Gromnir

Why does your brain hurt? It seems to have this crazy idea that some consistency in the main canon might have a positive effect for the franchise. That or I have one of those brain eating amoebas. am ambivalent... can't decide if we is more puzzled that such canon exists, or that mc knows and bothered to find out such stuff. HA! Good Fun!

Not no, Yes. Project Eternity is said to be comparable to around the 16th century of our world, technology wise, and for some of the societies. With some differences, because the developers are NOT trying to make an exact realism simulator, as you seem to suggest. http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/palooka.htm http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm Never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. Gromnir should take your advice and stop arguing with you, but you is just so darn obtuse that it is cute. start with another quote... just for fun. "bad books on writing and thoughtless English professors solemnly tell beginners to "Write What You Know," which explains why so many mediocre novels are about English professors contemplating adultery." we never claimed that pe was being presented as an exact reality simulator. please find where we said such a thing. we can wait. ... no? no such comment by Gromnir? what we said is that JOSH can seeming get fixated on details such that his design, while having many elements o' admirable authenticity, is often leaving us with otherwise stale or flat content. we referenced honest hearts and iwd2, not pe. tell us what espoused goals o' pe is pretty darn useless (and funny) when we is in a thread that has josh describing his personal philosophies 'bout the super-duper importance o' research and first-hand experience. oh, and lets drop the absurdism. we thinks even josh would dismiss your suggestion that pe, as it uses real-world cultures as basis for some in-game civilizations, would fall within the fuzzy definition o' historical fiction. not exactly shooting for Killer Angels. your wacky stretching exercise has virtual every fantasy novel or game ever made fall into historical fiction genre as most authors borrow elements from real world cultures. no doubt david eddings or lloyd alexander would be surprised to find out they were writers o' historical fiction. but then again, historical fiction bit is a largely nonsensical definition, so maybe an absurdest argument is bestest. good on you for going all unreasonable. ... am gonna take one last stab at where we thinks josh is stumbling. "write what you know" is good/bad advice. have heard it ascribed to Solzhenitsyn or Hemingway... which we s'pose is good advice if you were a big game hunter who were a nurse in the spanish civil war or spent time in soviet gulag and stalin's cancer wards. then again, only quote by Hemingway we can find that is close to our broken axiom is, “From all things that you know and all those you cannot know, you make something through your invention that is not a representation but a whole new thing truer than anything true and alive.” is kinda sad that Hemingway's original quote is not greeting card sized and easily recalled. the "write what you know" hobgoblin might never have spawned if Ernie were just a bit more trite. even so, we thinks the write-know advice is good if one focuses on gut-level emotion rather than facts. good writing, like good music or good painting, speaks to us on an emotional level. write what you know is advice to aspiring artists... not historians and journalists. tell a historian or journalist to write what they know seems more than a little silly, yes? pointless advice. josh reads the trite bit o' advice, wrong. am thinking he reads as a historian rather than artist, and so we end up with honest hearts. if Gromnir puts a tree in a story, the goal is not to makes an accurate tree. if we spends any effort on description of tree is 'cause we is trying to get audience to Feel something. josh ain't writing short stories or novels, but am thinking he loses sight o' fact that in this regard, games trees is no different than trees in novels. you is adding 'cause you want players to feel. does combat feel exciting and visceral? does old windmill location evoke dread? does forest makes player feel claustrophobic or trapped? whatever. is emotions you is trying to reach. *shrug* am thinking we has exhausted this topic, but if anybody gots a fresh pov, we is game. HA! Good Fun!

oh. let us see how long you keep silliness going. Gromnir has been posting this way since totsc were being developed, so we bet we outlast you by a bit... but will be fun to watch. *sigh* again with the reply/quote, but in different format. slow learner. oh, and getting worked up 'cause we call your posting "inane" is more than a little amusing, seeing as that were your choice o' description for your response... disappointing but not surprising. ... you make it difficult to respond and stay on-topic. is some insulting and childish language an **** expletive, grammar corrections (HA!) and redundant and pointless claims that we ain't making an argument. not give us much to work with, and will probably get thread pruned. historical fiction genre? well, we guess that were a responsive counter-argument... kinda. yes indeed, there is arguably a sub-genre o' fiction one can call historical fiction. no Pulitzer category or national book award category for historical fiction... is more just a bit a shorthand publishers use to better direct customers, no? that being said, is obsidian making historical fiction? no? kinda a pointless response then, but yeah, we suspect that in the extreme limited scenario in which an author o' a work claims to be creating "historical fiction," we does think some inclusion of "what is or was" is necessary. but please note that by inclusion o' the word "fiction" they is still is not writing about "what is or was." fiction, by definition is writing about that which is imaginary. and for every time you wanna mindlessly repeat "write what you know" as if it is some kinda axiom for authors, we can point to another author who is dismissive o' such nonsense. "creative writing teachers should be purged until every last instructor who uttered the words "write what you know" is confined in a labour camp. please, talented scibblers, write what you don't. the blind guy with the funny little harp composed The Iliad. how much combat do you think he saw?" but again we feels the need to repeat as it keeps getting lost by folks with short attentions spans or those who is intentional obtuse. we is not arguing against research and first-hand knowledge. personal experience may add to flavor o' writing. sadly, some writers/developers get lost in the details, particularly if they genuine believe in the "super-duper" importance of such details. HA! Good Fun! ps please recall what we said 'bout thread prunes. call folks idiot or use **** is kinda like express ticket to prunedoom. doing such stuff is like saying, "you win." we personally find such antics amusing, but mods dont and we would like to keep you on the line a bit longer.

... *add jaw-drop here* interplay were in the business of making money. they had Shareholders. maybe you is thinking of non-profits and not art. a non-profit corporation Cannot issue stock. ea, ubisoft, square... has all made Loads of money off games over the years. and am not sure how you makes xbox parallel to software developers.... but am glad you brought up. ceo o' microsoft is stepping down. since ballmer took over as ceo, microsoft saw estimated net worth go from 600 billion to 300 billion. so no doubt that means all software/tech is a crap shoot and shareholders is stoopid for wanting to see better return than mutual funds. dumb stockholders. you bring up movies, no? Disney made $5.7 billion in profits last year. PROFIT. ... am genuine flabbergasted. HA! Good Fun!

the whole thing were largely inane, and as we said, the wacky reply/quote attempt made it largely nonsensical as you weren't actually responding to us. you realize how absolutely ridiculous it gets if Gromnir were to actual respond to each o' your silly reply/quote responses? not gonna do it. dont want us to respond to inane parts? advice: don't write/post/say inane. duh. back on topic. real world knowledge can be helpful where developer can add details to make more compelling or evocative, but actual real world knowledge necessary is often very small to nil. write what you know? we got a reply: "nothing can be more limiting to the imagination than only writing about what you know" write about what is or was? that is what journalists and/or historians is paid to do. writer of fiction... or developer of a game with a fantasy setting? seriously? HA! Good Fun!

gotta love these nonsensical responses wherein we get replies to snippets. is honest difficult to decipher in quote form. what the heck, we pointed out that 'cause the initial poster were relying on anecdotal, we would use in response... but no doubt your parsing prevented you form realizing. ... *chuckle* your Shakespeare response is classic though. who cares what he had access to? Harold Bloom: mr. Shakespeare's, "Julius Ceasar" was a travesty of a play, filled with historical inaccuracies and outright fabrications. to call any of his dramatic works "histories" is a vulgar misrepresentation. pundit: professor, you do realize that William Shakespeare, a man with only a public school grammar level education wrote his play around 1600? Harold Bloom: really? gosh. well then, i revise my opinion as follows: that Shakespeare chap was clearly the greatest writer of dramatic prose to ever put pen to paper... HA! Good Fun!

keep in mind that we is talking a 1999-2000 pc game. uncle fergie pointed out that planescape did, eventually, make it into the black. and you didnt need to sell 1 million copies back then to be a win. Relative sales numbers for ps:t ended up being better than some is suggesting. however, from point-of-view of the publisher, 1st 2 quarters sales numbers is most important... and a slow trickle over years is not helping. there just ain't much argument in support o' planescape being anything other than a commercial loss for interplay. takes a couple years to break even? that is a failure-- if you coulda' taken development money and put into mutual funds and seen better return over a handful o' years, you is not looking good on quarterly reports. all o' which is kinda off-topic, as we predicted would happen. planescape, whatever its Many flaws, had some admirable storytelling and memorable characters. good writing is not what killed planescape. HA! Good Fun!

For calling out others' straw man arguments, you seem quite prone to them yourself. No one is arguing that settings must be realistic, but rather that an understanding of the causal processes that have shaped the real world can help to create a believable and convincing fictional setting. If nothing else, this is because the real world is the only guide we have to go on when it comes to inventing sensible and internally consistent scenarios. Our psychology is simply inseparable from the world we live in, and even if we actively tried not to base our creations off of reality we would fail miserably. If you don't understand some of the nuance surrounding real world "rules", you may find yourself inadvertently breaking a different rule entirely, and bad things happen when a creator doesn't know which rules govern their creation (especially when you put that creation in someone else's hands). *sigh* bad saur... bad. poster above said, " I can't believe I'm actually seeing people argue that researching a topic before writing about it is a bad thing. " we never claimed that josh or some other poster argued specifically that reality should be a goal (although that happens more than a bit in threads such as these...and note how many times josh refers to "real-world" or "realistic" in video). we did say that he misses forest for trees and gets swallowed up by minutiae and details rather than making evocative. heck, listen to his discussion of character interactions. he wants believable/realistic, but his characters is typically... flat. I'm not going to say anything either way about the quality of characters written by Josh, but I will say that in my opinion really none of the RPGs I have played have had sufficiently interesting or deep characters. However, I do firmly believe that Josh's approach is the right one, and at any rate flat but believable characters are generally better than the usual alternatives (at least in my personal opinion), which consists of hyper-exceptional Ace McBadass's, generic Mary Sue's, and other exaggerated yet cliched archetypes. I guess I can't really speak for most people, but when I think of what- or who- characters should be like to be more compelling, I think of real people. will address this part specific, but only briefly as we is having this argument in another thread a bit further up the board resulting from a linky to http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2013/08/23/creating-dragon-age-party-members.aspx the vast majority of crpg characters is... cartoonish. apparently, the current scheme for developing crpg characters makes such a result almost inevitable. that being said, obsidian has a core of rather dedicated fans. is not combat mechanics of alpha protocol or kotor2 that got'em their fans neither. obsidian can/has done better. HA! Good Fun!

"Imagine a game with no story. "This is actually impossible to do." ok, we were wrong. you do wanna make absurdest argument. we once joked about the epic struggle depicted in pong, but that were all it were: a joke. "Characters are static at a certain point in the game's code." so what? from the writer's pov, static is much easier to add depth to. the point you miss about the planescape reference is that it had admirable story elements. it had depth. is nothing about the medium that prevents better storytelling elements from reaching at least ps:t levels... obviously. ps:t were well loved by many (enough to make the new planescape kickstarter project better funded than pe btw) and derided by many more. the thing is, good story elements did not necessarily make planescape a bad game. coulda' made combat better. coulda' fixed memory leak and other bugs. coulda' added elves and dwarves and longswords to makes fanbase happy without affecting story or bothering anybody save for chrisA. am not even gonna touch the "perfect ideal" bit. ... 'course now this thread becomes, "Why Ps:T failed" or didn't fail. HA! Good Fun!

For calling out others' straw man arguments, you seem quite prone to them yourself. No one is arguing that settings must be realistic, but rather that an understanding of the causal processes that have shaped the real world can help to create a believable and convincing fictional setting. If nothing else, this is because the real world is the only guide we have to go on when it comes to inventing sensible and internally consistent scenarios. Our psychology is simply inseparable from the world we live in, and even if we actively tried not to base our creations off of reality we would fail miserably. If you don't understand some of the nuance surrounding real world "rules", you may find yourself inadvertently breaking a different rule entirely, and bad things happen when a creator doesn't know which rules govern their creation (especially when you put that creation in someone else's hands). *sigh* bad saur... bad. poster above said, " I can't believe I'm actually seeing people argue that researching a topic before writing about it is a bad thing. " we never claimed that josh or some other poster argued specifically that reality should be a goal (although that happens more than a bit in threads such as these...and note how many times josh refers to "real-world" or "realistic" in video). we did say that he misses forest for trees and gets swallowed up by minutiae and details rather than making evocative. heck, listen to his discussion of character interactions. he wants believable/realistic, but his characters is typically... flat. josh is a knowledgeable guy, and we would be pleased to hear he is handling mechanics or management o' any number o games, but the more involved he seems to get with story and characters, the less we like the project. iwd2? honest hearts? part o' the problem we has with josh seems to be explained in his video. HA! Good Fun!

More than your target audience does. If one takes art and creativity as a form of teaching, even if only in abstract or non-literal terms, then it's important for the teacher to know more than the students. Like Josh said, you need to know a bit about something to have anything meaningful to say about it. If your stance is otherwise that they need not try to be meaningful, simply entertaining, then we'll just have to disagree. Star Wars is popular, sure, but it's not a very meaningful property. And I will personally be more pleased by works that have something to teach me than those that simply find me in common company for liking. 1) "more than your target audience does" is an exceedingly limited threshold. you wanna stick with such a fuzzy and limited goal? fine. clear josh is suggesting more. 2) nuts "if one takes art and creativity as a form of teaching" somebody wanna explain to tale what logic fallacy he is using? *shrug* even if we were to somehow force onto art a universal educational quality, then it necessarily would needs be quite broad. so broad in fact that it would be near meaningless. is haiku and pottery that is accepted by lay-folk and scholars alike as art that perhaps teaches something only so vague as "that is beauty as i have not seen before and my world is a better place now that i have experienced it" removed from tale's notion of art? be dismissive of star wars 'cause o' your knowing of art is, in our estimation, the height of arrogance. 3) josh is correct, and wrong yup, you gotta know a bit about something to say something meaningful 'bout it.... but josh gets hung up on stuff that aint necessarily meaningful to his audience. 'cause we stick the trappings o' the roman legion in a story, it does not mean that our "something meaningful" is the trappings o' the roman legions. and just because you know something, doesn't mean you got something meaningful to say. even more relevant in the present context, just because know a bit (or even alot) doesn't mean you got anything ENTERTAINING to say. we is talking about games-- entertainment media. one o' the best history classes we ever took were a freaking community college course we grabbed over a summer for no other reason than that we were trying to graduate a year quicker. we went to Cal and some other UC schools for undergrad, masters and jd and took history classes at all levels. we had professors who were at the pinnacle o' their profession. we has a hard time remembering most o' their names, and we has a very good memory. nope, the class we recalls most were the one taught us by some guy at a no-name JC in northern california. the guys that, for the most part, bored us to tears such that we slept through their classes and pretty much learned through independent study was Very knowledgeable. my profs, no doubt, knew a bit about history. the fact is that their knowledge didn't give them any special gift for communicating in such a way as to make the subject entertaining should be noteworthy. probable more noteworthy is we bet they all thought they were entertaining. josh gots alot to say... 4) you need not know more than student to teach them something bunk. is some students out there that will grow too old for this bit o' wisdom to be useful: people who know less than you, can teach you important lessons. HA! Good Fun!

if that is all the value you attach to story (hope that isnt the case) then there is only a little bit wrong with your pov. donkey kong had characters too. the relative importance o' gameplay in donkey kong were such that the story justifications were understandably negligible. is a continuum, no? take a similar minimalist "justification" approach to story elements would renders a game like planescape unplayable. *shrug* story elements is indeed having value as a justification, but am not thinking you were trying to make an absurdest argument. perhaps you wish to clarify... or not. HA! Good Fun!

am not recalling where we said, "absolutely all chrisA characters are 1-dimensional caricatures." ravel, and her various incarnations in obsidian games, has been compelling... which is probable why chrisA puts her in every game. (sidenote: ravel part in motb were disappointing, so not all ravel has been good) regardless, the fact that chrisA can do ravel/kreia, but still contends that the hook is most important, is all the more saddening... even if such an approach is reasonable. HA! Good Fun!

feel free to imagine an inserted eye-roll emoticon here if doing so better conveys our mixed derision and exasperation. *sigh* HA! Good Fun! ps unless you wanna get thread chopped, please add something thread-relevant to your posts. is bad form. example: arcanum, in addition to being a snooze-fest with wildly unbalanced combat mechanics, had no memorable characters.

straw man. lose two points and try again. HA! Good Fun!

platitudes and anecdotal evidence? we has used the tired saw regarding knowing before breaking. it is a good guide, but it ain't some kinda rule in and of itself. also, am thinking it is more useful for mechanics than for conceptual in any event. think i gotta have some kinda serious knowledge o' pre-columbian south american cultures to be writing an entertaining fantasy based loose on incan legends? how much do i need to know? how much Rule is there needed to knowing before breaking is ok? with his basic grammar school education, we doubt Shakespeare were doing serious historical investigations to be creating his plays. in point o' fact, we doubts anybody would use Shakes as some kinda model o' historical accuracy. what rules were he breaking? America's greatest author (north, south and central) is arguably Faulkner. am suggesting you maybe take a looksee at his education and how he approached writing process. the most popular sci-fi franchise, by far, is star wars, and there ain't no freaking serious science in that. for every kim stanley robinson you care to name (dan simmons probably don't count as hard sci-fi) there is dozens o' well-loved authors who only gots the most incidental and largely broken knowing of that which they is writing. anecdotal will not get us very far, particularly when it seems clear that the genuine scientists don't got some advantage when crafting popular or good sci-fi. we could do all-day-long the anecdotal thing as you introduced, but am not sure it would be helping. keep in mind we has said that first-hand knowledge o activities and serious scholarship may improve writing where author uses details to makes more evocative. other end of spectrum is just as true, no? ignorance can be breaking suspension o' disbelief. if a writer is so clear lacking knowledge of Real, then anybody with even a bit o' genuine knowledge will be dismissive of the writer's work... though that threshold is hardly fixed. tv cop tasting cocaine or heroin drives us nuts, but you see all the time. just 'cause Gromnir is bothered by such things clearly does not mean that the insanity o' a modern cop tasting possible evidence that amounts to an unknown substance from an unmarked package is wacky enough to ruin suspension o' disbelief for most audience. infusing knowledge/reality to make evocative = good. treating reality as a goal, in-and-of-itself = bad. josh, it seems, frequent misses forest for trees. he wanna get each branch and leaf accurate. can't possibly have birches at such latitude. birch forests can't be near as dark as described. is implausible. and if you do got birches, the forest humus would not nearly be as dark and damp as described. etc. josh spends loads o' effort trying to get flora and fauna o' his forest accurate, thinking that doing so is important. to a certain degree it is... but josh gives disproportionate weight to such stuff. he ends up with a believable forest in which we don't give a darn 'bout what happens. 2 words: honest hearts. HA! Good Fun!

games is visual media, so am understanding that appearance is important, but we always is perplexed when we hears game developers describe process o' breathing life into characters. chrisA did a piece on character creation that were revealing and disheartening, but also reasonable given the media in which he works. chrisA basically said that the most important part o' making game characters were coming up with a hook-- that one attribute or quality that would make'em memorable. for years we complained that many obsidian/chrisA characters were developed little beyond some wacky concept. a winged paladin that literally sees world in black & white? a womanizing hagspwan with mommy issues? a blind sith who talks like a horrible anime stereotype? bah. ... the thing is, as much as we thinks one-trick-pony characters is cheap, we recognize that the most successful and beloved characters is popular not 'cause o' great writing, but 'cause o' the "hook." was hk-47 a well-developed character in kotor 1? nope. nice voice acting coupled with "meatbag" shtick made hk-47 popular. fo1 dogmeat was a freaking DOG. minsc was a cartoonish parody o' Lenny from Steinbeck's novel. some o' the most well-received game characters is nothing but hook coupled with nice presentation. am wanting to be dismissive when we read articles that seem to reduce character development to what we might expect from an advertising pitch for a 30 sec tv commercial, but we can't. is becoming increasing obvious that game characters gots more similarity to geico gecko or terry tate: office linebacker than characters from literature or dramatic works. HA! Good Fun!

arcanum were a fresh and intriguing game... before we played it. were all downhill from the moment we loaded it onto hard drive. from magazine articles and board discussion, arcanum setting were something we was much looking forward to seeing realized. as a fan o' fallout, we were anticipating a game that were developed by some key fallout developers-- a big, open world with falloutesque character generation were sounding kinda fantastic. ... game were never better than when it were just so much expectation and hype. the reality were complete disappointing. HA! Good Fun!

i have nothing bad to say about tarna. coming from me, such an observation is typically a scathing condemnation. in this case it is a heartfelt approbation. tarna was a good person-- he is a good soul.

Steve Erikson .. The riddiculous cases like Jordan and in a lesser extent Martin aren't so common. Hang on there a minute, for a second I though you were implying the Erikson had a well planned series. Say it ain't so, Malekith. His series has some of the most massive continuity errors of all time! Of all time! I'd be pretty certain that both Jordan and Martin planned their series as well, sticking to the plan on the other hand... Sticking to the plan is probably one thing the game story development process does better than the book process. typically we disagree with zor, but am finding our self in his camp, so-to-speak, in this instance. Most writers we has met develop detailed outlines for their novels and series. is a very useful mental exercise. before real writing starts, the author gots a goodly notion of the who, whats, wheres, why and hows o' just about everything they is gonna put onto paper. 'course once writing starts, the author is hoping for the kinda transcendent experience o' having the characters and story write themselves. some authors will stick to their outlines, but such authors is actual a minority. build an outline, but follow the story is far more common. game development, on the other-hand... well, we cant imagine Not following the outline. gots too many other resources (and dollars) involved in crafting game to let story evolve organic. heck, got too many writers to let story develop organic. HA! Good Fun!

josh is... wrong. some o' the weakest aspects o' obsidian games is the portions in which josh gets to infuse reality such that it impacts more than mechanics. is unfortunate, but you can see the clumsy way in which josh infuses reality into games with caeser's legions in vegas, and the honest hearts expansion. reality, in and of itself, is not a valuable addition to a game, particularly story-driven games. get accurate key geographical features o' vegas into game is interesting to nobody but locals who recognize as genuine. get roman legion elements right w/o making legion characters intriguing is pointless. use reality to make evocative is a good thing, but am thinking that josh tends to get distracted by making the details match reality rather than using elements o' reality to make game more interesting. make Real is not same as making good, compelling or evocative. “In the writing state—the state of inspiration—the fictive dream springs up fully alive: the writer forgets the words he has written on the page and sees, instead, his characters moving around their rooms, hunting through cupboards, glancing irritably through their mail, setting mousetraps, loading pistols. The dream is as alive and compelling as one’s dreams at night, and when the writer writes down on paper what he has imagined, the words, however inadequate, do not distract his mind from the fictive dream but provide him with a fix on it, so that when the dream flags he can reread what he’s written and find the dream starting up again. This and nothing else is the desperately sought and tragically fragile writer’s process: in his imagination, he sees made-up people doing things—sees them clearly—and in the act of wondering what they will do next he sees what they will do next, and all this he writes down in the best, most accurate words he can find, understanding even as he writes that he may have to find better words later, and that a change in the words may mean a sharpening or deepening of the vision, the fictive dream or vision becoming more and more lucid, until reality, by comparison, seems cold, tedious, and dead.” that being said, am all in favor on real-world experience and knowledge influencing design. details o' reality may makes story or game more compelling. be able to accurate describe settings or activities with benefit o' first-hand knowledge can be adding evocative details that an audience will frequent find compelling. or not. a game, just like a story, can be too real to be compelling. aim for fictive dream and feels free to savagely eviscerate and rearrange reality. HA! Good Fun!

*chuckle* been awhile since we read case. apologies: m-16 and "machineguns" gets mentioned. regardless, you is missing forest for trees. why m-16? keep in mind that Scalia is Extreme smart. if an ambiguity exists, it exits for a reason. some others here has identified the issue that you seem incapable of recognizing. HA! Good Fun!

Those words I quoted are from Scalia's decision. And the source is from Cornell Law. Care to try again? *sigh* we said you didn't quote wiki the second time... good for you. (more bad reading on your part) unfortunately, you didn't bother to read the case. Scalia mentions m-16 specific numerous times. please read the case w/o adding your own preconceptions into the text. maybe ask self why m-16 is identified and not other weapons would help you. ... we could give you answer, but then you wouldn't learn nothing. HA! Good Fun!

what is it with you, skyrim and hyperbole silliness? no class means no-CLASS restrictions and not NO RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER. sheesh. class v. classless were discussed multiple times when ill-fated bg3 (Jefferson) and fallout 3 (Van Buren) were being developed by black isle, and if you think this is first time class v. classless has ever come up on these boards, you is nuts. josh had his input. "I don't recall making any mention of situations for Obsidian to fail, or taking or adding systems to Skyrim." Gromnir advocates classless. you respond with, "Do you want Skyrim, in which you can literally max out every single character-progression option in the game, on 6 different party members?" ... do you even read what you write? or was that just a complete non-sequitur that you felt the need to enumerate in a response to a query 'bout classless systems? we never suggested that anything be added to skyrim either. lord only knows what adding to skyrim has to do with anything in any event. HA! Good Fun!

Sincerely http://www.law.corne...0.ZO.html#25ref Yeeesssss???? He's deliberately saying that M16's and other military grade weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment because the fall under the title of "dangerous and unusual weapons". *smacks gromnir with a shotgun* Sincerely http://www.law.corne...0.ZO.html#25ref Yeeesssss???? He's deliberately saying that M16's and other military grade weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment because the fall under the title of "dangerous and unusual weapons". *smacks gromnir with a shotgun* at least you not just reprint wiki conclusions, so we won't rub nose in it, but you is still using wiki conclusions rather than making your own. again you ain't reading correct. read Full case to see how Scalia uses m-16 to identify a class o' weapons. HA! Good Fun!