Zoraptor

"He is also the one who wrote that was FAKE NEWS so he corrected his poor info." Didn't have much option other than to given that Justin Bell publicly said he was staying so it was obvious to everyone he was wrong.

That's a consequence of the 'flat' damage reduction system. If you're using a near starter tier weapon that does 20 damage a young wolf might have say 5 damage reduction, so most of the damage gets through and you might kill it in 5 or 6 hits depending on combos etc. An adult wolf might have 20 damage reduction though, so you get almost no damage damage even with any combo bonuses. That makes the young wolf manageable but the adult one disproportionately more difficult. But, as a consequence when you get to a low intermediate weapon that does 30 damage suddenly you're a lot more able to handle that adult wolf because your effective damage dealt increases ten fold- instead of doing 1 or 2 damage per hit you start doing around 10 per hit. However your effective damage against a young wolf doesn't even double so you still need 4ish hits to kill one so if you mess around with them too much they're still potentially dangerous; but instead of needing seemingly hundreds of hits to kill an adult wolf you 'only' need about ten. It's a pretty good system for keeping things interesting in a long game since only the weakest enemies become absolute walkovers, but it's certainly a hard start because you have to get over that initial hurdle of only being able to handle the weak versions of a few enemies until you develop a bit. As is tradition for Piranha Bytes games if you're really good or really patient you can kill just about anything with starter tier weapons, but it will take a very long time. (n.b. numbers are illustrative only, I don't know the real numbers involved)

Yes, there was, the facts were not in dispute only criminal culpability on the narrow basis of competence; there was not enough evidence due to the way the law was written as requiring deliberate malfeasance or gross incompetence. It's not a binary where there's either no evidence or automatic conviction by evidential inundation, it's a scale. You can have evidence but not enough to secure a conviction. In the vast majority of not guilty cases brought to trial that is the exact situation, same where someone is charged but not eventually put on trial. You're a smart guy, if you cannot grasp that most simple of concepts I may have to re-evaluate that opinion.

Doing his whining on the Codex is the least of his problems. It's about the only place he can guarantee a positive reaction, so fair enough. OTOH, someone who spent most of his last several years at Obs working for other companies, going to events, cosplaying with Brian Fargo and apparently when actually at work spent most of his time fighting literally everyone else in the company can't really complain credibly about someone taking a month off after a multi year project- and the credibility of his scuttlebutt is somewhat degraded by him getting his previous solid- see thread title- demonstrably wrong. (EP does tend to be a crap title though, half of them don't do anything much at all and it's a way to pad resumés and reward senior people who have hit a career ceiling. It's usually the bog standard producers who do the actual work)

Hillary wasn't guilty by evidence shown as it's impossible to prove that she did it deliberately or with gross incompetence; and one of those is required for conviction. That the potentially criminal act- using a private server, receiving classified information on it and deleting documents that were required to be preserved- was done is however not in dispute, hence there is evidence just not enough to convict. Even Hillary doesn't dispute the basic facts of what happened in her case, she just maintains she doesn't understand technology thus is not criminally liable. With Kavanaugh however every single thing is in dispute. There is literally no testable supporting evidence- specific times and locations; corroborating witnesses, physical evidence- the only evidence is that several accusations were made. Trump can't just charge Hillary, that isn't how the system works for good and obvious reasons.

It was definitely impossible under the circumstances to prove Hillary did it deliberately, but I find it very difficult to believe that someone as concerned with her image as Hillary was not trying to control access to information. In the end it was pretty much the same as having classified material sent to a gmail address (well gmail's security was probably definitely better) which would get peons fired or at minimum lose their clearance. Mostly though private servers are not really something a random tech illiterate grannie decides to set up, and not something a random tech illiterate grannie decides to wipe when convenient. No, there was way more evidence against Hillary since there was literally no doubt she did what she was accused of, the only point in contention was proving it was intentional and hence criminal. The only evidence against Kavanaugh was the accusations themselves. An accusation itself isn't evidence, you cannot use a "would he be accused if he weren't guilty?" argument because that applies whether or not the accusation actually is true, believable or even possible. "Donald Trump was born on the planet Krypton and thus is ineligible to be President", obviously there is evidence for this accusation, otherwise I wouldn't make it... As for the rest, until it's investigated it's 100% hearsay and as above, an accusation alone is not evidence of anything other than the accusation being made. That flies in the face of 1. Civic Duty 2. Ignorantia juris non excusat 3. Due Dilligence The law requires it either to be deliberate or to involve gross incompetence. As such, plain old garden style incompetence is an appropriate and proper defence, no matter how stupid that seems. I have to agree with Volourn, if her last name had not been Clinton I very strongly suspect they would have filed an indictment at least, even if the person eventually was found not guilty.

She used a private server to receive classified information and deleted emails that should have been preserved, that is not in dispute. The reason she wasn't charged is because- ludicrously- she had to 'know' what she was doing was illegal for it to be a crime. Practically she almost certainly did know because she isn't a drooling imbecile, but that is impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt hence the befuddled grannie defence being accepted and no prosecution being offered. That's a million miles away from being no evidence, balance of evidence says she was absolutely guilty, beyond reasonable doubt says she could not be convicted. Is this the thing you earthlings call whataboutism? Nah, just kidding, whataboutism accusations are for pathetic wieners who can't argue for faecal matter. However, without any details of private server usage by those people it's impossible to say whether they transgressed any laws or guidelines. A private server is not by itself illegal, using ti to circumvent preservation laws and receive classified material in an insecure way however potentially is. Difference being we know Hillary did both of those.

That's not really equivalent at all though since, technically, there was a ton of evidence against Hillary and she definitively did what she was accused of in terms of using a private server and deleting emails that should have been preserved. The law was just written in a way that if she claimed to be a tech befuddled old grannie who thought wiping a hard drive involved Kleenex® brand disposable wipes etcetera then she couldn't be convicted. That's not the same as having no evidence. To be honest though, given the amount of voter suppression I wouldn't be surprised if people wanted a sniff around voter rolls and the like to see if voters of a certain type were 'spontaneously' or 'mysteriously' dropping off them around election time. (I'm kind of amused because of the apparent rigmarole required to register to vote in the US when the voting machines are ancient, unreliable andor insecure- yet we can register to vote literally on the day of the vote and all we need is a paper ballot which is still the most secure way to do things)

It depends a lot on perspective. His brinkmanship with North Korea was stupid, and the summit with Kim he got from his brinkmanship achieved nothing DPRK wasn't going to do anyway. So he's a fool. But, he's been able to do a good job spinning it into being a great success for taking hardline positions and a personal success for him. So he's not a fool. He threatens to pull out of NATO and antagonises his allies unnecessarily, so he's a fool. But he doesn't pull out and extracts more tribute from said vassals, so he's not a fool. Etcetera. He definitely sees himself as a great deal maker, and if you're leader of the US then the biggest leverage you have for said deals are military and economic power. Political power ('soft power') is what he ignores as it isn't quantifiable and that has lead to his many unmitigated failures in the diplomatic field. Even then he's at least tried to spin them to his advantage and they tend to play well for his voting base who like 'sticking it to euroweenies' and the like.

Witcher 1 Geralt was certainly the most book accurate look from the games. That screen test also looks a fair bit like- and apologies for triggering any PTSD- The Hexer's Geralt minus comical painted on stubble. I'm not a big fan of the Fabio hair for practical reasons ("I swear I was winning vs that Striga until she tangled my hair in her talons and scalped me!") and because it makes it look like a Rhaegar Targaryen/ Lucius Malfoy screen test instead but I can live with it. As for Triss... she doesn't look anything like Triss in either book or game and looks older than Yen rather than younger so there's not much right with the casting based on physical appearance. It's a slightly more significant change than going from chestnut hair to orange/ red as in the games. The casting overall is pretty trolltastic- apart from having all Geralt's love interests be coloured women they've also cast a Mikkelson, but not Mads and not as Bonhart. On the more meta side of things, unless they tone down other aspects of the world, characters, and Geralt a lot the kind of people who would applaud things like Triss's casting still won't watch the show because the source material fundamentally won't be to their liking*. So all they're doing is annoying some people who would watch the show to appeal to people who won't. Frankly, that's been a major problem with a lot of Netflix programming overall recently and a contributor to their spate of poorly received individual programmes. *Who am I kidding? Most of them are too busy looking for things to be offended by on twitter to bother actually watching stuff.

For someone who liked Gothic 1&2 Risen (1) can definitely be recommended. Risen 2/3 are a lot more 'casual' and Gothic 3 like though, and there's a very large tonal shift (and a protagonist shift) across all three games but most notably 1 to 2. I personally liked all of them, but I also liked Gothic 3 a lot as well- all three games are very regularly on sale so you could safely buy one to play and if you like it buy the others later. They are also pretty long games too, so there's no particular advantage buying all three at once unless it's a bundle deal.

That was certainly the (semi) official story, and I don't see any real reason to doubt it. Most Rockstar games have made it to PC, even if later than people would like. GTA IV itself was certainly not without porting troubles and has always suffered from performance issues seemingly both random and systemic. It's not hard to believe that further tinkering with it could render it 'permanently' unstable on PC especially as that was also the days of Cell and Power CPUs in consoles, and they were very significantly different from the x86/64 architecture they and PCs have now. I'd suspect they had people spend time trying to get it working on PC and making no progress after x months, at which point it went into the too hard basket. OTOH I don't have much doubt that RDR2 will come to PC as there should be fewer porting issues and GTAV is still one of the perennial best sellers on PC.

Catholics are 100% infected by it. Pretty much all faith systems are- Siddartha Gautama wouldn't exactly be keen on murdering, raping and ethnically cleansing Rohingya in Burma yet that is actively supported and justified by many Buddhist monks. The number of right wing death squads that were exquisitely Catholic is very, very long indeed despite anything that long haired socialist lefty who gave Christianity its name may have said, and most of them thought they were being absolutely righteous when they were raping, murdering and torturing.

The Honduran President is the result of a US backed coup, and lost the last election there- despite there being no opposition media- badly enough that they had to slow down counting for literally literally weeks as his appointed officials stuffed ballots*. He'll say whatever Trump wants him to say, or whatever he thinks Trump wants him to say. *Shame really, having Honduran President Nasralla would have been amusing. Not often I agree with Trump, but their cover up has to have been the worst cover up in the history of cover ups, perhaps ever. And that term can be applied to just about everything about the incident from the Saudi side. They've even managed to make fricking Erdogan- mass opponent detaining, journalist arresting, media controlling, Kurd torturing, neighbour invading, corrupt Erdogan- look principled and competent. Now there's going to be more coverage as they try and stall the Turks from looking in the well at the Consul's residence, and assuming his body is found there more days of coverage as the Saudis change their story again to remove any local collaborators from it, then more days after the audio is leaked...

Yep, literally everyone except Estonia (and one other last time I checked, Luxembourg iirc) hasn't adhered to the rules at some point, and they've never been 100% followed in any of the 21 years there have been rules. Wish I could find the handy chart someone did showing how often the rules were ignored, how and by whom but it seems to have mysteriously disappeared from Wikipedia, perhaps all the red on it was causing a worldwide shortage or something. Its replacement is scarcely better though since it shows around half half failed compliance at least once in the past three years. The french have literally been dumping refugees into Italy using the excuse that that is where they landed first. That they're landing there mostly thanks to France's (Sarkozy's) imbecilic intervention in Libya turning that place into a anarchic basket case? {Gallic Shrug}. I fervently hope that oxygen thief Sarkozy gets judicially Kashoggied over trying to cover up the bribes he accepted from Gaddafi via a war, but I'm not holding my breath. It's always collective responsibility and strict adherence to the rules if that favours the big boys in the union; and individual responsibility and flexible rules when that favours them instead. France and Germany are Tier 1 members of the EU, everyone else is Tier 2 and below.

Wouldn't make much of a difference if they're still using the Euro as that horrendous politicised kludge of a currency is the fundamental problem. Whichever economy is weakest in the Euro zone will always be in trouble because the value of the currency and monetary policy of the Euro is run by and for the benefit of the largest and strongest economies, not the weaker, and long term that completely asterisks weaker economies and turns them into serfs of the stronger. The weaker economies get less competitive internationally to go with them already being uncompetitive in the internal EU market while the stronger get more competitive internationally and more dominant internally. Classic vicious circle, by design. You can also use monetary policy as leverage for when the stronger countries' abjectly idiotic foreign policy and moronic Wilkommen Alles! refugee policy backfire and they need somewhere to dump hundreds of thousands of unwanted refugees.

Completely plausible, middle age overweight guys are always wandering into embassies and getting into fatal fist fights with a bunch of trained killers and autopsy experts who happen to be visiting. It's surprising how often they cut off their own fingers, dismember themselves then hop into a barrel of HF and drive themselves into the woods too- and all because Qatar has paid them to cause embarrassment to Saudi. And they've taken the chance to get rid of the guy who was in charge of the war in Yemen over it too.

1) They didn't file a defence 2) It's Australia 2a) Most of the Australian establishment doesn't know how technology or the intertubes work except what they're told by corporate consultants 2b) A fair bit of the Australian establishment makes the stereotypical US conservative southerner look like Karl Marx economically and RuPaul socially 3) They didn't file a defence Corporations' usual approach is to use find the place they have maximum legal leverage and has ill considered laws (often written by said corps) which allows both precedence to be established and has chilling effect on those with better protections.

13-16 wasn't wholly a no old Villains era though, since it at least had The Master in it. Yeah, he wasn't as old school as Daleks or Cybermen and was uniquely suited to the stuff they were doing with the Time Lords but his usage brought more to the story than if he'd been removed or [something else] was used in his role due to some arbitrary rule. To an extent the Time Lords themselves would also qualify as old 'villains', since they're initially from Troughton's era though not at all fleshed out. Personally though I think the biggest 'philosophical' difference is that all the episodes in that timeframe were routinely serialised. They may not have had an overarching season wide plot (exc 16, which did) but were 4x30 or 6x30 linked episodes rather than 45-60 minute standalones. It's difficult to establish interesting new antagonists over such a short duration, especially if you're running a new Doctor and three new companions. I'd also have to doubt that Whittaker can match Tom Baker's performance, though she'll definitely get a chance to prove herself.

Eh, they've done it before in classic Who with respect to no well known enemies (Series 7-9, Series 13-16) and Pertwee was consciously launched to not rely on the Daleks and Cybermen or traveling the cosmos (the Daleks didn't start sneaking back in until after the tenth anniversary serial, THE THREE DOCTORS). I'd be fine with no Daleks and no Cybermen (and no Weeping Angels for that matter) as they tend to be a crutch and have suffered from some of the worst plotting so long as it's an organic absence. However, there is a reason why the older enemies tend to get used, and that is that interesting new enemies are hard. Take the premier for example, the enemy there was basically a Predator minus some of its powers which is hardly original or interesting even for Who. It's also limiting, the final two regular episodes of Capaldi's run had Cybermen and The Master(s) and rather than being generic or boring were the best of the season by some margin in large part because of those old enemies and how they were used. While I liked the arcs in New Who overall I'm not that wedded to them. The problem I have is much the same as above: it's artificially limiting and I dislike the philosophy of it. I tend to dislike standalone episodes unless they're really well written because in the end there's no point to watching them.

Yeah, it looks good. I'd probably rate the rest as adequate rather than mediocre as it held my attention well enough. I'm not expecting too much from the season though, as I'm not a big fan of Chibnall's previous episodes nor the 'philosophical' shift of no well known enemies and no arcs. OTOH, the Walking Dead's 1st two episodes have been pretty good. The plotting is still a bit iffy, it is a zombie show rather than Breaking Bad after all, but a massive improvement over the illogical mess of its last two seasons (and FtWDs last one, which really shows who the problem was). Too late to repair the most overt damage done thjough, and they'll struggle to hold onto viewers once [spoiler events] happen let alone regain those who have quit.

Counter productive comparison too, since there's essentially no doubt that the Saudis did what they're accused of, it's just a matter of whether it was deliberate mandated murder or 'just' a kidnapping/ interrogation gone wrong. At this point I do wish more than a little that the Turks would put up or shut up with whatever they have rather than drag it out further, no matter how much I may dislike the Saudis.

So who's going to replace Mattis, Rumsfeld or Wolfowicz?

"If you're mean to us we'll shoot ourself in the other foot as well!" The relatively small war in Yemen already has Saudi going through its reserves quickly. Whatever threats they have would hurt themselves more than their target especially if they have multiple targets. Sit tight until it blows over and splash out a bit of money to influencers and interference runners.

According to the box Obsidian owns the copyright to NWN2's engine and tools so they'd either need to back port it or get Obsidian's permission, that's where the "can't touch it" comes from. The engines for their other remasters have all been © Bioware. They probably would otherwise, not much left to remaster and they seem to have bailed on their original project game.