Zoraptor

Hey, Wheel of Time fans! You know how Obsidian and Red Something were planning on making a WoT game? Well, I've some good news, and some bad news... (While I feel somewhat sympathetic towards anyone who expected a big RPG class announcement the lack of hype was telling given how much overt build up there was for the P(o)E kickstarter and other game announcements)

Yep, my first thought on seeing it and so much so that I really doubt it was coincidence. Apparently it was mentioned on the Talking Dead post ep show as well, but we don't get that here. And whatever else can be said about TWD it didn't duck in that episode.

The problem with Svoboda and Right Sector, from the western propaganda perspective, is exactly what Cultist said. They aren't ashamed of what they're doing, they're proud of it and believe what they're doing will help The Cause, so are happy to document and promote it. Hanging pictures of Stepan Bandera in Kiev's city hall is a godsend for Russia's propaganda every bit as much as the language law repeal was, or forcing resignations under threat of violence- something that happened extensively during the revolution and goes to show how no votes in the Rada under the current circumstances can not be taken at face value or as being free of duress. I don't have much doubt that Fatherland and UDAR would make them disappear if they could- then again, I have little doubt that larger players in most coalitions would happily make their smaller partners disappear if they could- but they are needed and would not respond well to being marginalised. As such all they can really do is try to control and channel their more... radical inclinations and pronouncements.

It's to do with how people's brains work. I have to concentrate in order to tell Robert de Niro and Al Pacino apart and their names are dissimilar in fact if not in 'style' and they don't look particularly alike. I can also only remember one out of Alan Rickman and the guy who was in Leon/ Batman (Gary Oldman, but I seriously did have to look his name up). Why? Some mental wire crossings related to them tending to take similar roles and having moderately similar style names, most likely. Memory and associations aren't really rote/ literal things like a computer hard drive with a specific location that stores "Alan_Rickman.jpg" for comparison even if they have traced the Jennifer Aniston neuron.

Meh, Paradox is about the only company in the video game sphere that I actively and virulently loathe. And a few years ago I would have thought Paradox/ Obsidian a match made in heavan. Still, so long as they have no power to backdoor in steam or turn PoE into a glorified dlc front end like their recent products (and so long as I'm not contributing even a fraction of a cent to Paradox) I don't see any reason to care overly much who does disk pressing and marketing duties whether it be Paradox, EA, 2k or whoever.

It's actually cheaper on GOG- though you have to buy it as part of a choose your own bundle with other games. The other advantage of buying E:C on GOG is that the steam version is published by bitcomposter since they were used as a short circuit to greenlight. If you buy from there you give bitcomposer money for doing literally nothing except putting their name down as publisher, if you buy from GOG the publisher is Logic Artists themselves so the bitcomposter share goes to the people who actually made the game. Mind you, if that is your primary concern you're probably not buying it for $5 anyway...

I'm inclined not to believe it in the absence of independent confirmation- it isn't like the SBU is a disinterested party. If they had proof you'd expect them to parade it in front of the world's media, not just make a release on their own website. And if Russia were to use spetsnaz to reconnoitre you'd either dress them in civvies and have no one carrying id papers or you'd have all of them carrying them. One carrying them and them wearing uniforms is a bit Scooby Doo villain for the real world; those Russians are sneaky, but not sneaky enough! they send in their elite troops but they make a mistake you wouldn't expect a conscript to make! I'd also question the necessity of it, it isn't like Russia doesn't have military satellites and drones capable of spying and they almost certainly have sympathisers inside the Ukrainian military as well. On the other hand I would be inclined to believe that the shooting incident was the result of buzzed up locals deciding to take out some long simmering resentment on symbols of the old order- because hyped up semi organised men the world over tend to do such things when given the opportunity.

I always find it a bit weird how much more I like DS1 over DS2 when you consider how similar they actually are. DS2 felt really linear while DS1 felt a lot less so, in practical terms DS1 was linear, it just gave you some options on which bit of a given plot section you did first but that was enough to mask it better. Plus I found DS2's plot less engaging, while DS1's was nothing particularly special it was handled well. DS2 was a bit too much 'follow instructions of voice in head because you have nothing better to do'. And I found certain sections and particular enemies in DS2 very annoying, far more so than the annoying cylinder monster in DS1. Haven't played DS3, though I'll get it at some point I don't feel any strong need to.

Well now, usually when someone uses that sort of description it is because they feel they're losing an argument and are rather baffled as to why, since they cannot actually be wrong. Not exactly, I gave the rationale for not including it, ie that it was not a home grown Crimean option but one mandated and imposed from Kiev, I did not advocate it. My personal opinion, as stated, was that it should have been included, I just gave the justification for why it was done that way. It wasn't challenged. Again, the Ukrainian constitution was written explicitly so it could not be challenged- and I provided the evidence, direct from said constitution of why that was so. And it is explicitly so, with enforcement means under both Presidential and Rada control. You are, of course, invited to prove how they could have challenged it within that framework, but I'm not holding my breath for anything other than rote repetition of your unsupported point. Nope, I used the DPRK to illustrate why your engineered question failed to prove anything in the real world. Which, per the Ukrainian constitution, would have ceased to exist if it had voted any other way. Much like people would cease to exist if they voted anyone other than Dear Leader in DPRK :smug: You cannot take forced consent under existential threat as actual consent, because it is forced. You've done no such thing. Once again you mistake stating something (repeatedly) for proving something, as the onus is on you to show that the situation has changed, rather than just been suppressed or hidden. The one piece of evidence you've provided is shown to be something that simply could not have happened any other way because that is the way the rules themselves were set up. No, I illustrated how mobile the goalposts were on principles in international law when the west wants to justify something, but how rigid and anchored they are when the boot is on the other foot.

Right, so come up with anything from inside North Korea proving that people there are unhappy, some North Korean institutions going to the UN, opinion polls and whatever other yardsticks you want to apply. Can't do it? Well then, obviously North Koreans really are happy and ecstatic living in Best Korea and everything the west says about it is propaganda... You aren't using a position that has any way logical consistency but relies on circular logic- because it assumes that those institutions you want to see as proof can do the things you want to see, which they cannot, because Ukraine has made it illegal to, so you don't see them, which then becomes proof that everything is AOK in the status quo. Now, you may not end up with a lead overdose for trying in Ukraine as opposed to trying in the DPRK but you could still end up in jail and whatever official body that tried could be- and provably have been- disbanded unilaterally from Kiev. So, in effect you want to see Crimean institutions commit institutional suicide, in the past few years after both the assembly and presidency that tried got squished like a bug and after laws had been specifically (re)written to make it illegal? Not exactly surprising there are no examples. OTOH I actually do have stuff that shows that Crimea wanted separation from Ukraine, you have nothing at all to show that the situation has changed. The onus of proof is actually on you to do so, I've already established the default position. And no, the 1998 constitution does not count as it was not written in Crimea, but in Kiev, and actually proves the exact reverse of what you want. That was the point of the Ukrainian constitution clauses I posted, and why it took 3 years to get a new crimean constitution after Ukraine unilaterally revoked the old one written by the Crimeans themselves. Any attempt post 1995 to write their own constitution runs straight into Kiev's right of veto, by its very definition they cannot call for secession in the constitution or elsewhere, as it has to be approved by Kiev, who will not approve something that allows secession and may prosecute or dissolve any institution/ individual calling for it. Again, claiming that the 1998 constitution shows things have changed is circular logic, because what changed is Kiev made it illegal and impossible to contravene what Kiev wanted. So the 1998 constitution has to reflect what Kiev wants, or there is no constitution. At least until such time as the Ukrainian state apparatus is no longer in a position to impose their will, as now. And again you deflect by pleading special circumstances. The west doesn't do bad things when it abrogates agreements, it doesn't even abrogate them, it withdraws from them (note ABM was abrogated in 2002 and not in the 90s, the dissolution of the USSR did not automatically end any other treaty), due to special circumstances. But Russia withdrawing abrogating agreements is particularly bad, due to other special circumstances. Kosovan independence is OK, due to special circumstances and doesn't establish a precedent, due to special circumstances. The circumstances in Ossetia/ Abkhazia/ Crimea are special, but demand their independence not be considered, due to their extra specially bad circumstances of utter evilness and despicability. It's a pot pourri of inconsistency, a melange of Different Because, a chimeric gestalt of convenient amorphous 'principles' to be stuck to when advantageous, and ignored when not. Every single country does it, the west just has a larger cheer squad and more people who could be the Cirque du Soleil's hit logical contortionist act the knots they tie themselves in trying to justify stuff.

And I specifically pointed out why that is not a good gauge. You ask the question that way because it will give the answer you want, I answer the question that should be asked. To take an extreme example, I could not prove that there is significant political dissent in North Korea either, but that doesn't mean that there either isn't, or that people willingly support the status quo. It just means that they cannot do so overtly. It was not a Kosovo type situation where you had nine years of NATO occupation and preparation for independence allowing pro independence sentiment to flourish, the previous 9 years were occupation from Kiev- a Kiev where you now have Yatsenyuk talking about 'setting the earth on fire' in Crimea. That's not an attitude where you can have a reasoned debate and gradual, mutual movement towards anything whether it be autonomy, integration or separation; just dictated movement towards integration like last time. The previous leader to try and do it got prosecuted and his assembly and constitution were dissolved from Kiev. Seriously, everyone, literally everyone including Kiev has acknowledged that there is genuine and significant separatist sentiment, indeed Kiev has attempted to use its constitution to block it even when they no longer have the de facto power to. If they had the power to stop it, they clearly would have- and then you could still have safely claimed that there was still no separatist sentiment because where are the appeals to the UN etc. Yeah, because the Warsaw Pact still exists, whereas NATO was disbanded once the cold war ended. Whatever your views on the matter of Crimea is you have to be monumentally naive to think that the west does not have an us vs them attitude to Russia or wants Ukraine in its fold for any other primary reason than because it's a dagger at Moscow's heart. It's poor, endebted, its army and institutions are a shambles and it's riven by corruption. It has no significant natural or others resources, except a strategic position close to Moscow. Of course, this will all be dressed up in the costume of fraternal concern and uplifting of the brother hood of european nations. Let's ask Greece how those sentiments have worked out for them, a richer country which actually had less corruption... Dealt with, his removal was illegal under the Ukrainian constitution. So's the referendum of course, but you cannot conveniently grant one side a free illegality but not the other just because you like one, especially when the illegality of it is retroactive relative to the original separatist referendum. And the west violated their assurance to Russia that the break up of the WP and German reunification would not see further eastwards expansion of NATO, or over the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty. Again, treaties are mutual things, can't expect only one side to obey the ones you find convenient, same as you cannot decide arbitrarily that Kosovo is a Special Case but no other case is special, or special enough, for the same treatment.

Is there really any point, you don't exactly have a record of reading or acknowledging whatever doesn't fit your preconceived notions, per Kosovo. Nevertheless, let's run through exactly why you're wrong. 1) Crimea voted for independence from Ukraine twice previously, 1991, 1994. Their wishes were not respected either time 2) The Ukrainian response was to ignore the results, then disband the assembly/ constitution and abolish the post of president. 3) Ukraine wrote their constitution to make secession literally impossible 3a) art 73 "Issues of altering the territory of Ukraine are resolved exclusively by an All-Ukrainian referendum." 3b) art 85.29&38 (approval of constitution of Crimea by Ukraine; ability to disband assembly) 3c) art 106 presidential power to "revoke acts of the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" 4) Crimean constitution then rewritten by Kiev 5) While under Ukrainian military occupation dissenters are subject to potential prosecution under laws of treason and sedition if advocating separation or secession. Or in other words, the lack of strong, apparent, recent secessionist sympathy means nothing because any secessionist sympathy are impossible under circumstances of Ukrainian occupation. Such moves would see the assembly dissolved, any attempt to alter the constitution of Crimea would see it rescinded by decree so normal democratic means are effectively impossible and even if they were allowed any approval would have to come by nationwide referendum. Kiev has already shown that they will apply legal sanctions to those who meaningfully try as well, eg the former Crimean President Yury Meshkov. Try anything like an appeal to the UN or legal advice and you run straight into the constructed problem that you're either doing so with no official capacity, or with your official capacity under threat of immediate revocation from Kiev. The recent pronouncements coming from Kiev on the matters actually illustrate the point rather well. I'd be careful with the Anschluss accusations though. While much like in Austria, there's very little disputation (in fact, I haven't heard any analyst say that the overall result would be different) about what the vote result would have been even if it were methodologically perfect there is literally no evidence that Crimea has ever wanted to be part of Ukraine- the exact opposite is true, there's a lot of evidence that it didn't want to be, ever. The whole thing is predicated on Nikita Krushchev moving some meaningless lines around 60 years ago, and that is literally the entirety of the argument. No 'consent of the governed' or similar here, just the whim of someone the west would otherwise regard as a dictator to be ignored.

I'd have put the status quo on the ballot, personally, but I do understand why they didn't, ie the status quo was dictated to Crimea from Kiev and was not local, unlike the 1992 constitution. They're basically reverting time to the pre 1995 situation before Kiev intervened and removed most of their autonomy (eg making all crimean laws vetoable from Kiev, removing the post of president) as they simply do not see the later constitution as valid. And not, it has to be said, without reason given that there are multiple articles in Ukraine's constitution written specifically- down to specifying that they apply to Crimea, by name- to force them into line and they did vote multiple times not to be so constrained. On a purely statistical/ methodological level most referenda try to have only two options as that is by far the easiest and most reliable/ least confusing way to write them. To illustrate, the Falklands' referendum only had a yes/ no about remaining part of the UK but not an alternative option to become fully independent. On that purely theoretical level having the third option would be better, but it would muddy the waters and it would be more difficult to enunciate the options clearly- plus there'd be questions about whether the Falklands or Crimea could reasonably be independent as an option (probably yes for Crimea, if Ukraine would accept it which they clearly won't, probably not for the Falklands as they are simply too small and could not have a hope of defending themselves).

They had two options representing the two things the actual Crimeans themselves had previously decided upon, go back to their own constitution written by them after their previous independence 95% referendum in 1991 then arbitrarily torn up by Kiev in 1995, or joining Russia. The 'missing' option was to go back to the constitution Kiev wrote for them having- arbitrarily, retroactively and without reference to the crimean people and while having their soldiers and state apparatus stationed there as enforcement- given themselves the power to do so in their own constitution and to make it impossible for Crimea to actually secede. The two options given represent the will of the Crimean people, the missing one represents only the will of Kiev. And Kiev has no one to blame but themselves, it was their own policies and insistence on forcing a region that didn't want to be part of their country to remain and continuous encroachment on their autonomy that has lead them to this result.

That's a constructed difference though. Crimea has tried outright independence from Kiev twice prior (1991; 95% for vote) and in 1994. Both times they've been blocked by Kiev, in 1994 overtly by having their assembly effectively dissolved and their presidential post abolished by presidential decree, followed by rule by decree from Kiev. They can have no reasonable expectation that Kiev would not do the same thing again if given the opportunity. As with all things sovereignty related it relies on Ukraine's constitution applying to Crimea, and its constitution is specifically written to make sure that neither independence nor autonomy can happen without permission that will not be granted- specifically, the Crimean constitution has to be approved in Kiev and there would have no be a nationwide referendum on secession as well. Were Ukraine in military control of Crimea there'd be as little chance of that happening as of Serbia releasing Kosovo if they were still in military charge there. And tellingly, even where the situation is nominally the same such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia which are both (theoretically) wholly independent nations rather than regions petitioning to join another state the west thinks the circumstances are different, even with their own sources admitting to ethnic cleansing in Georgia that was, relatively speaking, actually worse than what went on in Kosovo. You could just as easily write a preamble that says "observing that South Ossetia is a special case arising from its non consensual inclusion in Georgia by Joe Stalin and is probably a precedent for other situations because you cannot logically accept special pleading in only one set of circumstances just because you want to and it's convenient, recalling the years of strife and violence in SOssetia that disturbed the conscience of basically no one because it was our friends in Georgia doing it..."

The case of PressTV would be a rather good counterpoint. Was (still is so far as I am aware) banned in the UK, in Europe, youtube and has had journalists added to ban lists. Of course, they're nasty anti west Iranians instead of nice pro western Russians, so it's just fundamentally different. And yeah, Britain (and to be fair, others) will use anti terror legislation for whatever they can. When Iceland defaulted on its debts they and the Dutch used anti terror legislation to freeze assets.

Yeah, I'm not really a supporter of doing it that way. Unless you're going to do a more substantial rewrite you still have the problem of the joining/ taint and the manner in which you learn about it being, fundamentally, something that people should not like. The only real difference would be being told that the PC is actually OK with that by the fiat of it already having happened or knowing about it beforehand and being told you decided to join up anyway. Personally I don't really see that as being substantively better than the status quo- though I will accept that mileage will vary on that point.

I wouldn't say diametrically opposed. As a story suggestion it's fine, Duncan could do it and he would do it if the circumstances were right. The objection I'd have is that it replaces one railroad with another one, and you still wouldn't have any motivation to follow Duncan's wishes once he's dead- rather the reverse if he's basically kidnapped you. If we really want to fix that issue we need a story suggestion that may not necessarily fix the railroading, as that is asking too much, but at least gives you a good and compelling reason to follow Duncan's instructions post Ostagar. But since I cannot come up with a suggestion that fixes it without basically rewriting the game or having equal logic flaws I also have to admit that I cannot really blame Bioware for not coming up with one either. The real alternative is probably as Humanoid describes- having a set background, so probably starting out as a prospective warden from the beginning and having that be an intrinsic and essential factor in the PC's make up. Personally, I'm happier having the more flexible start DAO offers rather than reducing the origins to background traits or similar, as the origins are useful for background information. But that is most certainly a matter of opinion as to which approach is better.

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.