metadigital

My lovely Public School had us watch it when I was about nine years old. Basically just says people are nasty: very Hobbesian outlook: survival of the fittest. Artificially-created and extreme situations, where people are manipulated into behaving in a certain way. I'm not arguing about the fact that people can behave badly in some situations, but about whether this makes them evil people. Did the participants in these experiments, after they had finished, reflect on them and feel shock at how they had behaved? Moreover, Milgram's study is about authority and obedience, not directly about good and evil. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My psychology text book ws written by one Philip Zimbardo. Even if you haven't done much (any) psychology, you will probably be familiar with his seminal thesis. In it he proves the power of the situation; he took a couple of dozen uni students (always good fodder) and had half be prisoners and half be guards. By the end of the week, the "guards" were treating the "prisoners" like dirt, and the "prisoners" were acting like victims. The students are still emotionally scarred when they are interviewed now, almost thirty years later. Needless to say this was one of the last experiments to use people without getting informed consent, which kinda defeats the purpose of most Psych tests. Anyway, back on the topic, Steve, you may want to believe everyone is good, but you are mistaken. I know for a fact, because I have met and dealt with people who are not good people. If you haven't met these people, either you haven't recognised them, or you have been extraordinarily lucky. You'll be rationalising the Chinese government's handling of Tianamen Square next. (While you're following that link, just peruse the Amnesty International site a bit; heck, I'll buy you a year's membership if it'll help you see.)

But you like Celine Dion ...

Who's going to break this to GL ?

Just remember the budget the BBC gave the series was less than you spent on Friday night, don't go looking for special FX like Speilberg's War of the Worlds (I think there's a guy under a roll of bubblewrap in the Ark in Space ... ) Open your mind and think of the wonderful SF concepts ...

I would say its more a geometric growth than an exponential one. Four classes equals four elements per puzzle, multiplied by the number of puzzles, equals three unknowns and one given element per puzzle. Geometric: four (or whatever the puzzle key length is) multiplied by the number of puzzles. the only way to make the game simpler (read: less effort) is to have simpler puzzles, which you can do with or without the added benefit of multiple classes, e.g. a single element puzzle like a fed-ex to gain a key for a door.

can't argue with that.

I like the idea of influence. I do think it was poorly implemented in some ways but, if they can fix the difficulties, it should be fine. The problem with influence in K2 is that there was often only one person who had certain information...information that influence unlocked. Also, factor in the fact that influence was alignment-based (at least in part) and it is easy to see where the problem lies. Now granted, you did not absolutely need this information to complete the game, but it did help paint a more complete picture of what was going on. IMO, anything that deals with the main quest should not be unlocked by influence. Influence should be all about training, side quests and really surperfluous conversation. In a nutshell, the problem with influence as it is now is that it does not unlock enough stuff and what it does unlock should not be locked to begin with. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As has been said (innumerable times) before, the influence system was poorly implented; it was used to hide plot, so that one had to replay the game in order to gain the hidden plot elements from others whom you had no influence over previously. That's crap. The poor influence implementation coupled with the poor NPC alignment implementation (Visas acting like a DS groupie with LS Mastery) was compounded by the limited and shoddy dialogue options -- especially for a DS PC: i.e. no subtle deception, just blatant frontal assault.

It's been a while since I had played Throne of Bhaal.....could you remind me? And I cannot think of many games (not even KOTOR 2) where you actually have an impact on the NPCs. They stay static...and even in KOTOR 2, they may be darkside but they still responded like their old selves. The ability to make influences on the NPCs is a great idea, since it provides a more plausible and dynamic experience. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is "reputation" in BG2, without the ToB.

It is also feasible that you may choose to go solo. (Especially if not a Jedi, but neutral. Sith training is probably still through am apprenticeship, but not necessarily.)

Do they ever recover their balast equilibrium ? Or is that a euphemism for shuffle off this mortal coil.

Naw, you need to watch the first season of Tom Baker -- that's the definitive stuff: real vintage. Robot to ease into the new characters, Ark in Space to set the futuristic mood, Sontaran Experiment to show Lawful Evil, Genesis of the Daleks for the origin of true evil, followed by Revenge of the Cybermen, for cold ruthless evil. Wow, what a set. Never been beaten.

It was Trajan wot did it. The people were Thracian, before Trajan conquered it and called it Dacia, wasn't it?

Well, the padawan is always with the Master, so if the padawan survives, then instant Masterhood. The only issue would be if the padawan were not with their Master at the time of death (off on a side quest, say) -- then, that would be a good hook for the plot. Maybe have to prove yourself ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What they could do is that your master is being held by <Insert next sith cult/sith wannabe faction> and you have been given an offer to join their ranks by killing your master, or you can save your master and remain on the lightside/neutral path <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes.

Ecceston is very good. Too bad he's not staying for next season. Billy "Ferrari for a BJ" Piper is allegedly trying to crack Hollywood ( ) and so has also said she ain't staying. Launchie, there's another male companion now, who you might like better. (No more Daleks, though. ) Don't worry, that's one thing we all have in common: we all get old.

Doctor Who is kewl. Doctors seven and eight suffered from some poor scripts, however, but Tom Baker rox. (I have his autograph somewhere ... :ph34r: )

Peri? Nicola Bryant (Perpigelium, I think was her full name ... a bit like Romana's name: Romanatrelundur, or some such, iIrc).

didn't you watch the Dalek?

Bring back Bonnie Langford, that's what I say! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Elisabeth Sladen and Louise Jameson

... And a terrible actress. Apart from that, she's ok. (Launchie, You're forgetting the thirty years of classic Dr Who.) When I first saw this film, I was not sure whether Hauser was the real Quaid, or whether Cohaagan had brain-manipulated this false personality to prepare Quaid. Later I realised I was being far too paranoid.

right. the *ghost* device can be overused just as the dreaded force bond can be overused. the best way to use the ghost device, IMO, is for him to simply point out where you can get the training you need...and, indeed, in a cryptic way. "you have learned all you can from Master Soandso....go to Tatooine and seek out the Twi'lek master there" >OK, what is the name? .....(ghost fades from sight) that's how you do it. :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes.

I think I'll read Homer's version (or whomever he lifted the plot from in the first place) ...

"Get ready for a surrrrrr-Prise!"

Do you get Doctor Who?