Valsuelm

Where exactly is it mentioned this is the case? It's really bad idea imo to have no combat XP in PE. However I'd like to read the reasoning behind it.

Haha... yeah..... I regret it, but I sold all my coloured D&D books (had them all) and a whole bunch more due to a girlfriend at the time. (good advice: NEVER sell ANYTHING for a girl, EVER)

Well... let's see. 2nd edition AD&D was basically 1st edition AD&D minus demons and boobies with a few tweaks. The positives of 3rd edition are greatly outweighed by it's negatives, so I'd play 2nd edition in a heartbeat over 3rd, and fourth is an abomination. So yea... change isn't always good. Especially if one is attempting to reinvent the wheel or fix what isn't broken. If all editions of AD&D were still in print and allowed to compete against one another I'd wager a bunch that 1st/2nd (they are very interchangeable) editions would sell more copies than 3rd, 3rd 1/2, and 4th, despite so many always thinking newer = better.

I don't think I've read a good article on PC Gamer since the 90s.

Yeah, Josh Sawyer said in a nice way that he hates Baldur's Gate 2. But he loves Skyrim! (just check his twitter feed, lol) So maybe he should apply for a job @ Bethesda instead of trying to make a spiritual successor to a game that he hates. For real? skyrim might be a decent game, but I thought it was an absymal RPG, with little to no C&C and most importantly; no consequences to character choices; you can be guildmaster of every guild at the same time, rival or not. And you can excel in every field of skill. I doubt PE will be like skyrim, but I fail to see the merrits of that game as a proper CRPG. Oh god.... make me slump more in my chair why don't you. Oblivion and Skyrim are so amazingly overrated. The best part of Oblivion was the intro and it's scenery was absolutely amazing (I'm generally not one swayed by graphics but it was a beautiful game). Gameplay wise it frankly sucked as the game went on as it all scaled, so nothing was ever tough. The open world was cool but as open as it was so much of it was the same. That and it had a lot of bugs, one of which broke the game for me and I gave up checking to see if Bethesda finally fixed it after about 6 months and never picked up the game again. Skyrim was worse.... and I didn't bother playing too far into it. I realize a lot of people like these games, and Bethesda has a great marketing department. But to me they represent almost everything I don't want in an RPG. I'd hate to think they're inspiring much of anything other than 'we don't want to do that' in regards to PE.

Care to elaborate why you think the combat in IWD is superior to that of BG2? currently giving IWD another shot as I hadn't finished it before and I find the combat quite tedious and frustrating, with enemies swarming you at every turn. Could be because my last playthrough of BG2 was with the SCSII mod, increasing difficulty a fair bit without feeling unfair. I actually just did a full play through of IWD a month ago. It's not a bad game, but it's not a great game. I do not think it's superior to BG1 or BG2 in any great way in regards to combat. No doubt there were a few tweaks to the engine as it came after the other two, but really, there's nothing substantially different imo. I think it has that reputation of having superior combat as that's the focus of the game, as the story isn't as deep as BG's. It's got some great battles but they aren't anything better than what BG or BG2 had in my opinion. I don't think the difficulty was all that different from the BG games. If anything it was easier overall. The final fight in IWD was significantly easier than the final fight in BG1 for example. I beat the guy on the second attempt, and was really surprised I did. The most fun fight and the toughest imo in IWD is the one where you fight a whole lotta undead in a room with possessed priests in Dorn's Deep. There were more tough fights in BG1 and BG2. I generally play these games on 'hardcore D&D' mode. edit: I really don't like the new quoting mechanism on the forums... anyone know of a way to switch it back to the older format?

While there are characters from games I don't like, I'm not against having them in the game. We all have the option of bringing or not bringing NPC X with us. ie: I never really liked Edwin in BG (I preferred Xzar as my evil wizard), yet a lot of people liked him. I don't begrudge them their having Edwin in the game, and it never really bothered me that he was in the game. One thing I would ask is that if we must have a overstereotypical character such as Khelgar from NWN2 in game that he not be found so early in the game where you're somewhat obliged to take him with you. I personally don't know if I can take yet another dwarf with a Scottish accent. Save the super stereotypical NPCs that join you for later in the game. That's my 2 cents.

The game is also a spiritual successor to commandos (a game that Sawyer loves), so it was necessary. No combat xp. Reading that link was depressing and disappointing. By far and away the best games of those mentioned in the Kickstarter video were BG 1, 2, and PST. Those are the games mentioned that got me to back PE. While some of the other games mentioned were pretty good (I never played ToEE or Arcanum), I'd not have backed PE if it was only inspired by them. BG1&2 and PST were oodles better in so many ways than the IWD series in my opinion. No combat XP is a bad idea.... is there really not going to be combat XP? I haven't read where they said that was the case yet. Though I'm pretty sure the things the OP is upset about aren't actually going to be in the game (or are they?.. .if so that's bad, one especially being bethesda style level scaling). Had I known Sawyer's opinion of Baldur's Gate and that he'd be lead designer of PE I honestly likely would not have backed PE. I've never agreed with him on his opinions of 2nd edition vs. 3rd (while there were some improvements in 3rd, overall I think 2nd (or even 1st) edition is a far better game than 3rd edition AD&D), and think IWD2 probably would have been a better game had they stuck to 2nd edition... I'm not going to say I regret it yet, but my excitement for PE has just diminished a great deal. The upside is that we still may have a great story.... Hopefully the OP's concerns don't really amount to much. Name dropping Baldur's Gate in the PE Kickstarter vid and having it lead designed by a guy who doesn't like those games was a bit misleading on Obsidian's part. I hope I'm misunderstanding something here....

Time is certainly a big factor, though it is possible to cook healthily and quickly too everyone loves convenience. I would add education as well though, lots of people simply do not know much about what food is healthy, and many do not know how to cook much at all. I'd dispute the other part though, at least here I could buy healthy food more cheaply than something like McDonalds even once a day. I'd reckon I could feed four people reasonably healthily for roughly what it would cost one person to eat at Maccas- they wouldn't be getting wine with the meal but I don't think you get that at the golden arches anyway. If it were something like a noodle based vegetable stir fry I reckon I could do it as quickly, too. Indeed. Cooking is not hard. If someone makes it far into adulthood and hasn't yet learned how there's an extremely high possibility that they're either always benefiting from someone else cooking for them or they're lazy. The best way to learn how to cook is to have to do it. Of course it helps if you have someone giving you tips, but it's not necessary. And even then, just like driving a car, the only way to really learn is to do it yourself. You'll pick it up quick if you go to the store, get the ingredients, take them home, and start figuring out what you need to do. You do that a few times and you'll find that unless you're seriously mentally handicapped you're going to have figured out how to make some good stuff (at least that you think is good). Cooking is a LOT easier than many people try and pretend it is. And eating healthy is generally less expensive than any fast food place, and relatively so even if you're eating the same type of food (eg. burgers and fries). As for the education part. Anyone can look at the ingredients of something. Most don't though. And if you make it to adulthood and haven't somewhere learned that veggies, a variety of vitamins, and such are good for you, you're a hopeless case.

I just want to say I got an email with this update in it! Super awesome that is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ySi6smb6A

You lost me. How does this have to do with anything. I don't think I ever had you. As I previously mentioned, you would do well to actually read the Constitution, as well as get a clue as to what the legal and philosophical issues that have arisen out of it's interpretation, practice, and real life applicability on everyone is. If you did that, you'd know exactly what this has to do with anything. Because I'm pretty sure based on your continuing ignorance of things myself and others in this thread have posted (some of the answers to your ATF question were already given by one of the folks who called it corrupt, and I do recommend looking into what he wrote) I'll give you a big hint: One who has a clue (is actually familiar with the Constitution) can rarely can mention the First Amendment without bringing up the Fourteenth in regards to the first's applicability anywhere other than on the Federal Government because of how the First was written and it's original purpose. The First Amendment was meant to only apply to the Federal Government. There purposefully were not limitations placed on the States or local governments in regards to making saying some things a crime. One of the things the Fourteenth Amendment does by many interpretations of it (it's a horribly worded amendment) is apply the First Amendment to the State and local governments. Anyone who actually takes the time to read and think about could come to this conclusion, and if they bothered to learn how the First Amendment is ever argued in court they'd know this. It's quite clear that you don't bother to learn. In contrast. The second amendment is much more limiting than the first on what government can do. '...shall not be infringed' is different than 'Congress shall make no law...'. Note that I did not respond to you earlier than now, as frankly I've come to the realization that arguing with you is near pointless as you refuse to educate yourself. The answers to most of the questions you bring up have already been answered in the thread, and you'd find answers to them and more if you actually did some serious homework. I don't mind the person who really just doesn't know that much, I do mind the person who's been pointed again and again in the direction he/she can come to know but refuses to go there. As I said earlier: You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. You've been standing over a pool of water that myself and others have lead you to but apparently don't realize you need it for awhile in this thread now.

Even now we can't have proof of Al-Qaeda presence in Mali (Actually we can't find they in any part of Earth). http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2012/10/ansar-dine-spokesman-dismisses-terrorist-label.html In other words Ansar Dine is not Al-Qaeda, but western media continue mumbling about Al-Qaeda without proofs. That's because many westerners have made duped into believing in the boogie man. Only those who haven't enough background in world history/events and haven't done enough homework believe they exist outside of the propaganda machine or as an 'intelligence community' asset, or the unintelligent. Al-Qaeda = boogiemen. Anyone that considers just how powerful this organization that spans the globe supposedly is should begin to question just how that is even remotely possible. Most don't question though, not much of anything.

Don't you know better than to use facts in an Oby thread? Yea.... except that isn't correct by most estimations, and Oby is pretty good with his/her facts. Much better than most others posting in these threads. By most estimations, smoking peaked sometime in the 50s, and began declining after then, though not buy much in the 60s. The two decades that saw the largest drop in smoking were the 70s and 80s, where over the course of those two decades smoking amongst the adult population went from around ~40% to ~28%. Since around 1990 the prevalence of smoking dropped somewhere around ~5%. The last ~20 years has not seen a huge decrease in smoking, despite all the draconian laws that have been put in place in the last 10 or so. Those are of course estimations. And if one looks around at the various figures out there, there are some differences between the various estimates. Oby? Good with facts? Only if you are a bat**** ruski or libertarian who thinks RT tells the unbiased truth. Also this. 19.3% is about 20% in most circles. no? 'Bat**** ruski'? You have a problem with Russians? I'm not Russian, but I think they have some pretty beautiful women, and they at least attempted (but lost due to interference from the US/British Oligarchs) to revolt and form a real free state. Though it's been near 100 years now it's a lot more than most nations where the people think they are free can say. That said, Putin is one evil mofo. Communism is evil and on the rise (despite the myth it's dead), and the Russian government is no friend to the U.S. or it's citizens. However neither is the U.S. government for the most part. RT is what just about every other network is: a varying degree of news and propaganda. RT however generally does not sink to the 'entertainment' level that most networks have.The major differences between Russia Today and the most main stream networks are that RT is more open with it's foreign affiliation, your average reporter/anchor is quite a bit more intelligent on RT, and in general the stories on RT are actually closer to the truth than you'll find on the mainstream networks. Just like Russians once got news stories they wouldn't normally hear on their networks from Radio Liberty, Americans get news from RT (and other non mainstream sources) that they wouldn't normally get from their news sources. If you think there isn't rampant censorship and propaganda coming out of the big 3, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, Reuters, AP, et al, you're one of the many brainwashed. Of course fans of Fox think MSNBC is extremely bias, and fans of MSNBC pretty much only tune in to get their Fox hatred fix, but in the big picture both networks are generally working for the same agendas and those who think their network isn't bias is an ignorant fool. Much the same as anyone thinking that voting for Romney over Obama, or Obama over Romney (or Bush over Gore, Gore over Bush, Bush over Kerry, Kerry over Bush... and it goes on like that a good couple decades) was going to give you any great meaningful difference except hairstyle and different flavored BS. Just about all news networks are extremely bias one way or another, and not in the way most think (left vs. right). Just about all of them are beholden to their owners. And most American news networks are owned by those who benefit directly from all of the wars we've been in over the last half century plus, the poisons in the food, the increasing police state, etc. Always ask yourself: 'Why am I being shown this story?' And yes. You are correct. 19.3% is about 20%.

Don't you know better than to use facts in an Oby thread? Yea.... except that isn't correct by most estimations, and Oby is pretty good with his/her facts. Much better than most others posting in these threads. By most estimations, smoking peaked sometime in the 50s, and began declining after then, though not buy much in the 60s. The two decades that saw the largest drop in smoking were the 70s and 80s, where over the course of those two decades smoking amongst the adult population went from around ~40% to ~28%. Since around 1990 the prevalence of smoking dropped somewhere around ~5%. The last ~20 years has not seen a huge decrease in smoking, despite all the draconian laws that have been put in place in the last 10 or so. Those are of course estimations. And if one looks around at the various figures out there, there are some differences between the various estimates.

Do us all a favor and let this thread die. If you want to start a thread about Anime, please go for it. But call it something like 'The Anime Thread', and not 'Depressed'. This thread's title is very misleading. Not only are you not readily going to get the folks who would be interested in your topic to read your posts (as who looks for a discussion about anime in a thread called 'Depressed'?), you're going to get people to read your topic that don't give a poop about anime.

Amazingly, and sadly, smoking is still cool amongst a very large portion of the populace. It's really probably not any more or less cool than it was once upon a time in most segments of the population. The only real differences between now and the 70s in regards to smoking is that the connection to ill health is solid and not even debated anymore, advertisements are legally limited, there are laws (many ridiculous ones at that) against smoking in many places, and there are disgusting amounts of taxes on them in many places. People still do it. Younger people even making up more of the smoking population than the old in many studies and estimates. What kinda blows my mind is that a lot of them smoke generics due to the disgustingly high taxes and exorbitant cost, so the advertisements for Camel et al can't be blamed... and generic cigarettes are generally exponentially more disgusting smelling and tasting than the brand names. Another big difference between now and the 70s is that the concept of 'addiction' is far more widely spread than it was in yee olden days. Nowadays many smokers (and other substance abusers) blame their 'addiction', as if they have no control over their actions. They freely submit to the idea that their willpower is not sufficient enough to overcome an unnatural craving for something that poisons their body. There's even a billion dollar industry to 'help' people quit, when the only thing that will make them quit for the most part is them making up their mind that they are done.There are some people who even are convinced they have an 'addiction gene' or a 'smoking gene'. Hogwash through and through this is, but a lot of people believe it, and it's quite pitiful.

Those that do would be and are marginalized by the media and the droves of mindless goons like the guy in the cartoon in front of the TV would go along with it. In all parts of the mainstream media you for the most part have folks with lower than average intelligence spouting off their nonsense and repeating the BS they're told to, and a public that moves generally in two directions. One towards being more and more brainwashed all the time, and the other towards realizing that almost everything they're told in the media is a lie or a twist. The former refers to the latter often as 'conspiracy theorists' as if it's some kind of bad thing, and willfully, even gleefully deny themselves deeper thought. While the latter often constantly tries to wake the former up from their daze with rare but meaningful success. All in all though, there's a real lot of folks without minds capable of higher thought and critical reasoning. Everyone but the truly mentally handicapped have the potential for it, but most refuse to realize it having been conditioned not to from an early age (as that cartoon eludes to somewhat). You can tell someone that something very true, provable, and uncontroversial such as that the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned. For a moment you might see a flash of thought in their eyes if they even know what the Fed is, or can understand the significance of what that means. But sadly most of the time they'll just go right back to their mindless parroting of stuff they're told to think. Mention something very true and provable such as what happened to building seven of the WTC, and these folks will call you a nut they're so conditioned to reject what isn't fed them by the media, or contradicts what the media told them. Occasionally though that spark in their eyes actually ignites into a flame and a quest for knowledge, the truth, ensues. I've seriously met dogs with better reasoning than most of the people I've ever met in my life. Not that dogs like that are common, definitely not, but the comparison is fair. As far as the 70s go. Comics like that were even rare then. We're 100+ years into the total brainwashing adventure set upon us by the industrialists at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. What were the most important and common bits of discussion before this adventure in your average public place such as a pub were religion/spirituality and politics, things that actually matter to everyone on the planet whether they think so or not. Replaced they are with superficial conversations about things like 'sports' and pick a celeb of the day such as Snookie, things that don't matter one lick in any meaningful way to the person talking about them. Go look at comics from the 19th century and you'll find oodles and oodles of commentary such as what you posted. Despite what many indoctrinated folks believe these days, people back then (at least in the U.S.) were on average far more informed and thinking than they are today. There's oodles of places you can find proof of this, such as newspapers, books, college exams, speeches, et all from those days.

You make a lot of noise slurping up that propaganda. No doubt people are being killed. No doubt it's horrible. However, the boogiemen aren't doing the killing. Just how many times are you going to buy the same BS story? Or are you young. I'll forgive you if you aren't old enough to remember the same story ~12 years ago right before 9/11. And I don't overestimate how safe it is here in the 'first world' as so many of those that live here such as yourself do. The boogiemen will be back here someday, or rather evil folks will be that are advertized as such. The world is not as it is advertized, not even remotely.

Al-Qaeda = Boogiemen

Not that she's bad looking, but if you look anything like your avatar I imagine you probably don't discriminate much.

I wouldn't ever refer to them as glory days but I'd take them or any other decade in the latter half of the 20th century over the 00s or 10s in a heartbeat.

This is actually a good petition. I didn't know much about this guy before he committed suicide, but it sounds like he was a victim of a way overzealous DA. This should have been a misdemeanor case at the worst, and it put a guy that already seemed to be struggling with mental issues over the edge. So thanks for the good link Oby This petition as well as most others are meh at best. It's a PR game on both sides most times. Frankly, if you think this particular DA was overzealous you're not familiar with standard operating procedures in most DA officers. It's quite the norm to bury someone in charges, trumped up, fictional, essentially doubly/triply charged for the same thing to force them to plea. More often than not people accept pleas and cases never even see trial for things as frivolous as punching someone to as serious as murder. Innocence or guilt has nothing to do with it most of the time, convictions for the prosecutor and making the best of a really bad situation for the defendant is what's important. The idea that you're innocent until proven guilty is not actually practiced in most courtrooms, as the deck is stacked incredibly in favor of the state these days. It's also not the idea that is prevalent in most American's minds. For a great many, if you were arrested you must have done something wrong. If you were familiar with how most police departments operated you'd know that is very much not the case these days as you can get arrested for something as trivial as pissing off a cop, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yea, you might win in court, but the costs to you are usually very high and to the cop usually very low if anything at all. One of the greatest bits of corruption going on in our nation is that cops and state officials (very much including DAs) are largely given immunity for all sorts of things that your average citizen might be fried for. So, while I wholeheartedly agree that this DA was overzealous, and what he did was wrong on many a level, what he did is very much the norm almost everywhere.

Corn Syrup and other unnatural food additives are bad for you. It's getting harder and harder in the U.S. to find good natural food, like used to be on every grocery store shelf just 20 years ago. Monsanto et al are evil. And yea... women today (and men, but I don't look at them as much) have gone all flabby. It's noticeably worse in just the last ten years. Vegging out in front of the TV or computer has a lot to do with it too. And kids in general don't have the freedom they did a generation ago to go out and play. You make too much of the Vietnam protesters compared to modern America's lack of protesting though. The protesting still happens, it just doesn't make the news very much. Believe me, as brainwashed as most westerners are most Americans are not in favor of the wars we're in, or a great deal of other things we're subjected to by our 'leaders'. Even folks I know who were gung ho let's get Saddam and the boogie men in Afganistan in revenge for 9/11 are vehemently for ending the wars at this point and have been for awhile. People just haven't gotten to the point where they're going to demand in no uncertain terms change though. That time will come. My concern is the nutjobs running things will push us all into WW3 before that happens though to avoid any real revolutions. If and when the west falls, humanity all over will likely plummet into a hell. The New Dark Ages are nearly upon us.

Not even remotely. Feudal Japan was an entirely different culture with values much different than ours in today's western society. In many ways the our culture compared to theirs is fundamentally opposite in terms of values. Honor is very very rare thing in our culture, this was not so among many in Japan, especially the Samurai. While no doubt some folks committed seppuku due to peer pressure, you fundamentally don't understand the practice if you think that's all it was or is. I should have said this earlier, but it's those who label suicide as always the act of a coward, or someone who is suicidal as always just someone looking for attention who are cowards. They are afraid to use their imagination to ever contemplate a moment where they themselves might end their own life or seriously contemplate doing so. They are often blinded by their hubris. Frankly, to me someone who thinks this way fails one of the litmus tests to indicate if a person truly thinks with any depth or not, and really truly has empathy; excusing the young of course as they just may not have had time to think about it yet. Any adult however that thinks this way thinks very shallow. Fear truly is the mindkiller, and the fear of contemplation of many a thing is what keeps the unintelligent unintelligent. In many ways you are as smart as you have the courage to be.