NOK222

You guys have some problems with censorship as well.

Remember that things are weird...when we get a president who didn't win the popular vote, research the omens about presidencies and how some of them didn't apply to George Bush. The Redskins rule went out of whack at that point. This election the Redskin rule either said that Obama would lose, or win and not get the popular vote like Bush. Neither of these things happened. Meaning the magic has been broken.

Anubite lol, you had me going

You know, when an overwhelming (and sane) majority says otherwise, expect to be criticized a lot and then don't plant you're opinions like that they are everyone else's like you just did. For example, I like Fallout 3 as much as I like NV, I don't say "Lol Fallout 3 is awesome lolol you all suck ****." I know that's my opinion and it's not a popular one, but I say it and move one and not try to make a case while trolling a thread and inciting argument. Seriously dude.

More important matters than these silly elections. TWO STATES JUST PASSED MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION LAWS!

lolololl ewoks lololol jar jar As a reference, not inspiration.

Yes, but people need to get it off their heads that Bethesda has ruined the franchise. Whether Obsidian or Bethesda make Fallout IV, it don't matter, it'd still be a top game. My opinion? Let Bethesda continue the "East Coast" storyline while Obsidian follows the "West Coast" storyline, set in the same world but not that dependent on each other. Fallout IV is most likely taking place is Massachusetts anyways.

"Hardcore RPG Fans" Not wanting the holders of the IP to make the game?

It's fine to hold on to old things, but you cant shut your eyes and say "NEW IS BAD" and make death threats at Behesda Devs, which they did. Well this isn't about death threats or being stuck in the past. Fallout 3 was linear, unbalanced, and the story made no sense. Alright, Codexian, thank you for your opinion, I was highlighting why some of the hatred for Bethesda and F3 is silly.

It's fine to hold on to old things, but you cant shut your eyes and say "NEW IS BAD" and make death threats at Behesda Devs, which they did.

You have to switch your licenses, it's a simple procedure. http://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-live/marketplace-and-purchasing/download-content While I love seeing Bioware getting flak, this is a Microsoft thing.

People's hatred for Bethesda is silly, The no mutants allowed site is a testament.

They had different views because then, a luxurious sedentary lifestyle was an all but unimaginable dream for the majority of people. Fat was a sign of being well off, and not having to work hard. Now, that's the norm, and having the time/money to buy healthy food and work out is a sign of success. So while some fat may have been considered attractive, that was exactly because it was not seen on the kind folks we're likely to be playing as in PE. Also, obesity was associated with gluttony and laziness practically since the beginning of time. When people say that fat was attractive, they're talking about slightly chubby sculptures and paintings, not what modern Americans consider "fat". I get the sense the OP is a member of the anti chainmail bikini crowd. If "realism" is really at all important, characters who travel the country by foot and fight all day long should be pretty goddam fit. Actually I think the OP is against realistic armor for females.

Durr Hurr I hate Bethesda.

MOAR SOCIAL ISSUES!

Such a rebel

Oh no, most likely nobody here was cool during school, so it would open up some buried memories.

Stop being a tsundere Volourn Moar like their direction and recent divisions.

Just a note--in a recent research study, the researchers had a large group of overweight women between the ages of 40 and 60 "do cardio" (as in, an hour a day, 5 days a week) for a YEAR. Average weight loss: 4 lbs. Yeah. That's HUGE. /sarcasm "Doing cardio" is not going to make you thinner. It only works for people who are genetically predisposed to burn off excess calories via exercise. For people who are predisposed to turn calories into fat it will simply make you ravenous and exhausted. The predisposition to pack on weight is SO STRONG that obese mice (who share this same genetic predisposition) will *starve to death* with their fat tissue still untouched, having cannibalized all of their muscle and organs first. If you are fat, the problem isn't that you eat too much or exercise too little. The problem is that your body is keyed to turn calories into fat. Losing weight means doing something that causes your body to consume fat instead of storing it. That doesn't make it necessarily any easier--every fat individual has a slightly different metabolic and genetic makeup, so you have to find what works for you through a process of experimentation, trial and error. In general the necessary first step is to eliminate most carbohydrates from the diet, because carbohydrates trigger your body to produce the fat-storing hormone insulin in quantity. However, reducing your insulin levels via a low carbohydrate diet, while a positive step, is not always sufficient for everyone. Some people must go so far as to enter what's known as "nutritional ketosis", taking in under 50g (and sometimes as extreme as under 20g) of carbohydrates per day so that the muscles and brain primarily fuel themselves from ketones which are metabolized from fat by the liver. Wheat elimination seems to play an important role for many people. Modern wheat is not the same as the ancient Einkorn variety grown in Biblical times--the modern crop contains insanely high levels of many chemicals apart from and above the gluten that so damages full celiacs. The wheat we eat now actually acts as an appetite-stimulating opiate while spiking blood glucose levels (and thus spiking insulin production and fat storage) worse than pure sugar. Other negative aspects of wheat involve destruction of the digestive tract, both allowing harmful toxins to enter the bloodstream AND preventing the digestion and uptake of vital nutrients. This causes many people to experience problems as diverse as arthritis, acne, autoimmune diseases, chronic gas, diarrhea and constipation, mental "fog", and even the onset or worsening of schizophrenia in particularly sensitive individuals. It is a perfect storm of body-destroying anti-nutrition. And most people consider it the ultimate diet staple. But, by all means, continue dishing out your worthless advice backed up by no science whatsoever. I'm sure every fat person dreams of losing 4 whole pounds after a year of terrible effort and grinding exhaustion. Or, if you're interested in losing weight in a way that actually works with your body chemistry instead of attempting to pretend that you have a skinny person's metabolism, you could try eliminating wheat and drastically reducing your carbohydrate intake. This has the added benefit that it can result in reduction or even elimination of acne, arthritis, gastrointestinal upsets, acid reflux, nutritional deficiencies, leg edema and neuropathy, water retention, diabetes, mental "fog" or other symptoms of mental illness including depression, anxiety, and even schizophrenia. And that's only the smallest part of the list. I've done all of that over the past year and a half. To date, I have eliminated the following medical problems: joint pain, crippling leg edema and water retention, chronic constipation, nutritional deficiencies, sleep problems, chronic tiredness, depression, and anxiety. Oh, and I've lost 100 lbs. Still got a goodly ways to go, but I can see the light at the end of the tunnel now. Don't take my word for it, though, look online and there are plenty of resources about low carbohydrate diets and wheat elimination and how to tune them to your particular metabolic needs. And, as far as "fat-ism" in the game goes--I don't mind jokes about fat people as long as they aren't mean-spirited and clearly revealing a total lack of basic comprehension. Being fat isn't, in itself, bad for you, it's a symptom of an underlying metabolic condition. I'd appreciate the opportunity to play characters of varying sizes and builds even though they're going to be TINY--this, at least, is a cosmetic difference you'll be able to SEE. I like what they did in SW:TOR, my housemate currently has a pudgy Jedi character he named F'Albert, and we both just find this hilarious. Yes, our taste in humor is a little bizarre--he's also made a sun elf earth-wizard character in another game that was based (in looks and personality) on Fat Bastard from Austin Powers. I liked the body slider in NwN2, but it only made you wider so you looked like a normal person instead of the (to me) weirdly attenuated super-model build you get in most games. I have yet to meet someone that bony who displays serious athleticism or muscle tone. All the strong people I know (and I know quite a few since I got involved in this low carb and strength training business) have some meat on them. It's HAWT. I was posting on a troll thread, so obviously I didn't care. Exercise won't do much without a proper diet, duh. I also wonder what kind of "cardio" these women were doing. Calm down, no one is attacking you personally. You're not an oppressed minority or a marginalized group. It's cool that you lost weight, but in a medieval setting you wouldn't be "fat" (not big boned, not heavy but out of shape no exercise fat) in the fist place, because of the non-sedentary lifestyle, unless you're an elite snob. I've met husky in shape people, I've met husky out of shape people, I've met skinny dudes with a pot belly, list goes on. I guess I should have said "out of shape", not that I cared about offending, because once again no one here is in a plight, you're not a homosexual or a minority. You're fat. Go make a change. Jesus http://www.inquisitr...ike-his-avatar/ something people should emulate.

Libertarians have a tenuous grasp of the founding fathers' principles (public services such as education and the postal service being some of the ideas espoused by those men,) and the actual wording of the US Constitution at best. "Free markets" and "capitalism" never appear anywhere in the US constitution, and broad powers of taxation and interstate commerce (which exploded in importance as time went on,) are granted to congress. Their faith in Austiran/Chicago school economics (which is more an economically far-right political philosophy than a science, as it disregards all scientific methods and evidence,) and Randian principles of rational self-interest have been refuted by both science and economic events over the past 150 years. Their reading of Adam Smith is even worse. As Herbert Stein said, "Adam Smith would not wear an Adam Smith necktie." Adam smith advocated for government regulation to protect the laboring class as well as increased taxation on the wealthy, going so far as to specify various types of luxury taxes that should be instituted. He was a "moral philosopher" and his analysis of embryonic Capitalism was just that: an analysis, not an endorsement. Smith would be appalled by their ideals of Social Darwinism and Might Makes Right (as long as it's private Might, not public Might.) Those Austrian/Chicago school economists have been the biggest influence on the political/economic elite in the last 50 years, and it shows from the growing wealth gap. In the late 30s, the Roosevelt administration was convinced by Hayekian economists to stop Keynesian intervention in the economy and it was a disaster that led to another mini-depression, remembered as "The Mistake of 1937." Here's a fun fact for the finish: Alfred Nobel did not establish a Nobel prize in Economics. He did not consider it a science, he considered it dogma (the same dogma espoused by today's Libertarians.) It was a Swiss bank that established the "Nobel memorial prize in economics." If I had to say one positive thing about them, it would be "at least they're not the Constitution Party." Good post. Rand was brilliant, but she was biased against any form of statism (that's what libertarians call anyone who isn't another lib) for obvious reasons. lol yup Rather live in New Vegas, despite it's poverty, than Ceaser's Legion.

Comic books do it all the time. In the long run all expanded cannon becomes self-contradictory and stale without enough new source material to mimic. Yes, but not in the case where the movies would invalidate all of the EU

In an old setting, people with a thyroid disease would be dead. Meaning everyone who isn't an elitist glutton isn't fat. Just throwing that out there.

People who have no idea about the EU is pissing me off. "Lol who cares about C-cannon? they can do whatever!" **** you! They can't do whatever!

A broken pedestal is a powerful thing, Alan.