Zoraptor

Under the strictures of the mythology you have to be a grey warden though, and the only path to that is Duncan unless you go traipsing off to Orlais or somewhere. The alternative possibilities aren't exactly brilliant- you say no to Duncan so he bops you on the head and takes you off to join by force (pretty literal railroading) or some set up where you work for Loghain, maybe? Difficult to see how that would either be worth the extra work or not come off as even more massively contrived than the current set up. I rather like the origin stories overall so I'll probably defend them more than they're worth, but, when it comes right down to it whether you have one or six there will be a compulsory bottleneck/ 1 way valve in the story where you become a Warden- or are made one compulsorily from the beginning. You still have the problem where you are told that you like or will at least obey Duncan no matter how you structure it. That sort of problem is pretty much inherent in any game narrative though. Why does the PC care about Duncan and follow his wishes? Because without it you wouldn't have a game. What about people who don't like Duncan and hate the Grey Wardens? Well... what about them? You can't write a game to both sets of people because the story would not merely be different but converging such as the branch in TWitcher2, but actively and fundamentally immiscible. All you can do is say: "here's the story set up guy, you should care about him" and hope that it sticks, for most people. Otherwise it would be like...having the option to tell Hrothgar you don't want to leave Easthaven at all in Icewind Dale. In an ideal world of infinite possibilities it might be a nice option, but if it were there you would have two entirely different games, one stuck through in Kuldahar and the other... fishing and doing scrimshaw on the other side of the mountains until Maj. Charles Emerson Winchester comes along and asterisks things up. I find it difficult to be overly critical about such things because, ultimately, they are a limitation of the entire genre and narrative in general. The only times I can think of when I've found things like that annoying are when I don't like the game anyway, and on a more intrinsic level in Bioshock when it's made a plot point/ metacommentary that it is happening, but nothing is done further with it.

Meh, this is variant 200 of the same old argument. You cannot have genuine flexibility in a game with any sort of 'strong' narrative. It's simply impossible. You could not write DAO so that you can choose to become a grey warden- or alternatively remain a dwarven rogue, elven ranger type, mage in the tower. It's impossible, they'd be four different games. In most of the origin stories it is made quite clear that the choice is join the wardens, or die/ game over, fundamentally there is no way to get around that bottleneck as you end up writing a whole different story if you do- and there are dozens of such 'but thou must' points in every game that has a strong narrative. Some are well hidden, some aren't. If you like the game you'll generally accept them (YOU WILL OBEY SEBASTIAN LACROIX AND DO HIS BIDDING; right up until the point you stop doing so by narrative fiat), if you don't like the game then you won't. In the general sense this is like the old Lord of the Rings argument- why not use an eagle to drop the ring into Mt Doom right at the start. Surely, Gandalf, Radagast, Elrond, Galadriel plus extra eagles etc can hold off some ringwraiths and Sauron long enough for that? Well, maybe, but then you wouldn't have LotR, you'd have a different, far shorter, story. That argument is usually made by those who don't like LotR, or whatever is being critiqued. LotR is 'illogical', 'lazy', 'poorly plotted' or similar, when the reality is usually that the person making the argument are looking for a reason to justify their dislike using an objective rather than a subjective yardstick, they want something more than just "I didn't like it" as a reason- and they often won't accept the same logic used against something they do like. If you're going to use such reasons then you really need to provide a useful improvement or alternative* to it, else you're not railing at the quality of the narrative but at the fundamental nature of narratives themselves. You can nitpick any story if you want to. Why was Ned Stark such a moron? Why does Batman not kill enemies when they will inevitably break out of prison? Haha I'm going to stand still and never do anything in Bioshock, take that theory of narrative determinism! *So rather than saying- as something that has come up 200 times as well and which I don't like plotting wise- that the Catalyst in ME3 was 'lazy' it would be more accurate to say that it was poorly implemented and should have been set up earlier. Because the problem there is not 'laziness' per se it's poor planning leading to it being a deus ex machina sprung in the 3rd game, the same general plot device is used in a fundamentally similar way but successfully in multiple other stories.

Things went to crap economically pretty quickly in Obama's first term as well, and a host of places around the world (PIIGS plus others in the EU included; plus the 120 billion per annum corruption in the EU). That can't really be laid at Yanukovich's door exclusively, and quite probably even majority. Really though, in order for change to be desirable you need to have improvement, else why bother, might as well keep all the dead people alive. (And of course, the main thing about whether his ouster was legal is that the new government is relying on constitutional inviolability to have the Crimean referendum be illegal having not followed it themselves) I quite agree, that's why the language law repeal was a big issue. Much like the appointment of oligarchs by the new government it shows that things won't change, it'll be whichever grouping is in power imposing its will on the other. While both are as bad as each other at least the old government was elected, rather than imposed. Svoboda were 12% of the electorate, but that makes them ~25% of the new government since it had under 50% electoral support. This is borne out by them having 4/20 ministerial posts, plus prosecutor general. Four parties got more votes than them, 3 of them have no ministerial posts at all (albeit one voluntarily). I don't think there would necessarily be a war, a civil war would be more likely but that would end as soon as Russia intervened. The Ukrainian army would at best be unreliable if asked to step in to stop secessionism in the east, much as it was when asked to step in to stop secessionism in the west a few weeks ago. I'd just chop the east and south off with a Ginzu knife, probably best for both in the long term. Because there really isn't any apparent scope for improvement at all shown in the actions of the new government, just changing labels on the same old crap.

One of the big problems with the earlier Thief games was that free jumping allowed people to run around the levels, jumping everywhere. Which was silly, and looked silly. So now you can only jump where it's sensible to do so, it also saves on all those pesky times you want to explore somewhere the developer doesn't want you to be able to. Makes perfect sense, as I for one was constantly bunny hopping around and trying to do 360 degree plus rotations while playing the earlier Thiefs. Hmm, now that I think about it that may have actually been in Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance rather than Thief.

Sheesh, steam even still notes the GfWL requirement for F3. I'd put any sum down that if I install Bioshock 2 I'll be able to do it with an offline account. I've already done it twice (upgraded to 7 from xp half way through playing it).

The process was exactly the same as described here both under 7/64 and XP/32. I've now even gone back and checked- pulled network cord, installed F3, created offline profile, profit! Well, maybe not profit given I've just spent ten minutes installing a game I didn't like particularly, but at least I could minimise the installer and continue doing other stuff. But certainly no need to be online at any time, and no need for the DVD to be in drive either. Note also that my original point was that Bethesda actually went back and added DRM to DD copies, I was pointing out that DRM free copies existed prior to that. Right, so now I've got Fallout 3 installed, so I should probably ask if there are any decent mods or if I should just apply the essential uninstall.esm one immediately. Except that would be even more off topic...

Problem is that it isn't getting rid of the spider at the heart of the web of corruption- it's swapping the spider out for another one. I've seen Yanukovich's house, but I've also seen, for example, Yulia Tymoshenko's house. And the new government with its new broom has appointed... a bunch of oligarchs (most of whom got to be oligarchs the way everyone in the ex USSR did, via corruption) as regional governors. That isn't a new broom, it's same old same old, jobs for those they think will keep the east quiescent via the old methods of patronage.

There is just a smidge, a touch, a soupçon, of strawman in your pronouncements- or perhaps hyperbole and overexposure to the Daily Mail Headline Generator. To whit: I've been exposed to an awful lot of university professors and the number of times I've ended up in or even heard gender wars arguments I could count on the fingers of one hand. A hand that had had a terminal argument with a band saw, a blender and a vat of concentrated hydrofluoric acid. Some university professors are most definitively annoying but not because they're disproportionately preachy on social issues. Much as Bruce is annoying if you insist on taking him seriously you're doing exactly the same thing he is doing, just from the reverse direction.

It's not an absolute fact, few such things are as it's working from available information and not from 2k's own books. But it is exceedingly likely, it had 5 years of AAA development and a PR campaign that- allegedly, but from a usually non hyperbolic source- cost a further $100 million. That wouldn't give much change out of $200 million total, and 5 million sales would not cover that unless every one was from your own download portal. There's always the chance that the cost estimates are out, of course, but the best evidence that they aren't is that it's only a few months post release and Irrational are Gone.

Ah, you're just plain wrong. F3 was GfWL and didn't need activation or an online account. It simply didn't. I know, as I actually played it, for my sins. You created an offline account for GfWL and that was that. Up until a year or so ago having to create an online account for a GfWL game was not even slightly necessary, you could play Bioshock 2 and even BatmanAA without being online or having created an online account. Both those games needed to be activated, but that was SecuROM requiring it. I'm always amazed at the amount of FUD about GfWL. I was expecting red hot pokers up the posterior and Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer's mocking laughter from its reputation, what I got was... pretty much nothing bad at all. Much like Origin, its reality is so much better than its reputation- the diametric opposite of a certain other DRM product.

Well, clearly. Crimea had voted to be independent at least twice previous, but not within the past 19 years up until their democratically elected President was illegally deposed, by those who'd lost the previous election, in a long planned operation, with outside help, after abrogating international agreements. They have zero reason to trust at all. Inviting the Russians in to protect them from oppression from Kiev- which had twice (now three times) disregarded their independence votes and has labelled their constitutionally valid parliament, the single concession made to the independence sentiment, as illegal- is an eminently sensible step. That they may now feel that instead of independence they need to be protected as an integral part of Russia is a consequence of Kiev's repeated actions, I'm afraid.

Exactly Volo. Not two words I'm likely to write all that often, but there we are. There are resignation procedures for a reason, and most tellingly Yanukovich publicly said he had not resigned before the vote was taken. Abandonment of post is a very convenient accusation when you have armed men standing around making sure votes go their own way- the main point that has consistently failed to be addressed in any way. There was plenty of footage of regional governors being dragged out of buildings by 'peaceful protesters' (interestingly enough, when exactly the same was done in the East recently it was a 'violent mob' doing it) in the west and forced to sign resignations. The opposition abrogated each agreement it signed within hours, under those circumstances you cannot expect anyone to hang around, indeed it is telling that the Rada numbers plunged by 100 over a single day and you got not one Communist or PoR person to vote against the Language Law repeal when there's not an iota of doubt they would have, under normal circumstances. Abandonment of post is only relevant if you have a realistic expectation of safety. If you had, I dunno, armed NRA militiamen running around Washington and Lyndsey Graham and John McCain were claiming that Barack Obama had resigned verbally it might be viewed with just a touch of scepticism- and there'd be no doubt whatsoever that it was unconstitutional to take that as 'fact' and put John Boehner or someone into the post even if Obama were unable to perform his duties. Because there is clear duress involved, the correct legal procedures have been subverted and the absence can reasonably be construed as a direct consequence of those two factors. It is a pretext for removal, the mere veneer of legality to make people feel better about things, though in this case even the veneer of legality relies on Grahamov and McCainovic's testimony about the resignation being accurate. Start down that road and you end up with Oliver Cromwell, legally and democratically elected Dictator For Life.

A horrible DRM that requires no internet connection, no activation and no online account? Wish more games had such a system. A one time check that you have an actual DVD is about as soft a DRM as it is possible to have- indeed it's as integral as having to log on to/ create a GOG account to download games. Things like the save game encryption sucks, but that isn't a DRM issue.

Funny thing is that Bethesda games were DRM free up until they went steam with FONV- even with GFWL/ Fallout3 you could have an offline account/ direct click the exe- they've actually gone back and retroactively added DRM to digital editions. Still, fair play overall by GOG. One or the other of DRM and regional pricing probably had to go, it's clear that the pressure has really come on in the last while with other non regional outlets shifting their stance. And they are one of the few companies that would actually make an official Untergang video in response to a fan one.

Yeah, cost control is the big thing. If Dead Space 3 had sold 5 million copies it would have been decently profitable. There the question was whether Visceral could be better used doing something that would sell 5 million, not Dead Space being literally unprofitable. If B:I had sold 5 million it still wouldn't have broken even. You should be able to make money off the sort of sales B:I or Tomb Raider had. Nobody willing to make/ fund it and deal with Star Insurance/ Meadowbrook. Various people have tried to reclaim the rights at various times, not least Ken Levine himself. I rather expected some sort of kickstarter or similar from Night Dive at one point, but they're literally Steven Heck Kick plus secretary so they'd need developers, an engine etc.

I presumed (for about fifteen minutes) that the people who grabbed Beth were the people Rick ran into a couple of episodes previous, they were particularly interested in finding a cleaned woman's shirt when they weren't throttling each other and bouncing tennis balls. On the face of it at least it seems less likely now.

There isn't much doubt at all that Yanukovich's removal was illegal, I gave the reasons earlier (incorrect legal reversion of constitution, duress of votes, insufficient majority even under new constitution- 338 required, 328 actual) Nah, they don't have a buffer zone, they still border Georgia. And Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Norway, of those just in NATO. Yes, I somehow suspected something like this was coming. Situations are massively different. Still, I'll show exactly why as you put in some effort to the whole enterprise. Northern Syria is not a geographically distinct region. Crimea is geographically distinct, if you asked a five year old to draw regions on a map of Ukraine they'd be able to put a circle around it. Northern Syria has no distinct identity, ethnic or otherwise, from the rest of Syria. Excluding the Kurds, but then I don't for a second think we'll see US troops liberating Turkish controlled majority Kurd areas, and neither would anyone with even a cursory knowledge of international diplomacy. Northern Syria has no history of independence or resistance, outside the last three or so years. Crimea's dates back 20+, and they would have been independent if the Ukrainian constitution were not specifically written to prevent secession. In order for the comparisons to be valid there would have to be all those things- perhaps a Turkish majority in the effected regions so they can return to the neoOttomans or somesuch. But there isn't. I'd say that the US hasn't learned anything. And yes, I will nitpick the realism because "let's just pretend this is reality instead of what actually is" is not a valid technique in any form of debate, even internet debate. And no, it isn't about principle, nothing in international diplomacy is- unless you're on losing side of reality/ facts on the ground, in which case principle is the only thing you have and in that case it suddenly becomes critically important.

I don't really have any opinion on Sarkeesian herself, but just about everyone on the internet engages in the second part of that, having some valid points and meaningful things to say at all is a step above most internet commentators. And yeah, pretty much always, even when most internet users were denizens of prestigious academic institutions they didn't always use sweet reason alone to make points- usenet existed, after all.

Russia didn't annex Abkhazia or South Ossetia, though I tend to think they should. They're too small to be independent and there's far too much bad blood for them to be Georgian. They're both independent, or 'independent', depending on pov. I've got no personal opinion about Crimea being part of Russia or independent as that isn't my business but should be up to the Crimeans. But I have little doubt that they would want one or the other based on historic data though.

On the first point there's very little doubt it was illegal- the vote was made under duress, it was made using an older constitution without the repeal of the newer being made lawfully, and even then they did not have the required super majority as there were insufficient members present to get 75% even with a unanimous vote- they only achieved a super majority of those present. Russia's position is certainly correct in a legal sense there. On the second, it is clear that the Ukrainian constitution was written specifically to stop secession as it requires both central government approval and a referendum across the whole country. To use an example from the last thread that would be like Great Britain refusing Ireland's independence based upon referendum votes from Scotland, Wales and England. Indeed, the current Scottish referendum is Scotland only. Having said that the referendum is clearly illegal under the Ukrainian constitution. The difference in practical terms is that the impeachment/ removal process is designed to be difficult, as you'd expect, but could legitimately have been done- if they hadn't driven off so many Party of Regions and Communist members. The secession process is practically impossible though, as Mr Yatsenyuk etc have made it clear it will not be considered under any circumstances, and the maximum allowed might be more autonomy and reversion to the old Crimean Constitution that Kiev abrogated in 1995.

So what? Facts on the ground. Argentina may not accept that the UK rules the Falklands, but they may as well be blowing bubbles in a gale for all the difference it makes. The west has no balls- if it's easy they'll do it, if it's hard then they'll look for something easy instead. This is hard, so they'll yell and wave their hands, then only bring it up when convenient and they need to remind people how horrible Russians are. Sure is, which is why if it's such a problem pouring a big barrel of oil down the Kosovan hill was pretty moronic of the west. Of course, it only becomes a slippery slope when it's someone other than the west doing it, when the west does it it is Principled. There's a quote from Victoria Nuland that very accurately describes my feelings towards the EU. Sorry Brucey, you ain't going to catch me with that one. I've said repeatedly that the main problem with the west's actions is that they will be used by others to justify their actions and that they undermine 'international law' for whatever that concept is worth- not much, when you're willing to flagrantly ignore it when convenient. It is the slippery slope argument, it's just that people stick their heads in the sand about who exactly started down the slippery slope. You cannot expect only one side to abide by a set of rules, if they do they're morans because the other side has already shown they won't. So far the Russians have been far better than the west has anyway, nobody has died and they've gone for a region which has a long and provable history with Russia, and of opposition to being part of Ukraine. Indeed, it's a region that is only part of Ukraine due to Krushchev and the USSR breaking up inconveniently (Crimea voted to be an autonomous SSR- 95% voter approval- in 1991, but it was only a couple of months before the USSR broke up so it was never implemented). So yeah, I broadly support the Russians here for those reasons, and because the concept of international law is bunkum if only one side adheres to it. If you'd paid attention in the previous thread you'd even have noticed I wasn't implacably opposed to Kosovo either, just its extremely one sided implementation.

Considering that he has, without any doubt, acted and acted decisively that analysis doesn't stand up to even the most cursory examination. He's bitten, he's won, and there's essentially nothing practical anyone can do now except shout and wave their arms in the air while spouting the usual do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do blather about sovereign integrity and the like- ignoring that Crimea has actually voted to separate from Ukraine multiple times previously (1991, 1992, 1995).

Nobody expects Oby to be unbiased, he's not in any way a source of record- plus, I have noscript and video blocked by default, so don't actually see most of what he posts. To some at least the BBC is a source of record though. To be fair, they were not reporting on it entirely seriously, more on the phenomenon, but even that gives it more credibility than it deserves. In any case I find it almost certain that Oby isn't entirely serious either, and is doing it mainly because he finds the reactions of outraged butthurt amusing. Plus it's only ~48 hours since I suggested to Oby that simultaneously ranting about ZOG while praising Jewish newspapers for being unbiased sources was probably not the most consistent approach to take.

All those Russians look the same to me, what with their shifty eyes, the blood of sweet innocents dripping from their mouths and driving their tanks full tilt towards disabled grandmothers trying to protect newborn infants. So difficult to tell them apart they may as well all be the same. Seriously, why would they bother, in a million years, to bus some random woman around for propaganda. And why would the BBC report on it even if it's just one of their moronic social media non events doing it. It's like that running joke about Russia being a Scooby Doo villain, always coming up with an overly complicated, fiendishly intelligent plan that they would have got away with if not for those pesky kids.

Heh, good to see that there's extra propaganda thrown in too, shame it makes me question if their other information is even slightly correct. OMG webcams! OMG more ballots to be printed than electors! As opposed to the digital voting so popular in the US and being brought in in Britain which totally won't tell whoever runs the computers who was voting, and for whom. And if our elections here don't have far more ballots printed than there are electors I will eat my keyboard, computer, monitor and joystick then play no game other than Oblivion for the rest of the year- because you don't know exactly where people will go to vote, you can only estimate maximum numbers and print that maximum number of ballots for each booth. Typical damned if you do, damned if you don't set up, print too many ballots and it'll be for ballot stuffing, obviously, print too few then run out and OMG people's right to vote infringed, fraudulent!