Monte Carlo

The trope of a 'true' patriot disillusioned by the transformation of that which he loves is fairly common. In this instance (i.e. The Winter Soldier) it gives Hollywood liberals the chance to flag wave and stick it to the man! In Hollywood, you never need to break some eggs in order to make your omelette.

Hey thanks. Were I to re-write it on the second draft I'd probably replace 'needs' with 'demands.'

Have just read the story. Only visited Texas once. Loved it. A large proportion of the population was armed and dangerous. Wilders goes everywhere with serious security. In short this is an epic terrorist fail. Of all the things to attack on a whim, these halfwits chose a heavily-armed meeting of angry Texan freedom-lovers, along with the most body-guarded European politician of his generation. Only one way that story was gonna end.

As if to prove my point, there you go. In the Middle East there is hardly any democratic government or free expression. The last Christian churches are being demolished in Iraq and Syria. We all know how the Saudis treat women. I don't see you hopping up and down about any of this, but a politically incorrect cartoon competition in faraway Texas results in you putting on your SJW superhero costume. Edit - Visual representations of living things is, by the way, Haram to Islamists. Might be why you don't see the type of art you describe, although I've seen lots of performances in that part of the world that involve burning the Stars and Stripes.

In the 1930s, Bruce, you would have been a 'useful idiot.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

A fair point. I'm take a Hobbesian view of the world: I take the world as it is, not as I'd like it to be. This, I think, makes me a small 'c' conservative. However, sociopolitical change by clique isn't necessarily a good thing. Then again, if that clique absorbs change by osmosis and implements it eventually anyway, albeit slowly (which is the British experience) then it's better than the alternative. You see, every single violent uprising offering a Utopian alternative for 'The People' ends the same way. The Committee for Public Safety and Robespierre, The NKVD and Beria, the NSDAP and Himmler. Every. Single. One. Gulags and train tracks running into lonely woods. Whether it's students pulled from their beds in Chile or dissidents being jailed in China it's all the same in the end. It's as if ideological perfection needs the blood of heretics to function. I think the Left call this 'othering' which is ironic, given the political Left have 'othered' more people in Siberian prisons over the course of history than just about anybody else. Which is why in an imperfect world a jaded conservative with a gut-belief in small government and self-reliance is less of a threat to his neighbour than a I-know-what's-best socialist who wants to distribute your wealth and re-educate you if you don't agree with their views.

Keep it going, man. You've got skills. Next? I challenge you to do the combat music!

So a more modern revolution then?Fair enough. Otherwise you'd have to make exceptions for peasants revolt and catholic uprisings. * sigh * I'm talking about uprisings that result in a change of regime and / or government. Neither of those count. The peasant's revolt was relatively insignificant and the Mary Queen of Scots through to the Gordon riots were about Sectarianism, not regime change. The point is this - Britain has never fundamentally changed it's course of Government through violent revolution. Cromwell, for example, fought to maintain the rights of an existing political entity - Parliament. He is notable because of his Regicide.

From 1215 England certainty had plenty of violent rebellions and even one successful revolution. And I could argue that even from 1801 UK social order is more a case of good colonial safety valve rather than any achievement of political system. The Civil War doesn't count, it really doesn't. The general consensus amongst historians, and what I am implicitly referring to, is that Britain has never had a popular grass-roots revolution of the 1848 / Napoleonic coup / Hitler / Franco / Mussolini / Stalin variety. Cromwell was a creature of Parliament. As for your last comment, yes you could make that argument. You'd be wrong, though.

Without being complacent, and whether you want to look at it from 1215 (Magna Carta) or 1801 (Act of Union, which created the UK), or any point inbetween, our political and parliamentary systems have worked reasonably well. It enabled the UK to rule most of the known world, sustain a monarchy and never suffer a violent internal uprising or revolution. I'm not including Ireland of course, they are proper mad. Not bad for a very small, usually wet island full of eccentric drunkards. British systems and practices work because they manage the tautology of being both hidebound and elastic at the same time. This is usually achieved by absorbing radical new ideas and people into the fold and convincing them they were part of the natural way of things all along. It drives some people mad. Again, it seems to work. Now we have the situation we're in. Part of this is due to communications - we all now belong to many simultaneous groupings that transcend any single political party or doctrine. I can choose from three hundred TV channels but only one Member of Parliament. As those pesky Millenials like to say, WTF? We've got identikit career politicians, all fighting over the same centrist ground. We've got a culture, as Wals says, of infantile stubbornness when it comes to acknowledging the consequences of debt. We've got a five-second news cycle. None of these things strike me as being fertile ground to grow anything other than angry, strident and (worst of all) utopian political solutions. Down that road madness lies, it's been a typically mainland European disease but maybe its our turn now.

I agree completely, but the sheer butthurt of OCD completionists is hilarious.

FPP used to work. It has benefit of Governments being able to implement a manifesto without soggy compromises. It also stops the typical European dilemma, whereby a party small enough to fit on a sofa can hold up key legislation because they hold the balance of power. This is the bit that *really* grips me about PR. A very small group, voted for by a minority, can hold key legislation hostage. Anyhoo, FPP used to work in a two or even three party system. Neu Labour wrecked it by unleashing devolved parliaments in the Celtic fringe. Now we've Balkanised politics, and a broken boundary system where the Left get more seats and are able to form a government with a smaller share of the vote. All in all, the current Westminster system is screwed.

It should be but they were saying on CNN that 40 % of the UK don't know who they will vote for, so you aren't alone. And there must be valid reason for such uncertainty Yes, they are all merde.

OK, maybe I wasn't entirely accurate. I'm also going to add an egregiously hairy nut-sack below the proud member.

Just trying to be helpful, but you sound uptight. Cant EDIT: Please don't cite specific people and call them names.

None of them. I can't even begin to argue with Wals's excellent summary. Except to say be very afraid of our very own Tartan Hugo Chavez, Nicola Sturgeon. I am going to draw an engorged phallus on my voting slip, and I've voted responsibly in every general election since I was of the age of majority. Right now I'm in an HL Mencken state of mind: Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.

Thanks for reminding me how little I care for Gamasutra.

Just for the uninformed, that is $24 million. Just for VO. Bryy, no, VO is literally free. You see fans can do it. Right? Riiiggghhhttttt?

We have a saying in the UK, "he's a Marmite person." Marmite, lest you are unaware, is a beefy-tasting yeast-extract spread. It has a very distinct flavour that people tend to either love or hate. Marmite is definitely not an "oh, that's kinda OK" phenomenon. Josh is almost Marmite. Obviously, I don't know the man, only from his online persona, but he can be cold and aloof. He is clearly cleverer than you. And me. He abhors criticism, and even after years of being tossed in the harsh stormwinds of the internet, he can still be wounded. OTOH he is dry, witty and clearly extremely intelligent. He takes his trade seriously, which can be both a blessing and a curse. He comes across as a person of carefully-considered and genuine beliefs, also a blessing and a curse. In short, he is an interesting and flawed human being. This is why he finds himself cast, in the hyper-critical culture of gaming geekery, Marmite. Personally, I'm one of those mercurial people who sometimes enjoys Marmite, and occasionally cares little for it.

Me too --- see you on the battlefield!

Hmmm interesting how different people read different signposts. When I sided with the goody-goody paladin dudes I sort of took it as a given I was burning bridges from the start, but that might have been a meta-thing with me.

How is a Warrior in light/cloth armor, rapier, single handed style and musket not a musketeer? Given the way PoEs tanking / engagement mechanics work, in my minds eye a musketeer class would be more of a damage-dealer in the rogue mould.

^ It seems quite obvious from early on in the game that the precursor Engwitihan culture is highly technologically advanced. The modern-day Eorans are trying to get their heads around what went before. The whole setting is a chaotic mix of guns, magic and ancient (high) technology along with the whole souls / divinity thing. I think that's all rather splendid, but ofc YMMV.

Hmmm. Where to start? If you want to use real-world analogues, think of it like this: the Conquistadors arrived in the New World with firearms, high quality metal armour, beautifully-smithed bladed weapons and trained cavalry. Force multiplier versus a culture with no metallurgy or history of equestrianism, eh? The Spanish kicked serious arse. Weapons technology moved relatively slowly in the high medieval era and was not culturally uniform (guns co-existed happily with heavy armour, swords and stuff for a couple hundred years). In fact, the crossbow (in it's time) was more of a gamechanger, leading to Papal edicts trying to ban it's use (a peasant can kill a knight? Wut?). Genoese pavise crossbowmen were the panzergrenadier of the high medieval era. Edit - this is a poor comparison, PzGrens being highly mobile, full-spectrum infantry. But you get my drift, they were pretty badass. Firearms, OTOH, took many years to reach the point where traditional high-medieval tactics changed demonstrably (for the record, and to be extremely basic, this is the rock-paper-scissors of pike / cavalry / missiles jockeying for advantage before a massive ruckus with footmen). Look at English Civil War art, for example, by which time the only real change was the move towards more lightly armoured infantry and cavalry and the emphasis on mobility (look at the half-plate armour of the period). We still had melee weapons, pikes and so on. Just the bow and crossbow fell out of favour as the mass-ranked firearms volley took its place (the archer would have been more effective, but to train a man to use a wheel-lock took less time than the ten years to become a longbowman). Most vanilla high-fantasy is set in an ancient or Dark Ages type milieu. The Hobbit, Conan, Fahrd and the Grey Mouser etc. This is the cultural bouillabaisse from which our idea of what constitutes classic 'fantasy' comes. This is the (bogus) fourth wall getting shot down (ha! see whatIdidthere?). TL;DR The implementation of firearms in this type of game is entirely consistent with the analogous setting. It is easy to imagine an uneven spread of firearms technology and responses to it (the Maxim gun was used on many a spear-wielding culture during the Scramble for Africa). Your issue, the fourth wall, is a personal thing for you, based on how you perceive the role of technology in fantastic fiction and settings. That's cool, but IMO it's your issue rather than PoEs.

I'm on the Burial Isle, level 9 almost 10 and I need a bit of a break. Like someone else said, I'm RPG'd out been a while since I played such a long game. And the combat can be gruelling. I like the mega-dungeon, the levels just needed to be bigger. don't know what the whining is about.