J.E. Sawyer

Sure, but Tyranthraxus was the spirit; he just happened to be possessing a bronze dragon in PoR.

Sure, the sounds for eth and thorn (as found in Icelandic) still exist in lots of Germanic languages, but Icelandic and Faroese are the only languages that still use those characters to any significant extent. The other Germanic languages (including English) dropped them a while back, leaving the pronunciation of those sounds to digraphs (th in English) or single characters in a certain context (such as the one you just gave for Danish). It's really no different from the slow (and IMO, unfortunate) process of German umlaut characters being replaced by vowel + "e" digraphs or the Eszett being replaced by "ss". The only point I was trying to make is that it was weird/confusing to see a German-language game interface using capital eth characters in place of "D". Similarly, I've seen "Dalish" spelled "Daelish". At least they didn't spell it

It's this -->

Is that even a sentence? Try harder. You can see the skills in the German screenshots. Are the elves called Dalish Elves or

Seems like a totally fair and reasonable preview. It's unfortunate that this sort of measured reporting is considered out of line.

I think it depends on what you consider "fixing" or if you think that the way stimpaks work in F3 is broken to begin with. Healing over time does genuinely make F3 combat more dangerous and tactical as a result, but clearly not everyone likes that change.

That dang FEV messes everything up!

There are no super stimpaks in out-of-the-box Fallout 3.

Shotguns stop you pretty quickly no matter how many points you have in CQC. At least that's been my experience. CQC is pretty powerful when leveled up, but you still have to exercise caution when approaching enemies. Obviously the game isn't Ghost Recon, but certain weapons will really tear you up in only a few hits.

Hounds/black hounds are prominent figures and omens in many cultures. D&D does have the "hound of ill omen", but "the" Black Hound isn't really the same thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dog_(ghost) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cu_chulainn And before anyone asks, no I haven't worked on this in quite a while. Aliens being canceled took a lot out of me and I'm balancing personal life and fitness with being a project director now. I still do intend to finish it, but don't expect it (or updates on it) anytime soon.

CQCing with few points in CQC can be challenging depending on the CQC level of the opponents you're facing. Usually it's pretty easy to tell the CQC level of an opponent by attempting to smack them a few times with CQC. If you are less skilled than the opponent, they will tend to block your attacks and counterattack quite a bit. If are more skilled than the opponent, they will not be able to block many of your attacks. CQC can be very effective if you put a reasonable number of points into the skill. If you just try to wing it every once in a while, chances are it will not end well for you. That's the theory and, as far as I can tell, the experience of testers and devs who have played the game.

Any weapon bigger than a small handgun is not "very spy-like". Laser sights also aren't "very spy-like", typically being used by LEOs/SWAT. The fact that you're talking about this specific weapon/mod combo instead of dual-wielded SMGs is a pretty clear indicator that you just don't like the way a semi-auto handgun looks with a scope, regardless of whether or not it's spy-appropriate (it isn't, like most of the stuff Mike uses) or functional (it is). When you started this general topic of discussion, you just flat out stated, "Pistols don't use scopes." But this was also a few weeks after you wrote, "[Mike's invisibility power is no] more silly than being able to freeze time, aim three shots, and unleash them all at once. Or shoot your SMG's without reloading for a period of time. Or slow down time and cause your CQC to become superpowered. "Really, it's not a critical gameplay mechanic, and groaning about it is nitpicky." All you have to do is say that you just don't like the way it looks and leave it at that. You don't need to find some weird circular route to justify it; saying you dislike it purely on aesthetic grounds is fine.

For concealability, yes. For shooting things that are far away, they are pretty good. That is why there are many of them made for revolvers and semi-autos with a variety of mounting methods. It just needs to be an actual pistol scope set up with proper eye relief.

I just heard about this and I wanted to say I am SICKENED by new free content and reading about it LITERALLY made me VOMIT.

That's an understatement. The guy covered nine of the ten Dewey Decimal categories.

Game development teams often have "REAL" (movie) cinematographers working on them and a large number of concept artists and animators who alternate between working on games and movies. I don't know what would qualify a game cinematic as elevating them as MORE THAN ZERO relative to filmmakers, but the execution of cinematics in (especially) Capcom and MGS games is incredible. If you don't like the content, that's one thing, but it's extreme to say that game developers can't execute cinematics well.

Are they still connectionless? It's part of my memories too, but that was 10 years ago. Broadband penetration is a bit better now, even in the U.S. EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that South Korea has incredible broadband penetration.

Zion National Park is one of the most beautiful places I've ever seen. I took a trip through Nevada on my last motorcycle trip. Didn't get an enormous amount of Nevada pictures, but a few good ones. http://baby-goat.livejournal.com/298831.html

Most militaries do not use revolvers, but there are a lot of reasons why a soldier in the field would use something that a private citizen would not, or vice-versa. Semi-autos are very lightweight compared to most revolvers (e.g. a Glock 17 is 22 oz., a Ruger GP-100 is 40 oz.). Not necessarily that important if you're a private citizen or security guard. If you're a soldier already carrying a ton of gear, it's a big deal. Additionally, soldiers in the field, unlike private citizens, might actually have to fire a ton of rounds over the course of a single engagement. For a soldier, carrying more than two magazines of ammunition is not "weird", and magazines certainly pack flatter and more easily than a revolver speed loader. Private citizens or those who are attempting to be inconspicuous aren't going to carry three, four, or five magazines of ammunition unless they are wired paranoid types. There are also times when even "superior" armament choices are passed over for purely logistical/political reasons. For example, some will argue that .45 ACP is a superior combat round to 9mm Luger/Parabellum/NATO. The same can be suggested about .30-06 Springfield vs. .308 Winchester/7.62x51 NATO. US armed forces have almost entirely switched over to using the former rounds, mostly for logistical reasons (hint: NATO!). For soldiers in the field, revolvers are typically an inferior choice to a semi-auto. But ultimately all firearms are tools for a specific application. Revolvers still have roles in which they are superior, which is why they continue to see widespread use in the present day.

Wait a minute... Morgoth is Austrian... Glock is Austrian... Hmm.

Speed is not the most important factor when firing a handgun. That said, both single-action and double-action revolvers can be fired very quickly. There is no ejection cycle on a revolver, so a skilled shooter can fire, cock, and fire again extremely fast. If revolvers were that impractical, no one would use them anymore. Semi-automatic pistols have a lot of advantages, but they do not make revolvers obsolete. Similarly, bolt-action rifles have many advantages over lever-action rifles, but lever-action rifles are still in use for a lot of different reasons. Ultimately, revolvers are more durable than semi-autos, can handle greater case pressures, and are more reliable (though this margin is minor with brand new firearms, it can become more pronounced over time). It's sort of off-topic with regards to AP, but this is a "The More You Know" moment.

what

"Soft sci-fi" is a broad term. What you described is one use of it; what I described is another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science_fiction I was trying to draw a distinction between sci-fi like Mass Effect, Star Wars, and Star Trek and sci-fi like Moon, 2001, Alien, or Sunshine. Even though the latter examples contain questionable or outright wacky/wrong scientific elements, science/technology still are a central focus of discussion and concern. In the former examples, science and technology practically transcend our understanding and become akin to magic, more of a plot device than a real focus. As you (Maria Caliban) suggest, discussing ME as a space opera is probably more helpful, as "soft-sci fi" doesn't necessarily imply the abstracted social structure, though they often go together. Space operas are typically soft on details of science and technology and also usually have romanticized concepts of future civilizations. Ultimately, Shepard is more like Picard than Ripley. Fly all over the galaxy on the best ship in the fleet, taking it wherever you want? Hurling yourself onto any random planet in an all-terrain vehicle manned by a crew of three? Serving on an inter-species council as a special agent whilst gathering a huge array of aliens to chill out on your super secret technology human ship? It all makes sense in the overall context of a space opera, which is to say that it's usually glossed because it really isn't "the point".

Mass Effect is soft sci-fi. I wouldn't dig too deeply into the structure of Alliance military organizations and responsibilities, because they're more symbolic and heroic than literal or realistic. Why do Captain Picard and Will Riker personally beam down to every ultra-dangerous location they come across instead of sending subordinates down while they deal with logistics and strategy? Because they're the cool guy stars who leap into harm's way and have sexy adventures. That's usually the way soft sci-fi goes.

The dev probably just chose that because it looks cool to see a bunch of impact particles sparking off of the Atlas and an autocannon might tear it to shreds.