PK htiw klaw eriF

Yet another Western erotic fantasies about Russia. people missed per year in Russia ~ 70 000, 80-90% founded, ~ 14 000 not found. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пропавший_без_вести people missing in US per year ~ 800 000 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/01/800000_missing_kids_really.html people missing in UK per year ~ 275 000 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-missing-each-year-275000-britons-disappear-1801010.html Every year in Germany, more than 100,000 children and young people are reported missing. http://www.creativeguerrillamarketing.com/guerrilla-marketing/guerrilla-marketing-good-missing-children-initiative/ Why nobody don't cry about kidnapped German, American or Brit womans forced into prostitution? Russian Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.

That's a good idea. I think the biggest issue for me during the IE games was that the positioning of the characters was always dependant on the linear arrangement of your party, i.e. top character was always the leader. It made the limited formation choices and its irrelevance to positioning pretty useless. I would recommend allowing players to set a particular formation up and "lock it" and then also allow us to choose who the "leader/speaker" for the party is, like we do in King of dragon Pass (you have one clan member in the ring chosen as your spokesperson). That way, you've locked your formation and you've locked your speaker. When you have an in-game "cutscene", keep your formation locked and allow the player just to pick the angular rotation of that formation and your speaker has already been pre-selected to be whoever you chose, regardless of where they're placed. So basically the developer has already chosen the x,y of the party location, but the formation is pre-selected/created and its angular rotation is chosen by the player during the initial set-up for the cutscenes. You can limit "cheating" by only allowing formations to be saved only within a limited area. For example, any formation can only be "locked" if all players are within a 2.5"x2.5" or whatever area. You drop down a blue box centered on the speaker/leader on the floor when a player wants to "lock" a formation. If all his party members are not in the blue box, the box turns red/yellow/with a big X in the middle (whatever you choose) telling the players that the formation isn't possible because party members are spread out too far apart. I hope that makes sense... I'd prefer having a custom option that allowed you to create a formation of your choosing through a menu. I picture the it being something like a circle where you can paint where each party member will stand.

Would disabling "event" trigger areas while sneaking or invisible be a solution to your problem? I enjoyed that feature as well. Could PE allow custom positioning in a similar manner?

Quantum Theory is unproven, or else it would be referred to as Quantum Law. It is impossible to prove it, the same applies with evolution. However, both have such evidence behind them that they are accepted as fact by the scientific community.

To be fair, quantum theory is just as unproven as climate change, seeing as both are designated the title of "theory". However, in the scientific community, that is a pretty big title, which means that while they can't prove it, it is heavily supported by evidence and has been peer reviewed thoroughly. That said, the demands and arguments of green extremists(greentremists?) are as unrealistic and condescending as most extreme religious groups. Taking a softer stance, like encouraging more recycling and energy conservation by tweaking one's lifestyle is hardly the same as telling people to forsake technology and live without any of the comforts that people have grown accustomed to, and more realistic to boot.

Keep your filthy disneyesque **** out of PE.

So like Russia then. No I say Russia has more hookers and strippers No, they kidnap women and export them as prostitutes.

So like Russia then.

I disagree. While BG2 could get pretty damn chaotic, DAO wasn't really better and had a very unbalanced and sub-optimally designed combat system. IMO, what DAO did best was remove alignment, which PE is already doing. Also, it felt more like a spiritual successor to KOTOR than BG. I think that is more of a problem with low-level 2E D&D.

If renewable energy(which is generally clean energy) is cheaper than fossil fuels and is reasonably effective, then by all means invest in it heavily. I wouldn't mind letting my car run off a battery powered by sunlight rather than forking over a ridiculous amount of money to fill up my gas tank.

I wonder how he feels about the US bombing Japan. Surely he recognizes that it was "necessary" to end the war with the least amount of US casualties.

I would have enjoyed that more if there were more ass featured.

I wonder what Bioware puts in their games that is like endless soup and bread?

That doesn't exactly contradict what we said. Prisons are bad because the gang culture often makes people more violent when they come out than they were when they went in. Overcrowding prisons by shoving people guilty of victimless crimes is less of a prison problem, and more of a justice system problem. I know, consider me reinforcement or tangent.

Especially when you consider there is a high chance of being raped and beaten frequently in prison.

Maybe he mixed up BG and IWD, although calling BG a sandbox might be a bit of a stretch.

Kellyade? Hulixir?

These days bad is anything lower than 85%.

I would post something long and well-thought out, but I'm very tired at the moment. IMO, a story doesn't require any particular type of relationship to be good. What it does require is that all relationships not break the characters involved for it to make sense. If you have to write characters out of character to have a storyline or relationship work, you shouldn't use the character or storyline. For example, In recent Spider-Man comics, Doc Ock has stolen Spider-Man's body(after killing him) and is impersonating him. To make this story work, the writer has had to write almost every character SpOck comes into contact with out of character and uncharacteristically oblivious and stupid. If they wanted to use this storyline, they should have adjusted the story so that the characters featured act normally, or adjusted the cast to fit the existing story. I believe that relationships in cRPGs are similar. Forcing a morally bankrupt thief who is in it just for money to be a loyal friend should be avoided.

It seems alanshu brought the whoopass today. Anyways, I agree with Zoraptor. Bioware does seem to be trying to please fans, I'm just not in the target group they're trying to please. From all that has been revealed, I will not like their next release. I'm not going to waste my time complaining about how Bioware betrayed their truest fans, I'm going to sound off on the PE forums and talk about games that are being made the way I want them. Frankly, if you want old-school RPGs, you should just ignore Bioware altogether and watch kickstarter.

Because people like complaining.

Have you ever had a loved convicted of a serious crime that they were innocent of? How would you feel of said loved one were executed(or even had to spend years in prison) that could have been avoided with proper DNA testing? Would you be satisfied with a "sorry" from the jurors, judge, and government for wrongly penalizing them? You know here in Texas, it is possible to get the death penalty without DNA evidence. One man spent 25 years in prison for rape that he did not commit(fun fact: DNA evidence exonerated him) and died there. Looking at Texas alone, we could find hundreds of cases where people were wrongly convicted and either spent large parts of their life in prison or were executed. But who cares, the loved ones of someone who was wronged get the satisfaction of vengeance! Why bother confirming with absolute certainty the accused is actually guilty?

It would be funny if they did. Come to think of it, wouldn't it be funny of every group had a "cold, dead hands" phrase? On topic: I don't like the NRA, I own guns and would benefit from the insurance benefits that come with a membership, but I have no desire to support any sort of lobbying organization on principle, especially one I disagree heavily with and am sometimes startled by what high-ranking members say. This is refreshing to read. I have a hard time understanding how a story like the 5 year old who shot his 2 year old sister doesn't bring massive condemnation from a group like the NRA. It would seem like the perfect time to step in and say the parents are doing everything wrong and educate people about how to prevent such tragedies in the future. Really the NRA should be distancing itself from things like this bleeding target dummy and .22 rifles marketed for children. Honestly what bothers me the most is that when writing an op-ed that appeared in my local newspaper, Ted Nuget referred to the NRA as the "good guys". Now I don't think that NRA members are bad people, I just think that referring to yourselves as "the good guys" makes it look like you think those who disagree are bad people. I'm not really fond of demonizing groups(except for Russians). That said, the leadership not acknowledging things like you mentioned also rubs me the wrong way.

I should put that I play Obsidian games on my next resume! I also agree, we tend to be deeper thinkers who appreciate good story telling rather than those mongrels who frequent such hellholes as IGN.

True, and in Oby's case we have a pretty unstable board member.