BruceVC

I think you making the right decision, absolutely. Sometimes spending too much time on beta testing and early release feedback can start unintentionally eroding your enjoyment and excitement factor ....and we forget why we game in the first place..." to have fun and be entertained " So bugs or certain game designs in beta that will get fixed or addressed you may become fixated on thinking that defines the final product yet there is always much more to most games than our initial impressions around beta testing I have never beta tested before which IMO is one of the reasons I have very few real gaming regrets, < 5%, because I always try to go into every RPG with expectations but no negative views ...no " subconscious bias " as my lady friends tell me about certain SJ issues and debates we have

No I havent defeated my argument because you are assuming I consider BG2 ToB an " open, sandbox " RPG like W3, I dont at all so I measure and rate BG2 in a different way than W3 but its still top of my list like W3 Risk and reward in a game like W3 can be seen in different ways, for example where only certain weapon smiths of a certain level can repair and sell certain weapons. You gain more experience and that allows you to travel to more advanced cities that have a larger and better pool of resources and skills you can use and yes that logically means a " Sword +4 " is something you can sell to any weapon enthusiasts in a large city but its unlikely a rural blacksmith will have the money for this Its about economic realism

Im surprised you dont like the W3 for the reasons you mention, most of those are the exact reason I play RPG like the W3 For example I love the random quests and " easter egg " encounters that were designed to reward exploration and the real sandbox element of games like this....you cant call it an open-world, sandbox RPG if you dont have the 25th level Chimera as a possible foe in the 5 th level quest. In these encounters you come later and defeat that particular monster. And you need a balanced economy like merchants with limited money so you dont undermine core " risk and reward " game mechanics and basically realistic free market economics. In other words " its unrealistic that a blacksmith in some rural, indigent village will have money to buy my Sword + 4 " Its like normal banking in RL and we need to support that Its an amazing and brilliant RPG, my favorite next to BG2 ToB. I spent 300 hours on W3, you must play it

I tend to agree with this sentiment and also the reality of most modern Democracies is we dont vote on the predictions of polls but rather on the policies and or ideological views of candidates and how they align to a specific party Political polls provide us with a degree of accuracy at understanding a " snapshot at that moment of peoples political views " but this can change and is mostly accurate....I now believe its undecided voters in the USA ,who make voting decisions at the last moment, that created the anomaly in the accuracy of the 2016 polling data

This pandemic has lead to much sacrifice my friend...no Nutella ice cream is yours

Im concerned that people have certain expectations for the game based on an understandable love of the previous games but maybe Larian is taking the BG franchise in a different way and what you expecting wont be in BG3 by design So I suppose the best question is "what are we expecting from this game and will it deliver ", I expect Immersive party based interaction and interesting party based quests to advance a party member story arc Memorable foes and some view of there motives, like in BG2 and NWN2 and the Host Tower of the Arcane It must align to Forgotten Realms lore Interesting dungeons to explore and basically the same for quests Complexity as much as reasonable around spells, items and races What are you guys expecting ?

I had a stomach bug last night which woke me up at 2 am and kept me awake so I watched most of the VP debate I found it to be generally insipid and uninspiring and both candidates just avoided questions they didnt want to answer which are relevant For example the whole" Biden\Trump are over 70, have you discussed with them what happens if they have to step down due to ill health "

So who is planning on watching the VP debate tonight, I wont be watching as its too late but I will catch all the highlights from 5:30-6:00 am

Mamie, stop being naughty again. You cannot call yourself " hardcore " AD&D if you not knowledgeable on the Gith race !!! Everyone knows about Gith lore, its like ....mmm....

It now appears the spread and potential risk to people who work in White House is much more widespread than it first appeared Most of the top people in the Pentagon have also been exposed and are in self-isolation https://news.yahoo.com/military-leaders-quarantined-official-tests-170601426.html

You have it almost right, the national oil company was purged and then international oil companies, who for some had been invested in Venezuela for over 100 years, were forced to hand over there investments, meaning control of the oil production within the country and all its revenue because Chavez sold directly to the global oil markets like all oil producers. So any government can do this with any company that has a physical presence within the country....its highly unethical, illegal and should lead to sanctions but you can still do it as any government controls the army and police and they can take any company over they want And even the examples about some oil companies becoming minority share holders is the same outcome because oil companies are listed companies outside of the Venezuela stock exchange so what Chavez did was not gain control of these companies " international listing "value but he stole full control of the revenue produced by the oil production in the local sense as the oil company had a massive oil production plant in the country

No they never nationalized there oil companies until 2006 onwards, the link discusses this

Im so glad you asked that question because I can finally share the important link below, by being asked and not when I post it as an example, which I bookmarked as it summarizes accurately what caused the real collapse of the Venezuela economy. And its hard to find a better link that highlights the actual real outcome of any nationalization that is done in a way that investors lose out. I mentioned this before but one of uncles works for a UK investment bank that personally lost about $10-15 billion due to how Chavez stole the assets of the international oil companies so I have real " lived " experience with this type of crime https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/05/07/how-venezuela-ruined-its-oil-industry/#6b1c08137399

Yes and the funding that has occurred between certain Socialist countries in the last 25-30 years is perfectly understandable if you support this type of socialism but when the funding comes from Venezuela, at the expense of the fact they stole the assets of international oil companies, it should be heavily criticized because its not legitimate tax payer money paying for the funding but the income primarily generated from the illegal theft of the assets of oil companies in the Venezuela example. I can site similar examples of failed socialist countries who did basically identical things like Chavez And this type of nationalization generally takes 3-5 years before the truly terrible impact and economic consequence is felt by the country and can also be directed influenced by the actual asset global price ( if its a type of commodity that has been stolen\nationalized ) and its internationally traded price but this can only delay the real and inevitable harm nationalization causes So in other words Chavez stole the assets of the main 6-7 oil companies in 2006/2007 when the oil price was about to reach almost record high levels in 2009/2010 but then due to several global factors the oil price started dropping and by 2015 the oil price was below $50, here is is a good link on the overall oil price globally https://inflationdata.com/articles/inflation-adjusted-prices/historical-crude-oil-prices-table/ Chavez was greedy, arrogant and ignorant and he assumed the oil price would always remain above $100 ( or whatever there acceptable cost for producing oil is ) so when the oil price correctly dropped from 2014 onwards Venezuela suddenly discovered that this primary source of income generation couldn't pay for there costs and socialist programs. And to make things worse the only groups who can help in a sustainable way in this economic scenario are generally foreign investors who understandably had no interest or appetite in investing even 1$ in Venezuela because 10 years before Chavez had stolen the investments of oil companies!! So it always will end the same way, if you cannot guarantee the assets of foreign investors are safe from nationalization you will ultimately undermine your entire economy and the outcome will be a slow but inevitable collapse because it will always be seen as breaking of international laws which has a direct impact on the health of all economies

I got it, this last part summarizes the general sentiment and it will be varied. As I mentioned there is a valid way of integration into any new culture or country when people are forced to immigrate and this can involve where the reason for the immigration is not always highlighted and remembered by families and that is going to be a personal choice and its normal in many places in the world. In SA for example any legal immigrants that arrive from countries like the DRC and Somalia very seldom talk about the reasons they left there countries for many reasons but most of them escaped unspeakable horror and violence and have become SA citizens through the acceptable, legal way of becoming a citizen which we appreciate as they have skills and help contribute towards our weak economic growth But why Cuba is still relevant is I remember when Obama made attempts to normalize ties with Cuba and how this attempt was responded to by various groups in the USA was very interesting. Firstly I supported this USA initiative even though it contradicted my normal view of not recognizing any country that is a dictatorship or has implemented laws or ideological laws, like Cuban socialism , that can lead to the theft or nationalization of any domestic or international asset. So basically I am saying you cannot invest in any country if you cannot trust that government to honor the nature of the investment ....hence the primary reason any modern day discussion of socialism will generally always be understandably criticized and dismissed by anyone who works in the financial investment market because no investor is going to put at risk the money of there clients by allowing that money to be possibly stolen by some illegal socialist government policy. And you also cannot justify in international courts the nationalization of foreign investments due to historical colonialization or how historical theft of these assets has ostensibly created inequality in the country . I know this may sound unfair and unreasonable but I promise you cannot justify it in most examples where we have seen this like the Chavez theft of the international Oil companies in Venezuela in 2006/2007 and how this was by far the real reason the Venezuela economy collapsed And this doesn't mean you cant discuss redress of historical injustice or any international investment cant be involved and persuaded to be involved in many examples of transformation to help solve real historical economic imbalances. But back to Cuba and the new Obama attempt to have better relations , so I supported it initially because I took a view that basically was " its not like anyone is now going to want to copy Cubas socialist policies just because the USA starts trading with Cuba again so is there any real harm to this diplomacy even if its a contradiction to what I fundamentally previously mentioned around the danger of nationalization " But then I heard the views Marco Rubio and several prominent Cuban American business men made around why this new attempt to have better diplomacy with Cuba was a mistake as the Obama policy was not expecting certain reforms before seeing the normalization. Back in those days I was a " Democratic " supporter completely but I use to find that Republicans like Marco Rubio always use to sense to me on many topics. And I also realized he was right about how you should first get the commitment at least to reform from the Castro government before you relax any economic sanctions. Here is a good summary of what Rubio explained https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/21/rubio-criticizes-obamas-sotu-call-to-end-cuba-embargo So in summary this whole post is just a reason why the original story of the American Cuban dad not educating his daughter on the reason why Cuban socialism is not a valid economic model and government can create the wrong impression of " socialism " because at universities some groups and sometimes even professors of social science, not economic professors , will glamorize and represent only the superficial reality of socialism which always sounds fair and attractive when well meaning students and citizens think " socialism will fix modern day inequality " And also as you mentioned many people left Cuba and the direct reason would not be necessarily related to the economic reality but nothing changes the fact around how at the moment any real transformation of the Cuban economy will require the Cuban government to change their laws and guarantee global economic regulations like respecting the importance of property rights

What I wanted to ask you is generally what do Cuban American families teach there kids about Cuba and the old days of the violence of the revolution if anything? So the story above is where a Cuban dad was forced to leave Cuba due to the revolution at some point. He has created a new life in the USA and has a daughter who he decided didnt need to know the history of Cuba and he is perfectly entitled to decide what his daughter should know about the reasons he left Cuba. This decision does have a logical and reasonable reason or reasons to it particularly around how any parent could decide " this is a new country and my kids dont need to know the exact and sometimes violent reasons for our forced leaving of Cuba" But I have also met people from other conflicts outside of Cuba who now live in another country very happily but they have a view where the kids are well aware of the history of forced migration. They are not bitter and jaded but they always remember the history and all kids understand this in there own way. Both groups have valid reasons for the actual decision on what younger generations should be aware of and there is no right of wrong approach I fall into the second group and its purely from a perspective of the importance of where you came from and why and how this does need to be remembered but it doesn't define your new citizenship

Orog was it you or GD that told us the story about the Cuban American father whose daughter comes home from university and lectured her Dad about how "socialism " was not so bad and that he had the wrong idea about Cuba in the years of Fidel. I thought of a very interesting question I wanted to ask you around this and part of it is this reality of the daughter being so uninformed of the reality of Cuba To be fair to the daughter I know many Universities in SA and UK that are breeding grounds for these " socialist " movements that always want to change the world for the better of all mankind and its easy to align with them because they are mostly well meaning and do have legitimate global goals like climate change and concerns around cruelty to animals. So you can imagine how young and innocent students can be beguiled by certain " views " these university groups have.....but most people dont follow these socialist movements outside of university Anyway did you tell this story ?

Its not an uncommon occurrence in Democracies through out the world for political parties to be brought together in times of crisis or significant other event

Gorthfuscious !!!! I am not sure that is an answer that is part of the solution?

Gromnir I am looking for feedback from you and any others around the nature of violent protests in the USA and how to respond. This is still a debatable point and came up in the Presidential debate and is seen as real criticism towards the Democrats and how they enforce law and order. Now I have been doing some research around this and I am more than happy for my view to be changed as I would prefer that but I am not seeing any real evidence to convince me. The principle of law and order absolutely matters and then the perception of law and order also matters. So if you find cities like Portland which had months of protests or Seattle which had protestors taking over city blocks and a police station you can understand how this doesn't create a perception that these cities mayors are doing there jobs and ensuring reasonable protests. Quick questions so I am clear as I have never really read concern from most US forum members around this, why would violent protests or anarchy in US cities not concern you? Is it You dont think this is a real issue, meaning are you disputing the numerous valid reports form many cities ? You think this is an issue but the states must deal with it and accepting it wont change it Other reason? Then there is another concern. The majority of protests have been about the fact protestors are unhappy about the rulings made around incidents involving the Police and a suspect or suspects. So have we now basically decided that " we will decide protest and damage property but only when a court ruling also disagree with us "? The Breonna Taylor ruling and its outcome was another example of this. But in Kentucky the protests around the ruling have been much less severe as the police got involved and on day 1 arrested 100 protestors were arrested https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nearly-100-breonna-taylor-protesters-arrested-kentucky-attorney-general-s-n1233848 So the outcome and reason for less violence and anarchy is clear, if the police get involved and arrest people breaking the law the levels of lawlessness are vastly reduced. Do you agree ?

Its unlikely Trump will die but we shouldnt think this will be a good thing. I am trying to get my head around certain things but it will change certain realities on the left and right For example his base will dissipate and that is a typically good voting block to rely on?

I understand your point but its not representative of the overall virus impact in USA and what this means in the event Trump dies He has a compromised immune system so his odds of not making it are greater. No chance of his humbleness changing, why change when you happy with the results ?

https://www.aol.com/donald-trump-fatigued-good-spirits-203747698.html Trump is indeed in a high risk group and this could be very serious, its not something anyone should think is a form of karma around Trumps general mask rejection because many groups and people in the USA have rejected much more about the virus. I would argue this is an example of a country with high levels of virus and then people choosing to ignore certain common ways that the virus spreads like " avoiding crowded places and confined places " Sadly the USA has had thousands of cases similar to this so this is something we all should be aware of I hope Trump is okay

Interestingly enough this election is one of the very few elections where if either candidate is unable to attend rallies I doubt it would change most voting outcomes The Trump presidency has irrefutably resulted in extreme views on both sides and that has lead to many Americans opinions on the voting choice decided. And the people at rallies are Republicans but generally Trump supporters. They known exactly who they are voting for and most of these rallies are really about the Trump base and how many people at these rallied really enjoy the spectacle and theater of how Trump makes his point. I have watched parts of these rallies and I find entertaining....Trump can be funny So for me this is a very unusual election because most US citizens know who they voting for and what is said at rallies is not going to change that. Also if you look at some of the core points both Biden and Trump have raised against each other they both are often based on external factors and its impact like the pandemic or the reality of anarchy and violence in some US cities And these criticisms are not really fair in certain ways to undermine either candidate but they are legitimate criticisms so in other words these rallies I dont think are going to change most peoples voting choices ?