Gromnir

am not a huge fo fan, so take with a grain o' salt, but our firstest choice would actual be buffalo, ny. proximity to kanada could be fun, and there is at least one international recognized landmark in the vicinity. the kanada aspect o' the fallout universe is worth exploring. buffalo architecture, as a whole, is pretty darn amazing, given the relative size and age o' the city. additionally, many o' the better known buffalo buildings is heavily art deco influenced which is perfect for fallout. furthermore, lake erie were once so polluted that it caught on fire, which could makes for interesting game material, no? burning lakes and a nuclear winter? chicago is an obvious personal favorite city for Gromnir, and we thinks it would be an excellent locale, but is maybe too obvious... and is not as close to kanada as is buffalo. HA! Good Fun!

we can easily imagine a chrisA finding nemo. the ellen degeneres character would be mad 'stead o' funny/loopy... lots o' similarities to ravel. always needs a ravel. william defoe's character would be the essential broken/brooding warrior o' the game unnecessarily spouting 5 cent existentialist philosophy. there would probable be an angel fish character, but the angel fish would be twisted or crippled in some way. etc. there would be some quasi-attempt to introduce tenuous metaphor suggesting that as one goes deeper into the crushing depths o' the ocean, one gets closer to enlightenment/light... parallel to reflection o' self/soul... very edgy. would need lots o' exposition from characters to clarify the metaphor. gameplay would be kinda whacked, but obsidian fans would marvel at the "depth" o' the characters and story. heck, an chrisA finding nemo pretty much writes itself, no? HA! Good Fun!

what on earth are you talking 'bout? modern societies does all kinda things that reject math, and thankfully so, particularly in light o' the fact that maths is far more subjective than walsh suggests. the maths would have us cut money funding stuff such as the arts and services for the disabled... would have us end any sort o' welfare monies, more than half of which goes to supporting the needs o' children. having kids starve or die o' exposure might be mathematical rational, but is not something most o' us is willing to bear. is kinda amusing that we gets to bring up dr. shockley to respond to two walsh posts that seems to have fuzzy notions o' history. william shockley, one o' the more brilliant minds o' the 20th century, used the maths to "prove" that blacks were possessing genetically deficient intellects and that society would benefit if there were government subsidized sterilizations o' peoples with IQs less than 100. the maths can be more than a little monstrous. regardless, slavishly following the maths is clear antagonistic to the principles o' a democratic society. we not got a philosopher king or a hal 9000 to tell us what is best in a democratic society. in the united states we got a constitution that is protecting some handful o' fundamental rights--- stuff like interstate travel, right to bear arms, and freedom o' speech. individual states gots their own constitutions that frequently add to a citizens list o' protected liberties. perhaps in south carolina there is a state protected liberty right that covers smoking, am not sure. nevertheless, the list o' fundamental rights that is held to be beyond the grasp o' the democratic process is few. we vote and has representatives vote. pure utilitarian is a fail if you not gots folks feeling invested in the processes and as between democracy and a tyranny of maths... HA! Good Fun!

There is no such thing as "free". The burden of every single handout in borne by the taxpayer. Now you've created a way to get high on the taxpayers dime. I don't mean to frustrate you old man. But it's a question of the maths. it isn't just maths. never was... never will be. just as our ambulance hypo suggests, the math does not decide matters. is no way you get politicians to advocate government subsidized drug use. thankfully, the maths has never been the deciding factor in stuff such as drugs, education dollars, services for the handicapped, etc. HA! Good Fun!

You won't see me arguing against a ban on smoking in public places. So, if you make up an absurd hypothetical way of going about it, then point out how absurd that solution is, that clearly means the problem has no solution, right? You've made two posts in this thread and both contain really moving stories... which are not really relevant. Loss of productivity and social security costs are a problem for sure. How about getting users to pay the difference? Clearly it's "not practical". Not practical like driving licenses, not practical like progressive taxes, not practical like trials, not practical like pretty much everything else that makes a difference between individuals. petty much all the solutions is absurd, which is why there ain't been a solution and we/society is still faced with the problem. duh. so, you make the solution. the problem isn't really up for debate: smoking costs non-smokers lots o' money. one obvious solution, albeit a crude and ineffective one, is to prohibit all smoking. you obvious don't like that one. so, you fix. *shrug* in any event, what is most absurd is for smokers, drug users, and alcoholics to bang the drum o' liberty as their collective stoopidity punishes the rest o' us. so fix-- come up with the miracle solution none of us has yet considered. that or quit your whining and deal with the absurd solutions governments invariably resort to. your liberty is admirable only so long as it don't adverse affect those around you. HA! Good Fun!

But secondhand smoke does directly affect other people. The evidence is pretty strong on that. don't forget the other costs o' smoking. dollars lost due to health care for uninsured smokers in addition to those fuzzy lost productivity estimates released by the cdc and other reputable health organizations suggest that smoking costs American taxpayers and corporations in the tens o' billions of dollars each year. most people seem to accept that required automobile insurance is necessary even if they thinks that the insurance industry is evil and corrupt. a negligent driver hits #'s car-- #'s is severe injured and needs multiple surgeries and 6 months o' rehabilitation to recover, but the negligent driver has no means to pay for damages to #'s car and his life. *shrug* such scenarios is why requisite auto insurance is pretty much accepted. however, is not practical to be requiring drug users and smokers to gets insurance for the damage they cause to those 'round 'em. am supposing that tobacco products could be taxed to the point where their social costs would be complete defrayed... $20 a pack sound kewl? unfortunate, high tax results in a great opportunity for crime too, so you gets ironic vicious cycle whereby the more you raise taxes to cover the social costs, the resultant and inevitable criminal activity from the tax more than counters the benefits o' the tax. personal stoopidity typical has a social cost. HA! Good Fun!

something sounds wrong with walsh history. first true integrated circuit were a private innovation from some guy at texas instruments, right? the first silicon chip were developed independent o' the texas instruments circuit by the folks at fairchild semiconductor... and the only reason we know any o' this is 'cause o' some research we did regarding william shockley. in any event, the early atlas icbms were developed and and operational before the first integrated circuit, and am honest not certain what were needed for guidance of early icbms... an analog computer and a couple gyroscopes such as the old v-2's used? HA! Good Fun!

ambulances. picture an ambulance that is driven in accordance with all the basic rules o' the road. gots a 7-year old girl with a gaping chest wound in back o' the vehicle, but the driver calmly waits for red light to turn green before carefully entering a busy intersection. is no flashing lights or screaming siren to announce the passage o' the ambulance and its threatened cargo. darn. is a school day so the driver reduces speed to 25 mph as he makes a pastoral glide past winston churchill elementary in sheboygan, wi. the mother o' the injured girl is riding in the back o' the ambulance. she watches as her blue-lipped daughter's labored breath slows. tiny blood-flecked bits o' foam leak from the child's nose and mouth. the girl's eyes is wide but unfocused and largely sightless--she is in too much shock to be consciously recognizing anything her eyes "see," but to her wailing mother it would appear that the girl is gripped by terror. etc. ambulances driving fast does not statistically save lives. in point o' fact, speedy emergency vehicles is responsible for a shockingly large number o' deaths each year-- the number o' lives saved by lightning-quick arrival at emergency rooms is more than countered by the number o' fatalities actual caused by emergency vehicles each year. so then, why does we continue to require that ambulances drive at dangerous speeds? HA! Good Fun!

Nah, the difference is there's an ocean in between. The fact that Americans built a wall to keep their southern neighbours out, should tell enough how they would deal with muslims. so, the US built a wall to keep southern neighbors out? HA! new mexico gots a spanish-speaking population of over 47%. california and texas is both having more than 1/3 population o' native spanish speakers. the US is the country with the second largest number o' hispanic residents in the world. no other country in the world has as many total immigrants from all countries as the United States has immigrants from Mexico alone. 11% of all living people born in mexico live in the US. if the US gots some kinda pervasive animosity directed at its southern neighbors, they gots a funny way of showing it. border protections (not a wall) is to stem the tide o' ILLEGAL immigration. duh. HA! Good Fun! The US is often divided down the middle on it's issues (not to say always) so you get both the support, understanding and bigotry, animosity. disagree. the US left and right is actual not very far apart on most issues. with only two parties, you tends to get far less polarization than in european parliamentary systems. try to explain to foreigners that there is no more conservative beast than some southern democrat Congressmen is difficult. individuals in the US may be running the gamut from support, understanding, bigotry and animosity, but our laws rare turn out that way. most laws end up as compromise measures authored by folks with largely similar ideologies. since the civil rights acts o' 1964, any kinda overt public sanctioned bigotry has declined rapidly. sure, you can finds bigots everywhere in the US, but other than handling o' relations with domestic dependent nations (recognized indian tribes,) endemic, government sanctioned bigotry is rare. between the Court enforcement o' the civil war amendments, and Congressional tendency to avoid anything that even remotely smacks o' extremism, your suggestion o' disparate treatment is... unlikely. some folks want far too much from lawmaking. there is no law or Court decision that can change the beliefs and prejudices o' people. even so, American laws is very much supportive and understanding o' all racial minorities who is LEGALLY present within its borders. HA! Good Fun!

Nah, the difference is there's an ocean in between. The fact that Americans built a wall to keep their southern neighbours out, should tell enough how they would deal with muslims. so, the US built a wall to keep southern neighbors out? HA! new mexico gots a spanish-speaking population of over 47%. california and texas is both having more than 1/3 population o' native spanish speakers. the US is the country with the second largest number o' hispanic residents in the world. no other country in the world has as many total immigrants from all countries as the United States has immigrants from Mexico alone. 11% of all living people born in mexico live in the US. if the US gots some kinda pervasive animosity directed at its southern neighbors, they gots a funny way of showing it. border protections (not a wall) is to stem the tide o' ILLEGAL immigration. duh. HA! Good Fun!

again with the fallacies. point out where we claimed that the US has not killed people who is muslims. US forces has killed far more believers o' shinto, buddha and christ than they has killed those who follow mohammed, but rare is it claimed that the US harbors some kinda animosity towards the faithful o' the aforementioned. religion has been a relative non-factor leading to most US aggression beyond its own boarders. btw, am personally offended whenever and wherever freedom o' expression is abrogated. is the raison d'

is actual kinda impressive to be seeing how many logic fallacies you can fit in a two line post. *chuckle* even so, your ridiculous statements is actual managing to be examples o' the muslim perspective/paranoia. sure, is not as if the US is bombing folks 'cause they is wearing burqas or reading the koran, but the muslims not see it that way. thanks for illustrating the point. HA! Good Fun!

well then, given that the press reviews hasn't been mixed should be more than a little surprising to walsh. heck, even Gromnir has been mild perplexed that the albeit limited number o' press reviews thus far has been disappointing. HA! Good Fun!

is hard to explain to euros that their notions o' freedom of expression and religion is seeming more than a little oppressive to the average American. even rosbjerg, who would appear to be a relative open-minded fellow, suggests that muslims should be willing to Change to fits in with the herd notion o' Acceptable. this nation's revolutionary roots, and the fact that many early Americans were escaping religious oppression themselves, has given Americans a different pov regrading personal freedoms than you sees 'mongst the peoples o' the enlightened western nations. that being said, even here in the US we has failed to recognize that for many/most muslims, religion IS their identity. their entire world-view is filtered through religion-- makes it difficult for westerners on either side o' the pond to understand the seeming endemic paranoia and stubbornness o' the average muslim. here in the US we take it for granted that if Bob, the sheet wearing klansman, and Dave, the hasidic jew, lives next door to each other, they is both having equal rights to express their pov. the fact that Bob and his fellow nutters burns crosses on weekends does not, in and of itself, deprive Dave o' any o' his religious or personal liberty. euros is frequently disturbed by American indifference to the insulting and inflammatory behavior we allows in the name o' First Amendment protections. even so, relatively speaking, Americans and the people o' most western nations ain't all that far apart on these issues. both euros and Americans looks at burqas and recognize that there is an aspect o' the traditional islamic garb that is fundamentally demeaning to women. nevertheless, here in the US we thinks it is best to leave the choice o' wearing the burqa up to the individual rather than to create legislation which would threaten religious freedom. the euro pov is understandable. after all, can a muslim woman who has been raised since birth with muslim values really makes an informed choice? is not an easy question. even in the US we has some hard choices that makes our desire to protect the free exercise o' religion very difficult. assume for a moment that the aforementioned Bob is not a klansman. in our present hypothetical, Bob is a member o' a fringe religion that forbids the use o' modern medical treatments. Bob's son suffers from a disease that is easily cured with a readily available medication. without the medication, Bob's son will die. Bob says "no" to medical treatment for his son. am suspecting that even the average freedom-loving American would pause before jumping to protect Bob's claim o' religious free-exercise. after all, it is Bob's son who is gonna die for Bob's beliefs, not Bob. shouldn't we protect Bob's son until he is old enough to make his own choice? as hard as it is for folks to accept, American courts protect Bob and would stand aside as Bob's child died seeming unnecessary. euros, and even a goodly % o' Americans, would no doubt be disturbed by the death o' Bob's son. a "pointless" death in the name o' religious freedom? again, is not that euros and Americans is so far apart philosophically, but we is far more hesitant to embrace well-intentioned paternalism if it would touch upon free exercise o' religion. muslims is... different. everything is religion. is no line drawing possible 'cause all aspects touch 'pon religion. if a preacher in florida burns a koran, then America is allowing islam to be insulted. no school prayer is clear an attack 'pon islam, regardless if is a non-denominational prohibition. depictions o' western values in popular TV shows is also an attack 'pon islam. a scantily clad female movie protagonist who speaks back to men folk in public? clearly is meant to demean islam. sounds paranoid? sure it does, but if everything is somehow 'bout religion, then the paranoia is understandable. in the US and in most western nations, it is assumed that religious and secular interests can be separated. we draws lines different in the US than they does in europe, but we still recognize that some aspects o' every day life is discreet from religion and can be legislated w/o offense to core spiritual values. is different for muslims. is not that westerners is enlightened and that muslims is backwards, but there is a fundamental, and possibly irreconcilable, difference in our perspectives regarding religion. personally we thinks euros trying to legislate burqa dress codes is offensive. even so, we recognize that our espoused notions o' egalitarian religious tolerance is even more offensive to muslims than is the burqa prohibition. kinda ironic. HA! Good Fun!

we felt compelled to google "tsundere." ... dorks. HA! Good Fun!

the genre-spoof movies typically fail with Gromnir. is only funny if you has seen the source material, and we rarely has watched the requisite number o' bad movies to be making the spoof funny. HA! Good Fun!

Despite what you've just said... (and I agree)... Do you think Bethesda could do justice to someone elses' world? I'm not so sure myself, (I'm not to impressed with FO3 as series fan) but I am impressed with their talent (and technical ability) at crafting viable open world games; and of their modeling & texturing prowess. am gonna concede from the start that we clear ain't the target audience o' bethesda games. the only bethesda game we ever finished were fo3, and is not as if that game makes our top 10 list. however, your observations pinpoint why we thinks bethesda would actual benefit from trying to "do justice to someone else's world," as 'posed to building their own. fo3 was very successful- there is no denying that point. in spite o' fo3 success, am thinking it is clear that the strength o' the game were Not the characters and quests. as hurlshot identifies, character development is hardly a bethesda strength. similarly, we thinks that their quest design is simple and largely uninspired. nevertheless, even obsidian's ceo, uncle fergie, observed that bethesda managed to capture the spirit o' fo while making palatable to gamers who were born after the reagan presidency. as hard as it is for fallout purists to accept, what made fo3 successful were bethesda's spin on the setting, regardless o' how fast-and-loose the boys from DC played with interplay's source material. as such, is precisely 'cause o' their substantial technical prowess and creative paucity that we is thinking that bethesda is best suited to trying to "do justice to someone else's world." am not trusting bethesda to come up with their own world near as much as we sees 'em being competent craftsman who can recreate and mass produce the works o' some other developer or author. unfortunately, betehsda is too successful to voluntarily put their energy and resources into building a franchise owned by somebody other than themselves. is doubtful they again do a game for which their talents is most suited. HA! Good Fun!

I actually don't think that would be a good fit. Martin's books are good because they have fantastic characters, which is really Bethesda's biggest weakness. Sure, they would recreate Westeros and let you run through it and explore, but it would be hard to capture the personalities that make it an interesting world. dunno 'bout the character focus bit as a deterrent. the setting o' martin's books is at least as important as his characters. westeros alone is a rich, detailed and vibrant locale for developing story either in books or games. add in future possibility o' essos with the free cities and dothraki (sp?) sea, and you got loads o' material on which to build. given how much effort martin has put into his setting, we would suggest that his sandbox is as inviting as were interplay's fallout locale. honestly, we cannot even recall the name o' the setting o' the oblivion games, but it were well-received 'nuff to spawn multiple bestselling games. martin's world is at least as enticing as is oblivion, no... and it not have all those silly demon-gates neither. besides which, what really kills martin's world for gaming is lack o' magic and exotic races. tell fans o' the genre that they cannot play anime-inspired dark elves with bloated bosoms and donkey ears? sacrilege! regardless, the real reason for bethesda reluctance is as follows: "We wanted to do our own world." is an understandable pov. fallout were a relative unique situation 'cause while the setting already had considerable development and a small legion o' rabid fans, there were no bishop whose ring needed to be kissed every time a bethesda developer wanted to add content. no George Lucas and star wars. no wotc/hasbro and d&d. no George R. R. Martin and song. bethesda is not a desperate indie developer looking for the next handout to be staying solvent. bethesda is big 'nuff to be wearing their own ecclesiastical jewelry. HA! Good Fun!

In the US, you'll probably want to pick up Blue mussels. Those are in season during the winter and early spring. Depending on where you live, there might be specialty fish shops with better selections. Sorry got sick. mc is correct. what tigranes identified as mussels is unlikely to be available fresh anywhere in the US. fresh blue mussels is readily available 'round the year, particularly in the northeast or northwest. mc correctly identifies the season during which they is most flavorful, but you should be able to get in summer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr5L1IGSRmQ last couple minutes offers some simple and useful purchasing tips. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr-hMSwZ0a4...feature=related part 2 offers storage tips, cooking recommendations. good luck. HA! Good Fun!

It can be cool and ridiculous. You just need to watch more Russ Meyer movies. faster, pussycat! kill! kill! we never actual saw the movie, but how can you go wrong with a title like that, eh? HA! Good Fun!

ps am looking for clarification. "Hollywood used to be cool. Like, a 1000 years ago or so. Now it's just ridiculous." clearly the thousand year mark is meant as a ha ha. however, you is suggesting that at some point in the dim past, hollywood were "cool." when? give us a frame o' reference. am just curious, cause we has a hard time recollecting an era o' hollywood film making that clearly and undeniably produced proportional less dreck than today. bad silents. bad early talkies. bad musicals (lord, there were a boat load o' bad musicals.) bad westerns, religious epics, war flicks. surf movies? *snort* bad crime dramas o' the 60's and 70's in particular. the eighties? don't even get us started on all the bad 80's films. limit yourself to the the john hughes copycats and the star wars wannabees made during the 80's and you could go mad if forced to watch all such films. was the 90's your Golden Age? doubt it. *shrug* the further we is removed from a given era o' film, the easier it is to forget/ignore all the crap that were produced during that time period. is understandable, but myopic. by the same token, we fully admit that we is hardly a movie historian. is quite possible that the 40's, or some other era, were some kinda relative Ultra-Cool period for hollywood. as old as we is, we ain't That old. dunno. seems like there has always been considerable bilge being belched forth by the hollywood machine, but no doubts somebody with actual expertise could correct us. HA! Good Fun!

You kidding me? Harrison Ford himself stated in an interview not a long time ago that C&A was a silly child movie. ...and a silly child movie is **** by default because...? ...because there's only so many silly child movies someone can take before stop watching movies altogether. Hollywood used to be cool. Like, a 1000 years ago or so. Now it's just ridiculous. am calling bs. come up with a list o' the 10 best films from 2010 and half is gonna be hollywood. another couple is gonna be from american indie film makers/producers who gots close ties with hollywood. there is a knee-jerk reaction by some to reject hollywood as producing that which is fake, plastic and homogenous. is a myopic assessment. 2010, not our favorite movie year by any stretch o' the imagination, included more than a few films we genuine enjoyed, such films as true grit, black swan, inception, rabbit hole, winter's bone, kick-a$$, despicable me, toy story 3, the town, i am love, the king's speech, the fighter, shutter island, and others. only two o' the aforementioned films is foreign, and most is hollywood. heck, our favorite documentary from last year, waiting for superman, were made and distributed by hollywood entities. is easy to dismiss hollywood 'cause it produces so much crap (the last airbender, jonah hex, transformers, etc.) but the % of crap foreign and indie films is no better, and probable worse. the thing is, hollywood produces so much more that it inevitable results in a much larger % o' the total good films in any given year. HA! Good Fun!

have never played the call of duty games, but we recently read that hans zimmer collaborated on the score for call o' duty: modern warfare 2, and stephen barton (less famous than zimmer, but respected in the industry) composed call of duty 4: modern warfare. am gonna have to listen to the respective soundtracks. HA! Good Fun!

wow. am actually kinda amazed that you were able to misrepresent us with all of your enumerated points. get points for the trifecta at least. oh, and if your feelings got hurt 'cause we suggested that some o' chrisA characters and writing is cartoony and overwritten, then we feels more than a little pity for you. we was quite happy to keep this thread limited to game content and opinions regarding writing, but if you is gonna accuse us o' character flaws simply 'cause we voice an opinion different than yours, then we suggest you disconnect from the internet and move somewhere north o' the arctic circle where you need only concern yourself with the poor table etiquette o' polar bears. grow up. really. btw, our criticisms regarding game writing were far more limited than those o' mr. sawyer. we noted that in spite o' the fact that chrisA indulges in the maudlin introspection and cheap exposition from time to time, he has also written our favorite game and our favorite crpg character. josh, on the other hand, suggested that the entire class o' crpg gamers is having very low standards for writing, and that writing in the genre is similarly low as a result. HA! Good Fun! ps what about the god/dog character suggested to you that he were schizophrenic? perhaps we missed something. we saw no signs o' schizophrenic behavior. god did not actual think he were god, and we don't recall hallucinations. also, it were suggested that the split in the god/dog personalities were the result o' trauma. schizophrenia is not resulting from trauma.

fair enough. your contrast 'tween the public awareness o' brown and eco were a bit misleading, but am comprehending and largely agreeing with your point. if the average gamer is not only satisfied, but happy with pap, then why invest in more substantial fare, yes? perhaps chrisA has stumbled onto a viable formula to meet low standard josh's attributes to the crpg gaming buyer. no doubt it is far more economic for obsidian writers to focus on character concept as 'posed to character development if concept alone suffice. however, one wonders how developers and publishers measure the degree to which quality writing helped the sales o' a game. having observed some o' the bizarre conclusions bioware reached via their data mining efforts, we suspect that there is far more art than science involved in the measuring o' a game's attributes both fair and foul. HA! Good Fun!