213374U

To be fair, that's simply a result of min-maxing becoming the norm and devs being forced to account for it. But min-maxing has its roots in P&P and uber munchkins far predate MMOs. Hell, it's not even restricted to gaming. Once something, anything, becomes competitive, there is only one path of least resistance and if you don't take it, your performance will be, by definition, suboptimal. The only difference is that, unlike with real world activities, rules that govern MMO worlds are easy to write down and then it's just about number crunching. It's a "problem" with gamers' mentality as much as it is a lack of imagination on the part of developers. Why must MMO design philosophy seep through to single player games where there is no competition element is a very pertinent question, however.

To be fair, any order given by an armed law enforcement officer is, ultimately, a threat, in the sense that cops are the embodiment of the state monopoly on the use of violence ("public force"). It's just that we have learned to live under this threat and accept it as part of the social contract. But try and resist, see how that ends. This scenario may seem absurd because under normal circumstances people usually aren't militant anarchists. But then, when social order has broken down, "normal circumstances" no longer apply, and riot police become indeed "balaclava-clad gunmen", at least to those who refuse to acknowledge their authority. In the end, people rely on balaclava-clad gunmen to protect them from balaclava-clad gunmen. As Orwell put it: "men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them".

Agreed. I couldn't get over the idea that the big lunk in front of the party was essentially exercising a limited type of mind control over every enemy we faced, regardless of their intelligence and training, their leadership and discipline, or their ability to comprehend human speech. I couldn't help but imagine how much more interesting and fun the game would be if tactical positioning were a more realistically effective way to manage which party members faced the brunt of enemy attacks. Of course, such an approach would've forced everybody to play the game the way I played it-- zoomed all the way out in the overhead tactical view and pausing every 4 seconds on average. You play like a Man, and I approve of this post. To continue my rambling, I am now vividly reminded how especially infuriating I found all this, because the game clearly had the potential to be the kind of tactical combat experience I really wanted. The whole "tactics" system could easily be set up to do things like "Form a line of battle" or "Have these 2 characters guard each others' backs." Flank attacks would be made extra dangerous for everybody-- not just Rogues-- in my Dream-DAO. (Rogues would still have advantages in getting into and out of Flanking position.) In place of threat-based mechanics, Fighter types would get abilities limiting opponent battlefield movement, pushing opponents around, and projecting defensive bonuses to other nearby characters. Ideally combat would play like this, if anyone bothered to build an AI that took positioning, roles, equipment and specific vulnerabilities into account while forcing enemies to act in character ("hmm... if I try to break the line to get to that wizard, I can *maybe* get one shot in before they cut me down. Sounds good, let's do it!"). I have yet to see one "tactical" game that does this and frankly I don't think it's easy at all: if you are familiar with SCS, you know that the mod follows this design—to accomplish it some AI scripts that govern complex enemy behavior are several thousand lines long, whereas the original BW AI was a few hundred lines at best. And due to engine limitations, it still cannot very well take stuff like formations and LOS into account. It's kinda sad because graphics have evolved incredibly in the last decade, but we're stuck with, at best, the same barebones AI.

Maybe, but they sure as **** aren't convincing me to sign up again with images of pickelhaube-clad mandrills. I mean, WTF? (and the award for weirdest thread goes to...)

^ I don't know if I qualify as an average gamer in the sense you mean, but I know that indeed, failed backstabs were some of the most frustrating occurrences in the IE games (until I discovered they had found a way to enable facestabbing for the player, anyway). I don't know, that and the extremely user-unfriendly way traps were implemented made me feel that somebody in the design team had a beef with thieves. After a few tweaks I found especially thief hybrids to be pure awesomeness, but I think the skills a rogue brings to the table are systematically underplayed, when compared to a P&P environment.

What is this travesty? A thread dedicated to pix of hot women, without any pix of hot women. Shame on you! Fortunately, my emergency stash is always well supplied:

Well, the lack of warnings or moderation may have something to do with the fact that your inbox is full.

Now that's disappointing. I'd actually would have loved for some internal moral struggles, in relation to blood magic, to happen in the game. Origins had something like that going but it was ultimately cut, bah. Yeah, cutting out actual consequences for your choices. Can't have that or somebody over at the 'dex could have a stroke. Cutting the specialization means it's probably just too much work to have the plot recognize and react to the fact that the Inquisitor could be a puppet of the demons of the Fade. While I personally feel like elements being randomly assigned the descriptor: Evil is lazy and silly, I can understand how this can generate a plot thread the writers don't want to explore or is outside of what is feasible with the resources they have. But as others have mentioned this is a consistency problem, caused by the writers' determination to remake Blood Magic into something inherently evil and portray those who practice it as raving madmen, when in previous games this was not necessarily the case. At this point, nobody should be surprised that a Bio game is not an exploration of Hannah Arendt's ideas on the nature of evil. Not sure it needs to be, either.

No amount of vapid sarcasm, la-la land solutions and irrelevant trivia is going to hide the fact that you, once more, missed the point. Trivia that is, for that matter, incomplete. I suggest you read up on the "right of revolution" and what it meant in the context of the common law interpretation of the Rights of Englishmen, that was used as a justification ad- and most importantly post-hoc in the case of the American Revolution (regardless of its actual merit...). But you are also clearly confused: the Declaration of Independence officially announced an overt revolution that rejected the authority of Britain over formerly British territories—the analogy only remotely works if you intend to draw a parallel between American colonists and East Ukrainians. Or are you suggesting that Yatsenyuk is a rebel and has proclaimed the independence of Ukraine... from Ukraine? Because up until now, the narrative here is that he's the legitimate President of Ukraine. You cannot simultaneously be the lawfully appointed Head of State and a rebel against the same state. This is the biggest problem; the Kiev government insists that it's legitimate while eastern pro-Russian separatists refuse to acknowledge it because of how Yanukovych's ouster was handled. A referendum in East Ukraine would be viewed as illegal by Kiev (as with Crimea) if organized by pro-Russians, and it would be impossible for Kiev to carry out because their authority is challenged there and it would be viewed as a betrayal by their pro-West power base, further increasing instability. Sure, the Rada and the President can try to do whatever, but if what they do isn't perfectly lawful and they don't bother amending the present or drafting a new Constitution with sufficient political and popular consensus, chances are it'll be declared illegal and void down the line, and they will have have solved nothing. You know, exactly how the Ukrainian Constitution has been modified the last two times, resulting in a rollback to the 2004 version, which is one of the main factors of the present crisis. The rule of law rests on one thing alone: the willingness of people at large to abide by the law of the land. If you rule arbitrarily, people are going to lose faith in the rule of law and at some point any such rulings, the very stuff the state is made of, won't be worth the paper they are printed on. This is why even totalitarian regimes attempt to wrap themselves in a mantle of lawfulness and the reason why absolute monarchies fell in Europe. An illusion of order grounded on law must be maintained. Legal exceptions enacted without broad consensus may be a way to "fix" problems by sweeping them under the rug, but the issues are going to resurface twenty years later because you never bothered to address the underlying causes. Attempts to change reality by lawmaking have a tendency to fail, as the current situation illustrates. But hey, all involved are clearly idiots when something with such a simple solution hasn't been fixed yet. I pity them for having to stumble blindly without the light of Rostere's wisdom to mark the way. It's also pretty cute that you feel confident enough to decide who is "sensible" on the basis of agreement with your POWERFUL THINKING theses. What a cozy little endogamous intellectual haven you have built for yourself.

Oh? When Iraqi Freedom was over, after combing the country for stuff that hadn't existed since 1991 and finding diddly squat, they finally concluded that "we may have been operating on faulty intel". The whole affair was such a cluster**** that they tried to pin the blame on the Brits, to make it seem like the rationale for the war had been an honest mistake. This wasn't a media mea culpa—it was, once again, simply reporting on the official government line and the conclusions of the IIC, without one bit of independent review or critique. A tacit admission that they had, and still were basically parroting the latest story the ministry of truth had come up with. Not exactly what I'd call "exposing". Accountability has all but disappeared as neither the gov't spokespeople that go on record with fabricated stories nor their media collaborators ever have to answer personally for their dishonesty. The moment journalism became about echoing unsourced (as the sources must remain secret to protect "national security") and unverified statements, was the moment the long history of independence you cited was betrayed. Can't live off the old glory days forever.

Have you played Chrome? It's sci-fi and IIRC maps were large enough that there were some vehicles, but I played it so long ago that I forgot just about everything else about the game. Might be up your alley. Of course, there's also the excellent Riddick games, but those are more stealth than shooter.

Ostrovsky's first piece since his release: "I had it pretty easy, because I was let go" So they nabbed him, roughed him up a bit, gave him the whole dank cellar treatment and then released him without explanation. Huh. In other news, Slovakia to provide gas to Ukraine. A token gesture, from the looks of it. Nowhere near enough to guarantee Ukraine's supply for next winter if Russia decides to cut them off, and Slovakia doesn't want to risk breaking their agreement with Gazprom.

1) I drink strength potions vs. Demogorgon. Tactics. 2) I have 3 strenth potions. I can't get more. I have to kill Demogorgon, Bahomet and Monte Carlo. I allocate my limited resources between the three battles. Strategy. While this is relevant from a theoretical standpoint, in my experience, in practice it's not. In all party-based games I've played since the IE came out, after a short, unforgiving and frustrating start, I was consistently swimming in potions, scrolls, wands etc, rendering the strategic element of resource allocation meaningless. This is partly due to the fact that most of the cookie-cutter encounters (filler, to tie in with my previous post) don't require that you expend any of your non-renewable resources and the instances where the difference would be noticeable are few and far between. And even then, it's not a requirement, but simply something that will increase your chances of avoiding a reload. Last time I went to grab the Ring of Gaxx, I didn't even have to use my valuable Protection from Magic scrolls because I got lucky with the Mace of Disruption. So much facepalm. Pre-buffing is bad design because it's gamey and grounded on trial-and-error and metagaming. The best buffs are usually short-duration so you absolutely must delay applying them until you really need them, but in CRPGs you never know when that is until you have died and reloaded. There is no way to gather clues about what type of protections you are going to need to beat certain boss, and you cannot research likely enemy tactics and force composition in advance. A first-time no-reload BG2 challenge would be next to impossible to complete—not necessarily because it's difficult but because it's very unforgiving and eventually you are going to fail a save for an effect you hadn't accounted and buffed for. Some people don't have a problem with trial-and-error gameplay but I find it hard to incorporate into my roleplaying.

You tell 'em! So the faintest hint of having a sex drive and wanting a serious relationship gives you a "serious predatory vibe"? Heh, okay dude. The author is coming off as a sadly deluded, entitled, whiny materialistic prick. I can get behind that. But a "predator"? Come now. FWIW, this is probably a hyperbolic troll post aimed at closet misogynists and white knights. The self-described "long suffering nice guy" author only has this post to his name and I question the sanity and intelligence of anyone that allows himself to be tricked to buy a dinner worth several hundred to a girl on a first date. Then again, maybe I'm just a jaded, cheap bastard.

Yes but, a referendum... on what? Independence? Federalization? The Constitution doesn't allow for that—the indivisibility of Ukraine is promulgated throughout the document and amendments to the Constitution aimed at "violating" this indivisibility are explicitly forbidden. There is no such thing as a territorial referendum either, only an All-Ukrainian referendum that must be called on by the President and approved by a 2/3 majority of the Rada, complicating things even more; it's not just the government in Kiev that must be willing to resolve this by casting ballots, it's a majority of politicians and people in Ukraine. Ukraine's Constitution is fairly rigid even by European standards, and it's designed first and foremost to guarantee the status quo. I don't disagree that a referendum would be a way out of the cul-de-sac the Kiev gov't has put the country in, but you can't just ignore the legal hurdles. Among other things because that would legitimize the Crimean referendum, which is a big no-no for Kiev (and the West). Interestingly enough, you can no longer access the Constitution through the official website. The rest of the site seems to work fine. I wonder what's up with that.

So, what you're saying is... needs more foreplay?

@Malc: thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of that. We'll see how long before this new offensive stalls. Dismemberment of the Ukrainian state, subjugation to Russia, continued economic deterioration, restoration of Yanukovych oligarchy, you know, the works. You got me. If Ukraine once again becomes part of the Motherland, I stand to gain a promotion to Senior Colonel with the FSB for my valiant efforts in the Obsidian Entertainment Forums, and you know what that means—I'll actually get to use the restroom instead of pissing in a bucket when nobody is looking. Seriously though, I haven't the slightest idea how to solve this at this point. But I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that sending in the army is not the best solution (assuming it's a solution at all). There's also the irony that these uprisings are A-OK to crush under a soldier's boot, but those in Kiev a few months ago weren't.

I'm more or less in the same boat, except for the filler part. Filler combat has been a pet peeve of mine since BG1 (the Derp Roads portion of DAO actually made me quit the game the first time around, and it's the reason I haven't replayed it) and for me the problem was exacerbated by the "Operation Market Garden" execution of some encounters in DA2. I understand however the somewhat necessary role of filler combat in this kind of game, and after taking a look at the scripting of SCS, I have basically given up on pro developers putting in the effort required to build the kind of AI that would make filler combat an actually entertaining part of the game.

There was an incident where a mob tried to storm a National Guard base, in which 3 pro-Russians were killed. The National Guard is a reserve unit that's been created by the Kiev government, with crap training, and chiefly comprised of volunteers—the idea was originally to incorporate already existing militias into a structure fully under the command of the government, but I don't know to what extent this has been accomplished. So far, when regular army units have been involved, they have either defected, handed over their hardware, or just plain turned around: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A_Xcs-Mjkk (doesn't help that the poor tank sounds like it's dying)

Oh, yes, I didn't remember that. I had that happen during one of the "breaks" in the final encounter. "Place of Birth: The Throne of Blood". Good ol' Bioware. Look man, I've been trying to quit peanut butter and bacon sandwiches, okay? It's just that the flesh is weak and, well... bacon.

You also got some loot and XP out of the romance-triggered encounters. The Yochlol ambush was pretty cool. Wasn't there something with Harpers too? Funny how actual consequences and integration have gone down, while ego stroking and fan service have gone through the roof. I seem to remember that Isabela's actions at a critical point in DA2 were also influenced by romance, but I'm not sure if that was necessarily locked to the romance—only played that game once.

He's not a "nice guy" in the sense that he knows precisely what he wants and seems to have formulated a careful strategy to obtain it. A strategy based on a perception of what his prospective mate seems (or should) be attracted to. He's created a fake persona for himself in a misguided effort to be competitive in the dating arena. Underneath, he may well be the sweetest, most loyal and selfless guy she'll ever find, but we'll never know, and it matters about as much as whether Tom Cruise is a wacko to somebody watching Mission: Impossible. On a related note, I like now guys being butthurt about high maintenance, immature and unstable bitches is something to make fun of, but girls whining about how real men are being substituted for man-boys and/or that all men are pigs etc is perfectly normal and something to empathize with. The subjacent machismo is so strong that it's almost as if the double standard here was being applied on purpose. Almost. Ironically enough, self-appointed social justice warriors and their white knight cohorts are suckers for this sort of twaddle.

Much like Gromnir? *snicker*

Where is Calax in NV? I never ran across him. Im not sure if you can miss him. He appears early in the game and actually runs up to you for help. The character isn't named "Calax", so unless you are an Obsidz regular and know about the contest, know the guy personally, or have seen his pic and can make the connection you won't recognize the cameo at all. I know I missed it. And unlike Gromnir's in ToB, his role is fairly minor. Low key, as cameos should be, I think.

As infantry tactics and unit composition changed to account for technology advances (firepower and C3 mostly, but also logistics) between the 19th and 20th centuries, it stands to reason that 21st century "infantry" will not be and act exactly the same as its precursors. My money would be on increasingly smaller units with excellent mobility, training and firepower, as this facilitates achieving local superiority as needed, while at the same time avoiding the huge troop concentrations that are more vulnerable to massed artillery fire and aerial bombing, not to mention difficult to supply and maneuver. This is also supposed to drastically reduce aggregate casualties due to greater force dispersion and possibly also enables warfare along huge areas with relatively small numbers of troops. Response times and operational readiness are critical for this, but that seems to be the direction in which doctrine is developing. But yeah, this is still very much infantry, so the "boots on the ground" comment is perfectly sensible. The likelihood of nuclear exchanges and the extent of those is much harder to predict, and it's this fact and the insane stakes involved that created the climate of paranoia during the Cold War. Nobody wanted nuclear war, but everyone expected the others to start it. In reality I would expect everyone to be unwilling to unleash a nuclear apocalypse, but again the uncertainty would weigh in heavily when deciding whether to push ahead for total victory or sue for peace. In any event I don't see any reason to believe that the next war will necessarily be a nuclear war. Oh, that. Pay it no mind, it's just to show that we care.