-type resistances (which, granted, were a thing in both games) it is also strategically convenient that you should keep sets of different weapons that are of similar quality as well. In the end, it's true that there are so many slots to fill, but this doesn't imply a zero-sum game if nothing else because how to fill them up may differ wildly from player to player. What's more, if one side or the other is entirely underwhelming, then there is definitely a loss: why explore, why sell things at all or accept to do things for money? Items sold by merchants are only easy to acquire inasmuch as the gold necessary to purchase them is easy to gather, but it doesn't need to be. You put forward the example of Dragon Age: Origins - that right there is an example on how both aspects can be strong and rewarding all of their own. If these unique and really good items are truly expensive, then they will be a challenge all of their own to acquire. Maybe they can be a little cheaper than Dragon Age, but all the same they would require work to purchase, and act therefore as another incentive for questing. I see both aspects as being enhanced here, not one or the other.

George Bellows

Georges de la Tour

Faustino Bocchi

Rosie Hamlin RIP

Ha, we have plenty of dulce de leche where I live (Argentina), and I have to admit, I don't like it too much myself. :D Too sweet for my tastes.

Mati Klarwein (spoilering due to nudity)

Luis Felipe Noé (father of Gaspar Noé)

Gustave Moreau

Paul Delaroche

Duane Michals

Caspar David Friedrich

Mervyn Peake (This one in particular reminds me of Pillars' illustrations)