kumquatq3

I plan on, sadly, doing a lost marathon and reviewing the clues and hints so far in the series. I'll, sadly, post what I find when ever I make time for it.

Ahhhh Fate of Atlantis, has it been the long?

The control set up seems to be similar, from what I've read, to Freedom Fighters, and I loved that game. THen again, it could be crap. FPS are hard to call for me.

Dunno, maybe both, but 2 big StarWars PC releases in the same month had to have something to do with it, don't you think?

Well, I didn't particularly mean to imply otherwise, sorry if you thought I did. If you read my above post, I don't think you would assume that I'm here to give Obsidian a free ride on this one. That being said, how much control does Obsidian have if they start getting near the end of the game and find the time frame they have doesn't meet what needs to be done? These things do happen and usually do on most large games. Pushing a game up doesn't usually happen. I have to assume that their hands are legally tied for the most part, if that is the case. This doesn't remove all fault from their side of the table, but it makes it understandable.

The moved RC to March 1st, iirc, to clear space for K2 for PC

If "epic" = Brad Pitt in a skirt Damn, am I the only one who thought Troy was lame?

Prolly for Next Gen consoles.

You have to wonder if they were given enough time to do the system right, because their not retarded, they must have seen this.

Did anyone else see that? I can't stop laughing

(w00t) :D ^_^ :D The Bears are clearly the ones to get that sixth spot

Would it be weird if I wanted to kiss you for this bit of information? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have to go with: Yes. Tho it concerns me, if time is so short, why they put a skeleton crew on the game. Kinda makes you wonder what the PC will get in terms of patch support as well. Heres hoping fears are misplaced

I'm almost certain the people that were laid off from LA were working on an engine for K3

I certianly hope you just pulled that ending material from out of your ass, because if not, you are the worlds biggest prick for posting the ending of a game (no matter how crappy it is) in a, supposedly, spoiler free forum. Way to go jackass,

Never happen. If only because delaying the PC version to "fix" it would be admitting they rushed an unfinished product out the door to fill the gap left behind by the Republic Commandos delay.

Link to a solution and people with problems like yours it seems

In THIS, very lite spoilerish, thread in the Gen forum it talks about how the "influence system" does not cause a NPCs preferences to change. Meaning, if I got Miss Snow White Jedi Lady to turn to the DS, she would still prefer I do LS actions....or I lose influence. Meaning, she likes to see senerios play out the same way, regardless if she is LS or DS, crushing (for me) what I thought was going to be the best part of the "influence system". It also seems that the special abilities of the Jedi Master and Sith Lord, the extra "influence" attribute, is essentially almost worthless now, as I understand it. As bringing someone to the DS or LS only does so in name and for what force powers they get. My reaction in that thread: It sure seems that the influence system is there to do nothing more than force you to replay the game to try out each NPC. What I'm hoping for is that something can be altered to change this. Tho I doubt it's possible, I assume it would require new dialogue to be recorded, etc.... Forget about extra content, lets fix this if you can. EDIT: I like this comment by Vol as well:

I've mostly stayed away from the forums for fear of spoilers, but I saw this thread on the main boards the other day and have been following it, and I feel the need to comment. If all this is the case, then it is a ridiculously poor oversight and I can only hope it is modified for the PC version. Considering the devs were pushing the new NPC interaction as the new "thing" in K2, I am shocked and dissapointed to hear how apparently trivial it is. It's K1, except some NPCs will help you less due to your actions. Amazing.

Well, true and not true. I doubt anyone wants to play Buffalo right now. Buffalo has scored 37, 38, 42 and 37 in wins over St. Louis, Seattle, Miami and Cleveland the past month, and their game against N.E. was much closer than the score indicates, iirc Frankly, no playoff team from the AFC would be that big of a surprise to win it all. They will all be very solid teams. All the divisons are already sealed up, and the Jets all but own a WC spot. The Ravens (rough schedule) Bills, Broncos, and the Jags are in position to take the 2 WC spot. I can see the Ravens, if their QB plays like last week, go all the way. I can see the red hot Bills upset any team in the league. The Broncos might have a chance in hell. The Jags...not going anywhere. The NFC....well.....there is Philly and Atlan-overrated-ta. Despite Philly owning them on Monday night, Green Bay has Brett Farve and thats worth something. Just ask John Madden and the Panthers are hanging in there with a little Cinderella season magic left over from last year. Other than those 4, I doubt anyone is a threat. I thought the Bears, Bucs, and Cowboys could make it in and at least challenge Philly and the others a little, but all three lost last week (hence they are a long shot). Minnesota has no ground game or defense to speak of, but I suppose they could do something if they got in a shootout. Seattle is the poor mans Green Bay.

I ownz your thread noob! Yea, he did beat me too it, but this is the wrong forum (I think it is anyways: hence I didn't bother to check in here) as the other forum is:

Well, that was an interesting week

No problem anyways, I think we both have gotten are respective points and views across, so unless there was anything in particular you would like me address: It was a fun debate

Those two teams play each other next week. The loser will have a tought time getting a WC spot.

First, I said "maybe" we should, not that I'll start the groundbreaking myself Second, are you then arguing that all religious monuments should be allowed, regardless? Third, and most importantly, Odds are that the land for the monument would be donated (tax free) to the group in question. Much like your churches. So, it would not be a public land, and more importantly, it would not be a religious monument on public land designated for something else. See the difference? I suggested that I wouldn't mind a religious group using a park for a fair or something, because a park isn't a police office, court, or goverment office. See the difference? I'm not unreasonable, I don't think, but if you force me to choose your way or public use being banned outright....I'll take outright. I hope that clears up my position. There would be some type of break, like most other countries, I'm sure. Don't understand why you asked tho, just for kicks? No, that is not all right at allb but that is obviously not what I'm arguing. You don't have the right to use a court house to display a religious monument. Thats what you want. Rights and Wants are very different. I looked it up. It was a banned type of hand gun: Officials in this suburb north of Chicago are searching for new ways to make it difficult to own a gun after Illinois lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to give new legal protection to homeowners who use a [U]banned handgun [/U] to shoot burglars. Link O, and I'm sure your legally allowed to bring a gun home that you purchase, maybe you have to mail it or something, dunno. Interesting. First, I sure you can see the difference between a street and sanitation guy wearing a shirt (tho it is almost certain that there is a uniform or reflection vest to wear over said shirt) and a cop or judge wearing one. I suppose I'd have to see the shirt. If it was just a shirt or something meant to send a message. But, for the record, I don't mind things like crosses or head dressings. THo again, if you want to say "say he's being selective", I think I'm being reasonable. If you pushed me to go one way or another, I'd say ban it outright on public jobs. 1. Please, point to a single thing I said that was "religion bashing" 2. I never, I don't think, suggested that (other than this one judge, who was found in violation of the law) any religious person was doing anything particulary wrong. 3. I don't think I attacked religion, please reference if I did 4. Your right, I suppose, that I have something to prove. That is, why I think Church and Goverment should remain seperate.....including religious monuments on public land. 5. Lets not make this personal

To answer the question, but doesn't want to get to off topic: Short history of the authors of and the pledge itself, with a religious slant for obvious reasons: Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston. Later in 1923, "to the flag" was changed to "to the flag of The United States of America". Bellamy did not like the change, but his protests were ignored. In Bellamy's retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there. Then in 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. 62 years after it was written, under protest of the family of the author, their protest were also ignored. Bellamy was dead at that point.