Gromnir

another college dropout. so sad. HA! Good Fun!

And as a Dward Noble (just a different kingdom). And the Bann of Alienage as a City Elf. And probably something I'm forgetting. Still, it ain't much, but in the grand scope of things, not an issue to me. saying that the empty title "ain't much" is an understatement. hypothetical new feature for DA. the pc may find a deed in a chest... makes you owner o' The World. you literally own The World. 'course, +90% of npcs treat you the same whether you is owner or not, and there is no additional gameplay that becomes available if you becomes the world owner. dumbest feature evar? how is world owner different than how becoming king/queen is handled in DA? perhaps there is some minor appeal to vanity in being King that genuine made da a better game 'cause such a thing were added, but if it makes game better it does so in a very minor and uninspired manner. is not noteworthy or innovative. HA! Good Fun!

at the end of the game... when it doesn't make a difference and you cannot DO anything as king. is no KING/QUEEN gameplay... is NOT meaningful. HA! Good Fun!

give examples... and not simple instances o' minor dialogue changes. dwarf noble is different from dwarf commoner almost not at all. all the same major choices is available to any origin: harrowmont or bhalin. as a dwarf commoner instead of fighting a handful o' nameless carta thugs + Jarvia in the big dust town battle, one of the thugs is replaced with leske... whom you cannot have meaningful dialogue with anyways. wow. and a minor trinket bonus attached to each origin is hardly a meaningful difference. replay a +40 hour game to get a five different dialogue encounters and 1 or 2 unique equipment items? HA! is not what bio were selling pre-release... but it figures that vol would buy post release. HA! Good Fun!

*chuckle* the origins had little genuine impact post the origins, but they did require bio to expend a considerable 'mount o' resources to implement. a handful 'o slightly altered dialogue choices w/o any substantial change o' key plot points? hardly is substantial. hell, compared to the bard stronghold quest o' bg2, all the da origins were lackluster and underwhelming. our most jaded preconception o' the origins previous to playing da had us imagining that, beyond the unique origin material at the start o' the game, we might gets one or two minor and tangential side-quests for each origin. is hard to imagine that Gromnir were gross over-estimating. we ain't seeing bio do origins in da2, so it seems as if even the biowarians ain't convinced that the benefit o' the benefits were outweighed by the cost. is also a bit o' a stretch to call "innovation" when something similar were done by previous developers. sure, bio sunk far more resources into the feature, but there weren't anything genuine novel or original 'bout the da origins. in and of itself, an increase in size does not result in innovation. it ain't a criticism to point out that bio vast expanded 'pon previous origins-like features w/o showing genuine innovation. HA! Good Fun!

you is nuts. the codexians couldn't get fire department response if they set themselves ablaze and ran into a busy street. nobody beyond codex cares 'bout codex save as entertainment value. a small group o' over the top malcontents howling at the wind. is funny. the console version o' da sold better than pc... and now bio gots to release a sequel in very little time. therefore, biowarian priority is understandably shifted to consoles, and any way they can strip down and streamline da2 will aid in their efforts to make a q1 2011 deadline. many o' the announced changes and features is resource saving moves. bio will release a pc version o' da2, but it is not gonna be a long development cycle, and they is gonna cut anything they deem as nonessential so as to be making their deadline. codex forced changes? *chuckle* HA! Good Fun!

I've gotta say, that is dead wrong. I know quite a few gay couples, in pretty much every stage of their lives and relationships, and it is a big deal to every one of them that they cannot tie the knot. It is a major part of a person's life, for better or worse, and it is very messed up that an entire group is not legally allowed to take part in it. and Gromnir knows numerous homosexual couples who managed to get hitched before prop 8 came down the pike and they admit that while official marriage is extreme important from a pride and emotional pov, the actual impact on their day-to-day is minimal. if real estate hadn't tanked, that capital gains issue would be a more substantial factor for those selling & buying homes, but as it is, capital gains is less an issue today than it has been since the 80's. very important pride and emotional, but not as big for most daily stuff. HA! Good Fun!

short term backlash that lasts nearly a decade... right up until Congress begins to implement changes? that is a considerable long and violent bit o' backlash, not that we forsee anything like that in the present context, 'cause as already noted, this is mostly a symbolic right that don't serious impact the day-to-day life of most hetero or homosexuals. btw, forced judicial change is more likely to drive people who are on the fence into the intolerant camp. people don't like decisions forced upon them. HA! Good Fun!

That is inaccurate. It might fail at making the CURRENT generation better than what they are, but that does not apply to generations who have only ever known a time when gay marriage was enshrined in law as a right. fail. it ain't the judge who conveys rights. judges do not create laws. Oh you can argue that all you want. It's a different point, and one I think is pretty weak. But your original claim (as quoted) that the judge's decision won't achieve its goal (regardless of whether you support the decision) is incorrect. eh? are you responding to yourself? you sure ain't responding to Gromnir's posts. the decision will not change attitudes regarding homosexual marriage. the decision will, if anything, result in increased bigotry. however, we has mentioned in numerous posts now that this ain't like Brown... the difficulties o' implementation and enforcement is far less significant. IF this thing manages to survive (which is doubtful based on the law) we don't see same-sex marriage being killed by a resistant populace; there ain't enough resistance to begin with. but again, 'cause you clearly didn't pay attention, "a decision delivered by a Court will fail at making people better than what they is." the mere existence o' legalized same-sex marriage will not make peoples less bigoted... just as a ruling regarding desegregation did not make people less bigoted. only a fool believes that a court ruling will change the prejudices o' a populace. HA! Good Fun! To reiterate, because you missed the point again: this decision is not targeted at changing the attitudes of the current generation of bigots. If it is even aimed at changing attitudes at all as you imply (rather than simply eliminating institutional discrimination and protecting a minority from the tyranny of the masses), which I doubt, then it is aimed at preventing Americans yet to be born from becoming bigots in the first place by providing a world where the notion of homosexuals and heterosexuals having different rights under law is foreign; where the rule of law fully endorses equal rights for same-sex couples. Do I think legal judgement is necessary for homosexuals to enjoy equal rights under law? No - each generation is progressively less bigoted. But if homosexuals have to wait for the current generations of youth to replace the conservative elderly that die off before they receive equal treatment under law (or rather, distinction between heterosexual and homosexual is simply abolished), that's another decade or two away. It's simply unreasonable and unfair. talk 'bout going in circles. once again, we never suggested or implied that plaintiff success would result in some kinda no-win for homosexuals whereby they would fail to actual get marriage rights. in fact we has said the opposite numerous times, pointing out how different the prop 8 case is when compared to Brown. as for your hypothesized notion o' a less bigoted world 'cause homosexuals is given bare legal rights of marriage, you is complete naive and deluded. show proof. we has already pointed to the history o' litigation regarding race and observed that a win in Court does not change the attitudes o' the people. so, show us how the granting o' a largely symbolic right to homosexuals, particularly in light of the fact that yous is so obvious unclear on the details o' the recent decision and do not seem to realize that same-sex marriage still ain't been given the weight o' a "fundamental right" and homosexuals will not be getting no "suspect class" status, will result in some kinda paradigm shift o' attitudes related to homosexuals. utter nonsense. oh, and each generation is not progressive less bigoted. w/o court interference that is indeed the case, but Brown showed us that the Court can actually increase racial intolerance with its misguided attempts to make Americans better than they is. after Brown, kkk membership rose sharply and so did violent crimes 'gainst blacks. HA! Good Fun!

That is inaccurate. It might fail at making the CURRENT generation better than what they are, but that does not apply to generations who have only ever known a time when gay marriage was enshrined in law as a right. fail. it ain't the judge who conveys rights. judges do not create laws. Oh you can argue that all you want. It's a different point, and one I think is pretty weak. But your original claim (as quoted) that the judge's decision won't achieve its goal (regardless of whether you support the decision) is incorrect. eh? are you responding to yourself? you sure ain't responding to Gromnir's posts. the decision will not change attitudes regarding homosexual marriage. the decision will, if anything, result in increased bigotry. however, we has mentioned in numerous posts now that this ain't like Brown... the difficulties o' implementation and enforcement is far less significant. IF this thing manages to survive (which is doubtful based on the law) we don't see same-sex marriage being killed by a resistant populace; there ain't enough resistance to begin with. but again, 'cause you clearly didn't pay attention, "a decision delivered by a Court will fail at making people better than what they is." the mere existence o' legalized same-sex marriage will not make peoples less bigoted... just as a ruling regarding desegregation did not make people less bigoted. only a fool believes that a court ruling will change the prejudices o' a populace. HA! Good Fun!

That is inaccurate. It might fail at making the CURRENT generation better than what they are, but that does not apply to generations who have only ever known a time when gay marriage was enshrined in law as a right. fail. it ain't the judge who conveys rights. judges do not create laws. the only way the right exists in a multi-branch, representative democratic government such as ours is if that right is granted by the people. and even if a judge tries to conjure up a right w/o any legal support, the right is meaningless 'less the people is willing to observe. keep in mind that is not simply judges who gets caught up in misguided paternalism. prohibition is an example in which the democratic elected officials attempted to force through a law for the good o' the people, w/o actual having the support of the people. such a law is doomed to fail. you wanna make people better? use education and goodwill. use laws to force people to become better is doomed... it doesn't work. regardless, same-sex marriage ain't anywhere near same scale as is school desegregation. most folks in Sacramento do not support prop 8, so while a slim majority o' The People got prop8 passed, the elected officials is largely opposed to the law. california ain't gonna have to use the national guard to enforce gay marriage if the appellate and supreme court rules in favor o' the plaintiffs; this just ain't that big a deal... and homosexuals has been living as married couples for decades, regardless o' whether or not they is able to take advantage o' tax breaks, inter-spousal transfers, and capital gains sharing. those folks who was able to take advantage o' the California same-sex marriage court ruling previous to prop 8 passage is facing no more or less bigotry than is their peers who is living as life partners. resistance to same-sex marriage has been steadily decreasing for decades. sadly, am not so sure that will be the case next year when this becomes seen as a full blown State Rights v. Fed battle. many folks who not give a damn 'bout homosexual marriage will be fighting against Fed interloping. is ironic that we don't foresee big trouble in CA, but there will be trouble a brewing elsewhere in the nation... and the folks who will suffer unnecessary backlash will be the homosexual community. HA! Good Fun!

Mmh, even if I was particularly infatuated with the zoom after being forced to stare at the back of my character's head for three playthroughs on the PS3 (what can I say, I was bedridden for over a month), I used the full zoom only a couple of times (Branka). Still seems like a case of fixing something that wasn't broken - not on the PC, anyway. is not fixing. is streamlining. bio is trimming the "fat" from da as much as they possibly can. mike says the key aspect o' the tactical experience is free camera movement, so bio will keep that which is "key" but sacrifice the rest upon the altar o' necessity. *shrug* am gonna call bs. free camera movement as key is more bio bs. bio feels they can readily keeps free camera movement, as 'posed to a true top-down view which has a tendency to slow frame rates. 'cause it is making more sense to cut top-down to save resources, free camera movement has sudden become key. HA! Good Fun!

no matter how persuasive the argument, a decision delivered by a Court will fail at making people better than what they is. Brown arguably increased racial intolerance. The Civil Rights legislation, passed by democratically elected Congress, finally brought 'bout some positives for "the black man" you describe. regardless of their intentions, the Court did minorities no favors. Brown created a decade o' strife. conversely, amateur historians o' american jurisprudence might wanna look to the events surrounding Roberts v. Boston (1850) for inspiration and enlightenment. don't simply look to wiki, or you will fail. try and figure out what happened in Massachusetts after the State Court's decision. no judge will decrease bigotry 'gainst homosexuals. is gonna have to be The People who finally grow up and get enlightened. 'course, as we noted already, the current case does not present the Court with quite the nightmare scenario that were Brown. no complex implementation and enforcement scheme need be developed to makes same-sex marriage a reality. the fallout from this case won't be anywhere near what we saw in Brown. HA! Good Fun!

Could you cite examples, please? It is not a law, but it is cited on a document that tried to set the founding values of the new republic.That by itself makes it clear that forefathers didn't want to deprive anyone of a natural right. They are unalienable rights, self-evident and not just individual liberties. The reason you can't smoke pot (there are various reason for the legalization of drugs on the US mostly having to do with Americans not having a sense of moderation) or rob a bank is because they hurt other people, gay marriage doesn't. honestly, you folks read "pursuit of happiness" and think it conveys tangible legal rights? and as for precedent... this would be easier with westlaw, but unless you have a subscription you is outta luck. use findlaw and search same-sex marriage. should lead you to: Baker v. Nelson Jones v. Hallahan Singer v. Hara Thorton v. Timmers Matter of Estate of Cooper Dean v. District of Columbia etc. and those is some o' the specific gay marriage cases we recollect. can expand and include the cases that simply recognize that homosexuals not get no suspect class status and list would needs be tripled. most states that adopt same-sex marriage via the courts does so through application o' State Constitutional law precisely 'cause the Fed is a seeming dead end for homosexual issues. The SCOTUS has never recognized homosexuals as a suspect class, which makes equal protection claims an uphill battle for gays. Similarly, the Court does not recognize Same-Sex marriage as a fundamental right, so due process options is likewise doa. call it stupid or unfair, but the weight o' the Fed Con Law is clear against gay marriage. HA! Good Fun!

"There is no legal reason to deny same sex marriage." *groan* say you thinks that there is no good or rational reason and you at least have an argument, but say "no legal" ignores the reality that the weight o' precedent is very much against same sex marriage. HA! Good Fun!

wtf is the "tactical view"? when we play da we pretty much have camera pulled back as far as possible, particularly when combat starts. am not recalling having a specific "tactical view" setting. "On the PC, however, we are still working with the camera to keep the key elements of the tactical experience there. I was actually playtesting some new camera code when Victor found me, in fact, so I can give you the latest news on that front. "While we likely won't pull as far up as we did in DA:O, I have always felt that the key to tactical play was actually freeing your camera from the character you're controlling to issue precise orders, which is what we're tuning now. So, this means you can still maneuver the camera around the battlefield and issue orders from a remote location, just as you could in Origins." honestly, this doesn't tell me much. mike clearly has a different notion than Gromnir regarding what is "key elements" o' the tactical experience. ... show us some freaking screenshots that explain, 'cause biowarian words continue to leave us with more questions than answers. HA! Good Fun!

is not a matter of the Fed stepping in to fix problems. is the appropriateness of the judiciary stepping in and attempting to fix purely social problems. segregation is a perfect example. after the Court forced desegregation, w/o any genuine legal precedent to support their action, the result were actual increased racial tensions in the south and a reversal o' positive desegregation trends in the South. it weren't until Congress passed civil rights legislation a full decade after Brown 1 & 2 that any genuine positive desegregation were taking place. the example o' George Wallace, while anecdotal, were noteworthy as it exemplifies how many southerners reacted to Brown v. Board. g. wallace had been a moderate southern democrat who had actually been endorsed by the NAACP during his run for the governorship in 1958. wallace loses his bid to be governor and observed that, "I was outniggered by John Patterson. And I'll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again." wallace becomes a hard-line segregationist and wins the 1962 alabama gubernatorial election by a landslide: "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." ... gay marriage, thankfully, is different than segregation. the Courts didn't have effective means to enforce desegregation, and they were woeful unsuited to implementing effective plans for desegregation. gay marriage requires no such complex enforcement and implementation mechanisms. also, while some folks in CA and elsewhere is very strong opposed to gay marriage, the ca prop 8 vote were a close thing. the majority spoke when they voted for prop 8, but it weren't a particular overwhelming majority. conversely, there ain't no way in hell you is gonna see a unanimous Court rule in favor o' gay marriage. one Justice literal got off his deathbed to make sure that Brown were unanimous. is easy for us enlightened folks to sneer at our plebeian and backwards fellow californians. college educated white folks is having considerable more than 50% support o' gay marriage, regardless o' party affiliation. this is less a conservative v. liberal issue as some might think. HA! Good Fun!

according to fergie, npd accounts for approx. 1/2 total sales. dunno, all things being equal, we take the quarterly report over npd or vol... but fergie were pretty convincing when he suggested that npd were telling only half the story. as we said, we don't rely on vol. heck, vol and chris priestly were probable the only two folks we recollect as having suggested that jade empire were a big financial win. perhaps vol gets his data via priestly? were kinda funny watching as vol and sawyer argued jade empire success v. failure. HA! Good Fun! ps keep in mind that fergie's info didn't help him in his defense o' ps:t success. if ps:t npd numbers needed to be doubled, then so did virtual all other competing games. npd may not give an accurate measure o' total sales, but it is still a useful tool when trying to gauge relative success.

Why not? Probably because he refuses to read the link I've provided twice thrice. That's also a figure consistent with other available sources (NPD/ VGChartz; may be some recursion). we will always take quarterly report findings over fanfic. however, we will note that it is disturbing if npd and ea numbers is the same, 'cause point-o'-sale numbers is always less than total sales. uncle fergie once explained to us how such stuff worked when we presented him with npd numbers for ps:t. *shrug* am just saying... HA! Good Fun!

ah, I should've made it more clear: that was on my second playthrough (or third...). the first time I did it by the book and it didn't provide a challenge. anyway, in my wxperience BG2 had a lot to offer combat-wise. maybe it's a matter of approaching the game from a certain point of view. it didn't work in DA for me. can't say BG2 felt like hack n slash. DA did d&d is a more robust system than da; it had decades to develop previous to the bg's release. is understandable that d&d combat, and particularly d&d magic combat, would be more complex than da. 'course, complexity ain't always a good thing. for all the stuff bio fumbled regarding da magery, bio did forgo d&d-style resting and insta-kill spells. gets 'em a couple o' points. HA! Good Fun!

we frequently own canadians. HA! Good Fun!

so? homosexuals can become fireman and surgeons... we has seen 'em in tv shows. *shrug* HA! Good Fun! ps am certain you can come up with some good reasons why "marriage" has been narrowly defined by the courts... and please note that homosexuals is currently permitted to marry in all 50 states + American territories.

this is untrue. stoopid people are discriminated against every day when they attempts to get jobs or university admission. poor people is discriminated against when they attempt to buy cars or houses. athletically-challenged people is discriminated 'gainst at every school campus in America. ugly people is suffering discrimination and so is drug users. ... the Constitution does not view homosexuals as special; they don't get the benefits of heightened scrutiny. perhaps homosexuals deserve special protection, but please do not fool yourself into believing that homosexuals is the last remaining identifiable group that suffers discrimination, and keep in mind that discrimination ain't necessarily a bad thing. lord knows that Gromnir would rather not have a fat, stupid, and uncoordinated person trying to save us from a burning building or operating on our heart. HA! Good Fun!

I see no way that it wasn't 'ported'. you mean other then the fact that they developed different engines for the respective platforms? *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

Those are action/RPG not CRPGs. am thinking that aries using morrowind AND oblivion as separate examples is kinda funny. distinction between action and traditional crpg not seem important when there is some obvious and glaring differences 'tween those games mentioned and da. ease of combats coupled with non-existent party members and an absence o' large-scale area effect spells made a top-down pov complete unnecessary in morrowblivion. does anybody genuine want da2 combat stupefied to the level o' morroblivion? me, on the other hand, simply made combat ridiculous ez. *shrug* not matter action v. traditional. One other thing to bear in mind is that DAO sat around being converted to consoles for months after it was finished. is our understanding that the above statement is manifestly untrue. yeah, pc version o' da were complete first, but the console versions were developed parallel; there was no conversion or porting. HA! Good Fun!