AGX-17

None. I don't particularly care for superhero games outside of the Marvel vs. Capcom series. I would play an Iron Man game if done well, although if done well it would probably play like Zone of the Enders (best possible scenario, and with walking/running as the default state of motion since those Iron Man suits don't have infinite energy or anti-gravity capabilities so far as I'm aware, and I'm no big reader of comics,) or some other mech action game. There was a Playstation game back in the day where you actually played a mosquito and the goal was to drink people's blood in various scenarios while avoiding such dangers.

If you were a hunter-gatherer of some kind, or in a desperate survival situation, the brain (and bone marrow,) would be treasured things to eat. The brain is composed primarily of fat, after all.

That is in no way applicable to an isometric mouse and keyboard rtw/p RPG. Besides, take away the turning and isn't it identical to dashing in 2d overhead (no running in Adventure of Link,) Zelda games? Whether or not you're running, or engaging in any other speed or type of movement, is contextual. Watch a samurai movie and you'll see a long, tense standoff between two dueling ronin where they stand still as statues, or circle around slowly, before both go for an all-or-nothing single strike. On the other hand, a charging army on a battlefield will typically (be) stop(ped) charging once it meets its opposing force and the melee begins. From there, they might slowly push forward, stay put, unable to make headway, or be pushed back by the enemy. One side might break and run, or be flanked by another army or a force of cavalry. There's more to motion in combat than simple sprinting. I think running should be present, but contextual, and a guy in steel plate or someone carrying a backpack full of loot is going to be slower and run out of stam-err... steam? a lot faster than a lightly armed and armored rogue or ranger.

I've always like Taoism's focus on balance and harmony, so I've always thought the idea of two deities representing two opposites that complement and balance each other out interesting (similar to the yin and yang representing the opposite aspects of the world which together form the united whole: yin represents femininity and darkness, among other things, while yang represents masculinity and light, also among other things,) especially because life in the real world really hinges on balance. I'd imagine obsequious zealots of one half of the unified duology opposing the other half, i.e. overzealous followers of a god of light and the sun might hate the goddess of night and the moon (for the night is dark and full of terrors, as the Red Woman would say,) without recognizing the need for balance, as eternal day would scorch the world sterile, just as an eternal night would freeze it; but with the caveat that what can be frozen can be thawed, reflecting the female capacity to bring about new life (look up parthenogenesis if you think a male is mandatory for this.) Some casual observers of Taoism see the female association with darkness as a form of misogyny, but they overlook the necessity of night to balance temperature, and that there are nocturnal animals who depend on the protection of darkness to survive (our own mammalian ancestors among them.) There are animals that can survive being frozen solid, but there are none that can survive being burned to ashes. Certainly. Such a being would probably not even be able to convince a sizeable number of people that it was, in fact, God. This is also the reason why, the more religious someone is, the fewer defined attributes their deity has, turning from specific descriptions like "Zeus hurls the thunderbolts from the sky!" to "God is omniscient!" which is about as non-specific as you can get. The pagans were fairly secular in their outlook even though they had gods everywhere, heck, their GODS were worldly and spent a large part of the time drinking, feasting, and screwing anything that moved. "The pagans (latin root paganus, meaning 'country dweller' - it only came to mean 'non-christian' once Christianity became the dominant religion of Europe,)" weren't a single cohesive group, and different cultures had different pantheons, different rituals and differing levels of devotion. Some cultures had priestly classes, others didn't. The ancient Britons who erected stone circles (Stonehenge simply being the largest of them,) obviously didn't have that secular an outlook on life, considering they also put a great deal of effort into the tombs of their dead (or at least their honored/high ranked dead.) Throughout the Americas, you see "pagan" religions building grandiose monuments for religious reasons. Direct contact with the Aztecs confirms a priestly class and pyramids devoted to religion, religious beliefs fervent enough that they justified human sacrifices (a common thread in the religions of all the Mesoamerican and South American civilizations,) the translation of the Maya language led to the understanding that these were also a deeply religious people. The Nazca Lines serve no reasonably imaginable secular purpose, the Moche civilization seems to have revolved around a religion of death and human sacrifice. At any rate, if a monotheistic religion's one true God did appear before humanity to prove his own existence (which he wouldn't do because gods don't exist,) I think he could easily prove himself by just killing half the world's population in an instant, leave them dead for a sufficient period of time (several days or even a week,) that their loved ones could no longer reasonably believe it was merely a big prank, then resurrect them. Or turn them into pillars of salt. Or even just make everyone have faith in him, free will be damned. How does anyone argue that he's not god once they're filled with overflowing zealous faith?

Because the head writer of ME1 bailed after the game was finished and a minor subquest writer took the helm and just ran with what he'd been doing, a minor subquest about a rogue human black-ops group conducting nefarious experiments in identical rooms on different planets while saying "I WILL DESTROY YOU! I WILL DESTROY YOU!" The most significant thing about Cerberus prior to ME2's announcement was that they were responsible for the "Sole Survivor" background for Shepard. Not that any of that matters in Mass Effect 3. All of ME2 and 3 was emergency-ass-pull plot maneuvering because they didn't have a full three act story planned out from the start. In the end, the narrative and atmospheric high point of the entire series was Ilos in ME1.

That's the one that puzzles me as the whole R+L=J equation is such a prominent part of the books and it is difficult to see how it can be handled now, given the lack of a perspective character to use for exposition/ flashback. Well, there is a certain Bog Devil, but he hasn't even turned up in the books because he knows too much. Rhaegar hasn't even been mentioned in the series as far as I can remember (may need to rewatch both seasons.) And the more you learn about the backstory, the more Robert Baratheon looks like a lustful ***hole and Rhaegar looks like a kind and just man torn between familial piety and the well-being of the realm he was to inherit. Naughtywords filter lol. Anyway, the lack of internalized thoughts and flashbacks is another major stumbling block for the series, as a lot of major plot devices ride on memories of past events.

Indeed, unfortunately the OP is the concise version Oh, it could definitely be more concise. Rather than formulating a two-way argument in your mind (sans actual outside perspectives,) you could just state your ideas and respond to actual other perspectives as they come! It's good that you're critically thinking about your own ideas, but at the same time the loquacious nature of the post is making it more difficult for others to address and critique the individual concepts you're trying to present, as they are buried in so much text. You don't have to imagine a debate opponent and construct a potentially fallacious or invalid opposing argument (you have to admit, as the proponent of a given idea, you are necessarily biased in favor of it,) when you're posting on a (more or less) public forum where opponents are plentiful. Here's a mnemonic device for future reference: Verbose is Morose, Concise is Nice! I know that's the opposite of what they teach us in school (minimum 8 pages due by friday, use The New Yorker vocabulary,) but in reality, concision is more effective than verbosity. Or grandiloquence, as they would say in The New Yorker. Or palaverous. I know for a fact that every writer for that rag carries a full thesaurus on hand at all times. Which is all very funny because I agree with most of your ideas.

I played through that a couple times and it seemed as though it's just linearly ordered, i.e. first encounter = first companion is tempted/turns on you, second encounter = second companion is tempted/turns on you, third encounter = companions stays with you if friendship is high enough. At least that's how it always worked out for me with multiple characters and playthroughs. Regardless you're preaching to the choir when saying choices don't matter in DA2 (unless it could lead to a sex scene.) ALTHOUGH... Varric never turned on me regardless of where he was placed in party order. Either he's a genuine bro or dwarf magic resistance wasn't a lie. Semi-Tangent: For the record, the Qunari are the DA world's saving grace (as a fantasy world.) Everything the Arishok says about Kirkwall and Thedas' society in general is right on the money. And of course you're not going to be able to play a Qunari until they make a DA muhmorpuhguh. Full tangent: By the same vein, the Tevinters are the worst "ancient Rome" equivalent I've ever seen in a fantasy game, and I've seen a lot of goddamn ancient Rome analogues in fantasy games. Too many.

No, no, no, we're just not reading your original post entirely because it's too long and we're too drunk to focus. Although there is an argument for being concise somewhere in that drunken stupor... Whatever, bottoms up!

Awwww, how cute, it's another babby's first troll!

And don't get me wrong, I liked the game for the first 60-odd hours. Then I played the thieves' guild questline and delved a few dungeons too many and found myself with a sudden bout of "why is this going to be named GOTY?-itis" Honestly, the gameplay is really what needs the most work. If the combat was truly fun, everything else would be excusable. Example: Zone of the Enders. Bland stereotypical anime storyline and characters, amazing combat/gameplay. Ok, ZOE also had great graphics and audio, too (not to mention that MGS2 demo disc.) But still, at the end of the day, gameplay trumps everything else if you can't write better than a middle school creative writing assignment.

Well, legs are a step up from testicles. If frogs're good enough for Meera Reed, they're good enough for me.

Let my blood fall to the ground! O earth, here these words, for it is not I who proclaim them, but our King and Father. Rostere, forgive me. I don't even deserve to be called a servant, nor a son. I'm as equal as you are. Will my blood end in the chalice of martyrs? Will I perform miracles under the blessing of fire? Will I be one of the two witnesses prophetized by John of Patmos? Maybe. Will you AGX-17 be one of them? Maybe. None knows, but HIM. Thanks for the video. Oh, I like you, I like you, mister.

So you haven't played Skyrim but you already agree that the combat is boring, the dungeons are repetitive and bland, and the writing is mediocre at best?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=KKM-XSYKrFo Proof positive, you can't deny the facts! They're facts if someone wrote them down. Also the internet and computers don't exist, computers and video games are a satanic hallucination and Felithvian is a Christian magician trying to save you all from this illusion. What a terrible burden to bear. Christ-like. IS Felithvian the second coming of Christ?

No enemy reinforcements leaping from lethal heights as soon as you think you've won (a la Dragon Age 2,) and I'm good. I know Obsidian isn't that bad at game design anyway.

It's a free companion though... Have fun with your Pariah Dog in Fallout 2, I'll be busy over here being effective.

I've had alligator, I wasn't impressed. I was impressed by bison. Had a bison burger once, it was definitively the best I've ever had. I'm generally opposed to the eating of endangered species or the ingestion of their phalli for traditional superstitious remedy purposes though. So no chimpanzee or mountain gorilla or shark fins (it's not that I'm opposed to the consumption itself, it's that I'm opposed to the wasteful nature of the harvest rather than the cruelty of amputating their mode of locomotion and tossing them back to die of suffocation in their native habitat,) or tiger penises or rhino horns. You should seek out beef infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy and eat it, since you are so correct in your assertion.

Oh hey good news pro-romance fellas, Bioware still exists and is planning on making more video games. This is news to me, too.

What's a "brony"? Is that some kind of Harry Potter thing? I've never seen either, so your guess is as good as mine.

In addition to my previous response: Chargen. It's addictive. Leveling up is pretty addictive, too, now that I think about it. Especially when there are perks or skill trees involved. CHOICES

Unless it makes the boring, tedious combat un-boring, or has super-interesting dungeons, it's not even worth looking at for me. Bethesda's not exactly a think tank of the game industry's best writers (a given,) so story isn't particularly interesting, either. "There's another dragonborn! You cannot tolerate this insult to your special unique snowflakeyness! Go kill him! THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE! Eh? EH? GET IT? HIGHLANDER REFERENCE YOU CAN MAKE THAT A MEME, TOO, GUYS! Make sure to tell your friends about this new hilarious Skyrim™ meme!"

Cold war was still on in 1989. Still no invasion of Somalia. No fly zone over Libya is not an invasion, it was approved by the UN security council and it wasn't the US' idea to begin with, it was the Libyan rebels'. The fact that Russia abstained rather than voting against it is also telling. Yugoslavia was a NATO operation and you're just mad that the intervention came right when your slav brothers were winning at genocide. And hoo-boy, "Afghan guy" Boy you sure showed me with that quote you made up. If I were to bet 500 kilograms of solid gold that you will ignore any request to provide a reliable, unbiased source (I'm sure your idea of unbiased is Russian nationalist,) for that claim or any evidence for those (fake) statistics cited by "Afghan guy," not a single person outside of Russia would take me up on that bet. And I would win. Funnily enough, I've heard from a Russian man (on the radio program Radiolab,) who fought in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan what the Afghans did to Russians they captured. I remember he talked about how they cut off the arms and legs of Russians, gouged out their eyes and left them in the street next to IEDs to lure other Russian soldiers to their deaths. This man was talking about what they did to a friend of his, a close friend. This friend of his begged his friends to kill him. Yeah, those Afghans sure loved you. On-topic: Propaganda is still not fine art.

Probably depends a lot on whether the people have read the books or not plus tolerance for (s)extraneous (s)exposition and relatively complex plots for those who haven't. For those (like me) who've read the books there is a certain amount of inevitable "why did they change that?" "[charname] isn't done well compared to the books" "where's [charname] have they been cut?" and the like, though I'd rate it as a pretty decent adaptation overall. The biggest issue for me is the amount of vital details that have been excluded. i.e. It's made clear in the book A Game of Thrones that Tyrion was not responsible for the assassination attempt on Bran, as he wonders to himself whether it was Cersei or Jaime, while (if I remember correctly,) dismissing the possibility that it was his father, because his father would not have sent such an incompetent assassin. Not to mention Ned's fabled promise to Lyanna, something he obsessed over throughout the book. Basically, the series suffers from the fact that it's trying to squeeze 900+ pages of book into about 10 hours of TV.