Pop

Well, name us some B-Movie actors. Join in the fun!

Ron Perlman FTW. And and and Mark Hammill FTW!

Micheal Ironside FTW. Lance Henriksen FTW. Casper van Dien FTW America FTW!

Hollywood exists a lot like a pyramid scheme. The A-listers at the top are in no way indicative of the acting profession. Hell, 95% of A-listers can't even be persuaded to make cameo appearances on television, let alone ever show their face in a video game. The best you can hope for is an actor lending his voice to a game based on a movie they were in, ala Ian McKellen in the LotR games (the ones based on the movies, heh) We should embrace our B-listers. They provide a valuable service, and they're much more numerous and available. Who can hate on Micheal Ironside after he got his arms chopped off in Total Recall? That was indisputably awesome.

Apparently mods can't be arsed to use the "edit" button either " But regardless, we love our mods, don't we? Yes!

I dig the Fray, just because they're local, and we don't usually get too many hot new things coming out of Colorado. Tweaker - The House I Grew up in Mellowdrone - Oh My DJ Shadow - Best Foot Forward (alternate version) Revolting **** - Big Sexyland

Really? A lot of people hated hated hated Oblivion's face creation system, including myself. Really, you were given a face and were allowed to adjust how fat it was and what hairstyle they had. That was pretty much the extent of it. Everybody looked related :\

I don't know. A casual gamer will surely look at a paladin and see a fighter + tons of abilities and immunities and the obvious tank potential, but a roleplayer will probably see all the restrictions attached to the alignment and feel stifled. We don't want to be forced into being the hero all the time. I personally just don't happen to think most fighter classes are all that interesting to play. Cept monks, of course. Love monks. Skirmish fighters. Also kind of limited in their own way, but nothing I can't accept. I would have actually liked to see an evil paladin-type class (that isn't the "crusader" fighter class) or at least had paladins that were restricted in their alignment like monks were, on the law/chaos axis only. That would have put some much-needed spice onto the character concept.

You know, I've never been put in this situation, and I'd never want to (that I can think of), but I sincerely believe that I am of better character than to punish the school for my child getting injured (even seriously) for doing things that I did as a child. This is actually discouraging children from being active. I mean, who wants to really let loose and have fun if you have to have a teacher hovering over you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Probably the kids who get the **** kicked out of them and robbed, which is common enough when teachers aren't hovering around. Kids are kids, and the idea that we should expose children to social Darwinism is about as drastic to me as coddling them. Simple solution: Get somebody to supervise the ****in' games. Nobody seems to have thought of that, though. Like bringing daddy's handgun to school. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wow, I've seen some special logic in my time, but that's pretty out there. That's some serious "what"age, right there.

I was rather bored by PST. I guess that puts me in a minority.

Boo egoism! Boo hiss! Not workable! Ayn Rand bad! It's kinda odd, because a supposed egoist like Kreia would not be able to even consider the beggar. Objectivists ("objectivism" being that name which Ayn Rand gave to her own system) are only supposed to be concerned with themselves. To say "we can't give money to beggars because they must better themselves" is not Rand. It's a big problem with her ideas. She makes it explicitly clear that an ethical egoist cannot consider others in any way. Your reasons for not helping someone in need can only concern you. So Obsidian kind of goofed on that one. Silly Obsidian. O rly? *edit - I will give Obsidian big credit for trying, though. Throwing Rand into a soft Eastern-philosophy-good! oriented universe like Star Wars is like throwing your kid in the deep end of the pool. If anything, it helped to serve the idea that the Sith are western individualists and the Jedi are eastern altruists.

Druids would disagree. Then they'd kill you for despoiling nature. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's why they're such a pain in the ass to have in one's adventuring party. It's always "you can't cut down that tree" this and "we must keep a balanced fungal ecosystem" that. They hold to the ethics of objective balance, which is not much of an ethic at all.

Yeah, ok. I forgot it's simply idiotic to compare Faer

Wolves lack the faculty of reason and the faculty of recollection. Hence they are non-people, hence killing them is an amoral action, not good or bad. Killing a wolf would only be bad in that way which it affected those who possess all the traits of a moral agent. Goblins and trolls (and Cyricists, for that matter ), while reasonably intelligent, refuse to recognize that one cannot wantonly murder any other reasonable creature, hence they have forfeited their moral personhood, hence they are no better than animals, hence go forth and slaughter them at your whim. That's how D&D works We can't very well have a utilitarian D&D game. Nothing would happen. That's just how the "morality" of D&D video games work. You can kill that which kills arbitrarily, with no consequences on your part. I'd be very surprised if a game penalized you for killing that which is evil.

Ah yes, those dastardly jews, just ruining our perfectly fine global politics for their own gain. It all makes sense, eh? As a thread grows longer, the likelihood someone will mention the great crime of the creation of the state of Israel approaches 1. This is an internets law.

Chaotic evil creatures have abandoned reason through their rampant murdering habits and thus, have abandoned any claim to moral personhood. Kant pwnz D&D

lol child abuse.

Without a health bar, the games almost always go to whoever draws first blood. If the AI was good, this wouldn't be a problem, but they usually just run around, charge and use power attacks. I'm growing very tired of it after 2 days. Then there's the fact that if you get hit, you start the game over.

I've always wanted to play that game. Just...one hit kills every time? Why? It would have been better to implement flesh cuts and the like <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, they did. Some fights can last for two or three hits but a single charging attack to the torso will end a fight, so the first 5 seconds of the fight is usually decisive.

I'm psyched for more news. Till then I'm find to just sit and stare longingly at the Van Buren art I want to see some F3 art, dammuit!

Hate Dept. - New Power Autechre - Kalpol Intro Nine Inch Nails - All the Pigs, All Lined Up Bobby Byrd - Try it Again

That's kind of a problem. Deathclaws are an iconic Fallout thingie, it's hard to imagine Fallout without them, but canon dictates that they were exclusive to SoCal (Tactics was derided for having the hairy Diablo-esque Midwestern deathclaws) It's going to piss some people off. Depending on when F3 is set, it's possible to explain a super mutie or two, as they migrated East after the master's death, and it's not entirely inconcievable, super mutants being the survival machines they are, that a few would make it to the far coast. I'd much rather Bethesda come up with some other monster-creature for its East Coast setting, but that likely won't happen. Bethesda is going to get boned by the Fallout freaks either way: Either they're straying too far from canon or they're butchering it.

Bushido Blade, a Soul Caliber-esque fighter for the playstation. The fights are "realistic", which is to say that, as far as the PS' engine can manage, fighters play differently with different weapons, which are classed by weight (rapier to sledgehammer), and there's no health bar. The first hit usually ends the fight, but if you hit someone in the legs, they limp and can't run, if you hit them in the arms they attack slowly, etc. The game is also notable for its large levels, which you can run and fight through, and its "honor system", which allows you to play through a different ending if you only attack when a character can defend himself (no flanking, hitting on the ground, at the beginning of the fight, etc.) Naturally, it's very difficult. A good game, but one that will never be revisited, as the rights are owned by SquareEnix (that's how you say it, right?) and they'll be happy to just keep belching out Final Fantasies until the end of time.

I am anxiously awaiting said game of NWN2. I'll probably play a drow monk, or somesuch nonsense.

Your logic is ****ed. If "Jade Empire is better than KOTOR" = "I believe it is the case that Jade Empire is better than KOTOR", than it would impossible to disagree with you, and you would always be right anytime you ever said anything, because everything you said would be statements of what you believe, and I can't argue that you don't believe what you say. By that same logic, I could say "KOTOR is better than Jade Empire", and we would both be right, and that's a huge contradiction, because KOTOR and Jade Empire would be the best game, and they can't both objectively be the best game. There would be no objective facts about the case, and no standards by which to judge games. JE would be equivalent to the NWN OC, and the ET Atari game would be equivalent to Final Fantasy 7. Thus, by saying you're simply stating your opinion, you're saying that you're not saying anything at all, and I can completely dismiss you. Thus, your opinion argument is total ****. This is why subjectivism doesn't work.