JFSOCC

**** you G0-T0, I was onto you from day one. but I couldn't prevent myself from accepting you on my ship.

I don't really care. If a monster was memorable, I don't need to have it written in my journal "strongest enemy killed "Elder Dragon"." If a game has to tell me it was memorable, it wasn't. I guess as a combat log it would be fine.

I'd agree with you if so much in the Expanded Universe wasn't so incredibly awful. We have people turning into trees to prevent evil sith lords from getting their lightsabers. who wrote that crap?

Smart and unwise, too. Yes, this can be a lot of fun. I also get a laugh out of Damien Sandow of WWE fame, he's such a delightfully over-the-top caricature of an intellectual snob. Sand from NwN2 was great, too. while those are great to have around as npcs, that's not what I meant at all.I meant, actually smart. intelligent, sociable, wise. well rounded.

According to that it's considered a "great financial failure", like how video games that might a slight profit are and not huge are deemed such and then fired afterwards. Sadly, that's the idiotic reality of today. I blame the stock market and shareholders. MacDonalds only made 1.45 billion profit, last year 1.5 billion in that time. Massive crises! Stocks are plumeting over the bad results. Hello? 1.45 billion PROFIT isn't profit anymore? What the hell? Anyway, back to the story at hand... it's absolutely ambiguish yet wheter this is an improvement or not. And screw EU. Please let VII overwrite and obsolete all of it, right where it belongs. Adhering to it religiously will only hurt Star Wars as franchise at this point. the idea is that in a competitive world, if others are growing and you are not (enough), you're controlling less % of the total than you did before. Yeah, I agree, it's dumb.

Could be nice, could also have negative consequences (which I'm not against) I'm reminded of this quote http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/quotes?qt=qt0386961

Yes, I haven't seen much in the ways of new arguments for a few pages now.

I have a real problem with the "All rumours are true" trope. Then why are they called rumours? In a game, when someone says "only a few believe this" it's still a safe bet that it is worth checking out.

I'd been hoping for an excuse to discuss it. I would like to be able to import my own images into the portrait gallery.

One way to deal with balancing wealth is by adding upkeep, and investments. (of course, the upkeep should be for something that causes benefit, not "just 'cause".)

I tend to enjoy the more intelligent characters. Unfortunately, many writers try and fail to have intelligent characters. And we're left with having to accept that they're smart by others telling us so, rather than seeing it. This is why I like the protagonists in the Brent Weeks and Patrick Rothfuss books, they know how to do it properly.

There is no way in hell those italian scientists are not going to have their case revisited, there is worldwide outrage at their treatment. But you're right. Even in the world of science there are problems based on human weaknesses. But the vast majority of scientists are on the same side of the issue, despite them still getting quite a bit of flak for holding that position.

If you are unsure how you want to play the game, this can be an interesting way to let the game help you decide. For more experienced RPG players I reckon they want to decide for themselves what character they roll.

I wan't a floating castle, one that I can move across the map, anchor where I want to go. People'd be commenting "Ooh, look at that scary looking tower floating over the outskirts of our city, rather ominous, don't you think? I wonder...." and I could pick the best location to "settle" or move and make my summer palace and my winter palace the same, depending on where I decide to go.

then why is COD3 in there?

I'll make a shameful admittance. I never played BG2 after I went into the underdark. I liked the lot before it, but after a while it just felt like it was combat all the way, and like you mentioned I felt urged onwards. And after a while I just noticed that I hadn't decided to play for a few days, for a week, for two weeks...

And again I point out that instead of telling people how stupid they are, explaining to them why the evidence is right makes more sense. If you're not willing to educate people who disagree with you...you're wasting your time yelling at them. I don't want to foul more words at this. But I've been trying to explain some of the evidence, I guess I'm not so good at communicating what to me seems rather obvious and in your face. I believe I've provided some convincing arguments and directed to where you could find more. EDIT - to explain why someone might feel this way - There is money in alarmism. Alarmist reactions tends to flood money into fields. Therefore being an alarmist can get you money. But you can't sincerely believe that more than 90% of all the researchers in this field are alarmist. That's just not true. Science does not care for politics. well, political science does, I guess. science is about finding the truth. Whether that would fit an ideology or not. This would be averaged out by dissent. In the end, false beliefs won't last. So far there has been only minor dissent, and most notably not from scientists in the fields pertaining to climate science. While it's true that my politics lean to the left, I sincerely believe that this should not at all be tied to politics. it's simple science fact. There's climate deniers on both sides of the political spectrum, though I suppose there might be more on one side than the other. The fact that some people make this political is telling however. So I have to play nice to everyone, despite them spouting nonsense and propagating fallacy?I guess I could have been nicer, that doesn't mean I have to respect bull****, however.

came here to say that. If you're going to put them in, at least give us some variety, and we don't need to hear them all the time.

Good story (Makes you think, is believable, character driven, consistent world and narrative) Engaging game-play (Diversity, little or no hand-holding, empowers the player, intuitive and responsive controls) Unforced (Pacing, choice, no invisible walls) Great visuals (not the same as graphics) and sound. (Distinct art style, colourful, diverse, detailed) Supports a community (Moddable, centralised information -wiki;filesite;forums) Polished. (little to no bugs, exploits, forced cutscenes, pathing issues, responsive, attention to little details)

Didn't know you swung that way, sailor. I've got some friends you can meet up with if that's your thing. The difference is just like crossbows versus bows. One requires skill and training to use on the order of months to years, the other can be given to any random person and used somewhat effectively. Back in the day, an army of English longbowmen were the superior of most ranged units in combat. But training up and arming them was far less cost effective than making a crossbow, handing it to some schmuck, and drafting him into service for king and country. My money's still on the guy with the sling if there's terrain to abuse. Plus handguns run out of ammunition, slings basically use whatever's fist sized or smaller that happens to be laying about. Are you on drugs or just retarded? Not that I really care, just asking out of curiosity. Don't believe me, look it up. Most sites quote the foot range, where 50 feet is about 15m. However books in your library and your local gun club can verify this approximate range too. That is, if research doesn't hurt you too much. Addendum: I admit to laziness and didn't go out of my way to find an example to support swords vs. staves, but someone else provided a "this is how polearms work" video elsewhere and off of that was a spear vs. sword video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O8RWLxlzTiM A staff is used much like a spear, except poking with it is non-lethal. A hunk of wood to the face is still enough to knock you on your ass though. In the video, the swordsman gets a few point wins, but by and large the significant reach advantage the spear has wins most of the engagements. And this is the european style of spear fighting, some asian martial arts focus on parry/riposte combat styles while others teach fast, broad swings in a circular motion and sudden stabs from that momentum to keep your foes at bay. I will always enjoy youtube videos of martial arts. I think this video also demonstrates quite well how important reach is. (in RL, not sure about the game)

I really don't like random encounters at all. Whenever I'm travelling, there's a good chance I'm on my way to do something. a random encounter breaks the flow of my game by imposing a hurdle to me for no other reason than to keep me busy. Unless somehow a questline can be derived from the encounter (actually one of the very few things I think DA:O did well) then I suppose there is a greater purpose to it. otherwise they are bothersome distractions that keep me from what I want to do, and waste my time.

Are you really suggesting that climate change is scientific community indulging in environmental bias if not outright conspiracy? Yes, and Climategate proves it. I can't even begin to expain how stupid that is. You are basically saying that the VAST MAJORITY of ALL scientists in relevant fields, IN THE WORLD are conspiring so that you have to pay more taxes. I can't even express how retarded I think that thought is. it's utter bull****. it's an extremely myopic view. And that's the real problem. The real problem is that there is a significant amount of people, like yourself, that will try to fit anything into a narrative that they prefer. Not only does the media have a liberal bias, but clearly so does science. it's absolute nonsense. What possible reason do thousands, no tens of thousands of scientists have, to all be part of this large scheme to deceive you? Science doesn't care about politics, it is going to be true whether or not it is pleasant. A scientist is not going to lose his job for bringing good news or bad. a scientist is only really at risk of losing his job for deliberately not telling the truth. So either there is this incredible conspiracy going on, including most of the world scientists, (except for this brave minority group out to protect your interests) or the vast majority of published and peer reviewed scientists are incompetent. I want you to think about that for a moment. please, please come to the realisation how ridiculous this is. I think the problem with accepting man-made global warming (because the globe is warming, even if localised effects might mean colder temperatures, this still come from a warmer planet on the whole) is that there is much evidence that if you do not understand the science, seem counter-intuitive. People see a cold spell in the US in 2011 and go "well so much for global warming" despite this being exactly because of global warming. And look I'm trying to be respectful, I am, I promise. But you got to understand how frustrating it is to have a vocal minority stand in the way of necessary policy (yes, necessary, not nice, but necessary) because there exists a fear of having to give up on living how we always have lived. There seems to be a mentality of "Ignore it, maybe it will go away" and while we dawdle and debate something which really isn't in dispute any more, we're cruising towards destruction, depletion of resources, economical devastation, societal collapse and environmental collapse. Luckily many governments ARE beginning to do things about it. Unfortunately, as stated by David Attenborough, the United States is lagging behind, and while Americans complain about all time high gas prices fail to realise that in Europe we still pay per litre what they pay per gallon. (4.52 litre) It's unpopular because it requires the US to invest in new infrastructure, to change its habits, and to accept that their current held beliefs don't fit reality, which is never easy to admit. But it was no less so in Germany, or France, or Japan or South Korea, or Brazil, yet all of those nations are moving towards a more ecologically friendly infrastructure, because they realise its necessity. I'll say it once more and clearly so I won't have to say it again. (man-made) Climate Change deniers are standing in the way of essential progress. They base their argument on wishful thinking, fringe science, and misinterpretation of the data. You are wrong, both scientifically, and ethically.

5 el niño years in the last 10 years where before they'd be 5 every few decades, and never twice in a row. Half truths and junk science typical of the warmists. http://abcnews.go.co...d=119847&page=1 "Warmist?" hah.Look congrats on the recessess of google you've managed to find a site that says something different than all the rest. Fact is there is consensus. I cannot stress this enough. You guys are so desperate for this not to be true that you've got your head stuck up your own ass. I'm clearly not going to convince you with facts and figures. You'll only believe me when god descends from heaven and tells you so himself or something. A few extra El Niño years in a period might not prove a change in trends, but we're talking about more than just a few. In 10 years time, when there is STILL an El Niño every 2 years on average, maybe then you'll believe me. I'm getting sick and tired of the "too soon to tell" mentality. that would work if you had a single piece of evidence standing on it's own. But we have a large, no, humongous body of evidence that Global warming is real, AND man-made. Btw, Even your own link clearly states : About the 100 million years comment. So, it's not going to be 100 million years on the dot. but the fact is that by then the sun will be so hot that most water will have evaporated. I think we can establish from this that there will be no chance for intelligent life.

You know, I believe there is quite a clear consensus here.

I voted BG and BG2 but really I want PE to stand on it's own.