BruceVC

I have mentioned this before Hurlshot but you have this uncanny and admirable ability to oftern articulate what I am thinking in your posts. You make the point I am trying to make succinctly and accurately

You are right about your post not being popular, it smacks of bigotry . Are you opposed to 2 gay people walking the street and holding hands, I just want to understand what you mean by " they need to keep what they do in the bedroom". Also how do you feel about a gay person joining the army and fighting and dying for country. Should he be allowed to do that, maybe "he should just stay in the bedroom" ? Anyway go back to page two of this thread and read the excellent and informative post by Agx. You'll learn a few things, marriage was never about religion. It was about a social contract between people. So religion actually hijacked the definition of marriage. Therefore if want to leave marriage as it was gay people should be allowed to get married. I'd say let the gay person fight and die if they want. What I'm against is the actions that they have taken in some places once they get Gay Marriage as a term and approved by govt. They have in some locations then sued churches for not agreeing to marry them. THAT'S what I oppose. I oppose ANYONE who wants to try to force thier views on someone else. Some you can accuse of the scared of Homosexuality, but in some instances it's not scared of the sexuality, but scared because of actions taken elsewhere that they seem to desire to pursue. For Example An evangelical Christian marriage commissioner in Saskatchewan was successfully sued for refusing to marry a homosexual couple, despite assisting the couple by putting them in touch with another marriage commissioner who would be willing to conduct the ceremony. A campaign has now begun in Canada to remove tax-free status from churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Some Canadian provinces are even considering laws to forbid teachers in private schools from teaching that traditional marriage is the ideal. Ocean Grove, a United Methodist Church in New Jersey, was successfully sued by a lesbian couple for not allowing them to be married on Ocean Grove’s grounds. The site in question is Ocean Groves’ seaside pavilion which is used in worship ceremonies. Ocean Grove argued under the First Amendment they have the right to not allow marriages they do not recognize on their grounds, the judge did not agree. Judge Solomon Metzger ruled Ocean Grove had to allow such marriages then went one step further and revoked Ocean Groves tax-exempt status on the pavilion and surrounding grounds. The tax-exempt status has since been re-instated for most of the grounds re-filed for the exemption. It's the examples that they are having in trying to FORCE their views on others. Why does it have to be called Gay -Marriage? Because that tears down the other religions and if you use a term they use...then maybe you can FORCE them to change their religion. I could care less what they do overall until it involves ME. If they want to hold hands...go right ahead. If they want to smooch, go right ahead. If they want to smooch me...well...I'm going to object to that one. They could call it whatever they want...the only reason for calling it Gay Marriage is political...AND purposefully to enrage or upset others. I think it's a stupid reason. I disagree with the leaders of that movement and their opinions on that matter. Another problem is that idiots who have NO idea what's going on in the Gay community assume that these Leaders (some of whom aren't even homosexual) speak for every homosexual or gay person out there. They don't, but those pushing this agenda DO have a political agenda in mind and most of the time it's trying to force an issue whether it needs to be or not. There are OTHER ways to accomplish similar ideas without resorting to what they are trying to do in a more offensive manner. Force is not the way to do anything in my opinion in this manner, and they ONLY make enemies of those who would not be enemies. I have several Homosexual family members, I don't begrudge them anything. Part of the problem is people taking offense where there is none offered. If they don't try to force themselves on me, I don't mind. It's when they DO, that I mind. Look at it this way. Recently there was a case where there was a heterosexual couple staying at a hotel. They were kicked out of the hotel. Why? Because the owner stated it was a homosexual hotel ONLY. If I stated it was a homosexual couple that was kicked out because of their sexuality...it probably would engender a LOT more outrage. Either way, it's still discrimination. However, if it's private property...then the owner should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want...if it's a business however...then screw it. Religion on the otherhand I think is a very personal and private thing. Trying to force your views into someone's personal life is just as terrible as someone trying to push their religious views on you. AS I said, keep their business to themselves and I don't have a problem, it's when they push it on me that I have a problem. As far as being bigoted... Do you even know if I'm homosexual or heterosexual. It's amazing what people assume. @ Greylord I may be over sensitive and reading too much into what you initially meant. I apologize if thats the case. Of course freedom needs to apply both ways, I don't feel a religious organization should be forced to marry a gay couple. I never suggested that. But I am talking about a simple legal decision. Gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples and be able to commit to a long term relationship through marriage and therefore have the same legal protection and recognition. Thats my point, at the moment in many countries this is not recognized or acceptable.

You are right about your post not being popular, it smacks of bigotry . Are you opposed to 2 gay people walking the street and holding hands, I just want to understand what you mean by " they need to keep what they do in the bedroom". Also how do you feel about a gay person joining the army and fighting and dying for country. Should he be allowed to do that, maybe "he should just stay in the bedroom" ? Anyway go back to page two of this thread and read the excellent and informative post by Agx. You'll learn a few things, marriage was never about religion. It was about a social contract between people. So religion actually hijacked the definition of marriage. Therefore if want to leave marriage as it was gay people should be allowed to get married.

GB you are a genius, I also haven't played Skyrim yet so waiting for the GOTY edition make sense. Any idea when it will come out?

Nice idea, and a good way to use ths type of creature.

At least you are suggesting that they keep picking it back up Hi Melk I like Bioware and despite all this "Bioware Bashing" I guarantee you that almost every person on these forums who claims to dislike Bioware and that there games are sub-par will play Dragon Age 3 when its released. Mark my words I wont. And I think I proved that by not playing ME3 Sub-par... Bioware has entrenched itself in a specific niche, with a very specific style which does not appeal to me. It is far less a "bioware is bad" issue than the hordes of people who very vocaly will explain how they are perfect, which in turn will make those who disagree with that position to overly disagree. I do take offense when a "serious" gaming journalist drools over the consequences in Mass Effect and then discards the writing in Alpha Protocol as shallow for example. BACK ON TOPIC: ( ) I accidentally deleted my continuous game in Anno 2070. Warehouses full of resources. 2.12 million credits. A research town churning out prototypes... all gone... So I have to start a new game and get back countless hours of playtime. I won't. The way things are right now, i don't even know when i'll play another Bioware game again. Sorry boys but I don't quite believe you When DA3 is released and it will be awesome, you'll play it. You won't be able to resist. And to be honest its not that hard to avoid playing ME3, but to not play an incredible fantasy RPG is a different story. So we will have to see.... If it's awesome in a return-control-to-the-player, less cinematic sort of way--and doesn't require Origin--sure. I don't think it's so much an issue of their games being "subpar" as it is them having "moved on" from creating the sorts of games I like to play. Edit: Bah! I didn't intend to quote the entire conversation. Don't feel bad I just did the exact same thing End of the day this is my view, I enjoyed both DA1&2. They weren't BG2 but they were entertaining and thats all I ask for nowadays when I play a game. I expect entertainment, not inspiration. Besides lets be honest, DA2 has Isabella in it, what's not to like about her and those pirate outfits

Welcome You'll have a blast on these forums, and remember all the cool people hang around the Obsidian community area

Thats not my intention, I just respect the advice of many people on these forums I wasn't being entirely serious... Hi Nep How did the move go?

I might, but I'll wait so see what the game is like first. BioWare used to be one of the very few developers that I instinctively trusted to deliver a wonderful game that I will enjoy. Dragon Age 2 changed all that. Now they're another "wait and see" developer. If Dragon Age 3 is a great game and to my liking, and I hope that it's fantastic, then I will buy it and play it. As for avoiding fantasy or sci-fi RPGs, I'm actually quite the opposite. I've always preferred sci-fi over fantasy. I hear you, I expect caution from many people around DA3. For me I don't think I have ever had a Day 1 purchase for any game, I generally wait for reviews and other users input. I normally wait for 1 month because then the first mandatory patches have been released and the game is relatively stable

At least you are suggesting that they keep picking it back up Hi Melk I like Bioware and despite all this "Bioware Bashing" I guarantee you that almost every person on these forums who claims to dislike Bioware and that there games are sub-par will play Dragon Age 3 when its released. Mark my words I wont. And I think I proved that by not playing ME3 Sub-par... Bioware has entrenched itself in a specific niche, with a very specific style which does not appeal to me. It is far less a "bioware is bad" issue than the hordes of people who very vocaly will explain how they are perfect, which in turn will make those who disagree with that position to overly disagree. I do take offense when a "serious" gaming journalist drools over the consequences in Mass Effect and then discards the writing in Alpha Protocol as shallow for example. BACK ON TOPIC: ( ) I accidentally deleted my continuous game in Anno 2070. Warehouses full of resources. 2.12 million credits. A research town churning out prototypes... all gone... So I have to start a new game and get back countless hours of playtime. I won't. The way things are right now, i don't even know when i'll play another Bioware game again. Sorry boys but I don't quite believe you When DA3 is released and it will be awesome, you'll play it. You won't be able to resist. And to be honest its not that hard to avoid playing ME3, but to not play an incredible fantasy RPG is a different story. So we will have to see....

Funny But you are right, this has been discussed to death.

I was referring to Dunblane, and the result of that was the banning all private firearms. Of course you can't expect that in the USA, and I wouldn't ask for that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

Malc I want to share with you another statistic that reinforces my point. On the same day of Sandy Hook in China a deranged man went into a school and started stabbing children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/14/china-knife-attack-school.html 22 Children were wounded, but none were killed. Why was that? The Chinese man had every intention of causing mass carnage so why were there no deaths compared to the 20 children killed at Sandy Hook.The answer is clear, the Chinese man didn't have access to guns of any sort. I think my point is obvious

It might be funny if it wasn't working in other parts world like Australia and the UK that were victims of mass killings using these types weapons. Of course you can still get the weapons illegally but thats not the issue, its the fact normal citizens in the USA can

At least you are suggesting that they keep picking it back up Hi Melk I like Bioware and despite all this "Bioware Bashing" I guarantee you that almost every person on these forums who claims to dislike Bioware and that there games are sub-par will play Dragon Age 3 when its released. Mark my words

Nope incorrect. He used a Bushmaster assault rifle, so there is no weird obsession with the banning of semi-automatic rifles as this would reduce the casualty list as has been explained many times.

I agree with some of what you are saying, the reality is simple. In most cases you cannot prevent a mentally deranged person from trying to kill other people, but you can reduce the amount of damage he can do. Also we all know that a criminal will still be able to get any weapon even if semi-automatic weapons are banned, but what people are missing is that its not criminals that are committing these acts of mass murder. Its mentally unbalanced people who get these semi-automatic weapons from there parents or themselves by just walking into gun shops. Therefore by banning certain weapons or making gun legislation more controlled you will reduce the overall causality rates. This concept works all over the world where even though you have killings you don't have the high number of victims or frequency of these mass shootings as there is gun control in most countries.

I am playing Of Orcs and Men, I am enjoying it so far. Its a nice change to play a non-human and see the human Empire as the "baddies". I also like some of the leading characters, they have interesting personalities. An example of this is Sarkyss, a human bandit king who considers goblins his children. The combat is different from many action games and a refreshing change, you stack combat options from a Wheel. And you do need to choose the right skill for different situations.

Yeah you right, except for the fact that throughout the world strict gun control laws has reduced massacres. But you right, lets not look at evidence and rather make incorrect and controversial comments

I like this concept, we can add to it looking at any wizard\alchemist who has been changed by his experiments and now has a vendetta aagainst a specific group. He could be cursed. So the party has to free a town from his influence, but he isn't really human anymore. He could be smoke or some kind of ethereal form but he has sentience and hungers for vengeance

What about me? I care about your posts, I always support your Design a Monster? Give me some positive attention as well ???? Yes, I love you too, and the likes I get for my entries in design a monster are what I do it for. I'm sorry I forgot to mention you, but I was drunk. I especially appreciate your insightful posts in the Palestine thread, and I still think you should write a monster yourself. Now let's forget this ever happened. Thx JFSOCC, and I must add you do contribute loads of interesting forum discussions. So keep it up, you won't always get recognition or at times responses but I guarantee you people appreciate it. So don't think its wasted because I can understand how it can feel like that for anyone Booze is bad, m'kay ? I would argue that alcohol allows us to say things at times that we normally wouldn't say. And sometimes these things need to be said. So its definitely not all bad even when we appear to be very inebriated.

No. But there are plenty of nude orc female mods, apparently. Because that is just so wildly arousing, boar-faced green women: Are you saying you don't find female orcs hot? Thats a little racist don't you think Hey, remember Redguards? The obviously-based-on-African-American race who are not very smart but pretty strong and they have high stamina, which makes them excellent for menial labor? Hey, it was Bethesda who made it, not me. I hear you, you make a good point. I hate it when you are right !!!

Alan thats not always the case, read the link below to see how Steam saved Project Zomboid and didn't charge anything initially. They are the unsung heroes of many Indie developers for similar reasons http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/25/how-project-zomboid-was-saved-by-steam-desura-and-fileplanet/

Personally, I very rarely play female characters if I have the choice. I just feel I always struggle with the concept mentally and it distracts from my experience. Oddly, if I am forced to play as a female character, it doesn't bother me as much. May have something to do with my perception as to what level of control I have over the character. If I perceive that the character is "mine" the female option is more difficult. Otherwise, it's just another character. You have accurately summed up my view, as most of you should know I consider myself a vociferous liberal yet I never play females as its probably because I battle with the idea of trying to role-play something I am not. I hope this doesn't sound sexist, because thats not my intention

Now we are talking business, this game is going from amazing to incredible. I like you the way you think Monte, chainmail bikini's can only improve the aesthetics