Gromnir

as crazy as is the darkspawn armour, we is more likely to endure such stuff than we is to stomach the concept art o' the female character with the armoured stripper boots. am hopeful that such anime-influenced wh0re art does not represent the new art direction for da2 female models. giant weapons and impossible armours is bad enough, but even aribeth's reveal-o'-armour didn't include stiletto heels. Dragon Age 2: Taking Back Gomorrah HA! Good Fun!

It's good way to cut costs and at the same time admit the fact that multiple races have nearly always failed in one way or the other. Even in Dragon Age, Bioware wasted huge amount of resources on origin stories. Those stories only made slight difference outside the starting area and race / class "home" location. Bioware got huge amounts of negative feedback because players felt that their origin story was ignored. They were right of course for the most part, but in the end it all comes down to the available resources. Bioware chose the most cost effective way for Dragon Age 2. if you weren't gonna have separate origins, you probable ain't saving big money anyhow, is you? a few oblique references tossed into the game making reference to the player's race probable ain't gonna be a huge expense. da uses 3d models and meshes, and you is still gonna have dwarf and elf models. am admittedly very unlearned regarding the costs to create such models and how much extra effort goes into pc models... is not like oldie days 2d sprites where every variation o' armour and weapon combo gotta be drawn complete new, but am s'posing there is some cost... but how much. at first blush, this would appear to us to be a story-driven limitation... and am thinking that if is important to keep human for sake of story, then we is disappointed 'cause it means that the da2 pc is gonna be far more static than the da:o protagonist. is a cheap crutch to makes player care 'bout story. HA! Good Fun!

'cause that is what you is willing to pay? when the dealers/pushers/publishers set prices for their product, am doubting that their cost to bring to the junkie/user/consumer is the main factor they is considering. a few years ago an obsidian developer indicated that production and distribution accounted for more than 1/2 of game cost to publisher. remove these costs will eventually be a boon to indie developers as they attempt to compete with the publishing giants... we may eventual see some creative game developers who take big risks in hopes o' a big payoff. even so, am increasing dubious that you will see a price drop, particularly as the few Win games from publishers has gotta subsidize their considerable number o' Loser games. HA! Good Fun!

"2. Hawke is human." what a shame. is not a huge detail (edit: is not a huge detail from a practical gameplay aspect) but is still unfortunate to see player limited in this way. HA! Good Fun!

That's what I hated the most about the game. You couldn't even send a rogue ahead to scout like in an Infinity Engine game because you would just trigger an enemy spawn or scripted enemy behaviour. to be fair, many/most encounters did not result in a scripted warping of your party into danger if a stealthed rogue were being utilized to scout ahead. even so, there were more than a handful o' such encounters, and after the first couple times you were getting screwed by the triggers, you probably gave up on the scouting. bad design from bio. HA! Good Fun!

Heresy like this needs to be expunged with sword and flame. *chuckle* when we says "one o' the most common complaints" we is actual understating. top 2... easy. again, is not a matter of getting off the pot. they is trying to do what you ask... they is trying to make it "just right." doing what you ask is the core of the problem, 'cause there is no "just right" that will work for everybody or even most. "just right" is illusive and personal and varies a great deal, but bio insists on trying to find the perfect medium... which leaves everybody mildly dissatisfied. HA! Good Fun!

Of course the gangs didn't all go away. They looked for alternative outlets, just as the anti-prohibition agencies did. Both found narcotics. well, no. see, the point o' our bringing up atu is that it were little more than a department and name change. prohibition ends, but the same folks is still making and distributing illegal liquor, and the same law enforcement personnel were trying to apprehend. liquor were no longer illegal, but smuggling and brewing to avoid taxes resulted in sorta a business-as-usual for folks on both sides o' the legal/criminal fence. without the tacit public support for the criminals, the open and rampant lawlessness decreased, but the mobs were able to continue making money doing the same stuff they had been doing during prohibition. again, Gromnir is in favor o' legalizing, but is not a clear no-lose situation as some suggest, and it won't result in some kinda sudden disappearance o' all (most) weed related crime and prosecutions. HA! Good Fun!

is it? following bg (the original,) one o' the most common complaints voiced on the boards were regarding the mindless mowing of largely empty maps. durlag's tower, from the totsc expansion, became the oft identified alternative to tedious bg1 map exploration. following bg2, fans lamented the lack o' exploration. ... go to codex or nma and listen to what the fo fans describe as Proper. listen to the feedback on the da boards. spend 15 minutes reading fo:nv posts on these boards. dunno, "just right" were very different for momma, poppa and baby bear, no? finding a good balance is probably very elusive goal for developers. HA! Good Fun!

Kids these days are marvelously uncreative. am understanding that you were not intending to broach a serious issue, but we will respond as it applies to da2... and other games being developed. to continue, Gromnir does not recognize a decrease in child creativity compared to when we were young. however, we can fully understand why it would appear that kiddies lack the creativity o' the previous generation. children, and young adults, got similar creativity as folks from our generation, but kids nowadays gots a much more limited attention span. is much more difficult for kids to reveal their creativity if they can only concentrate on passive activities with brief durations. kids needs constant and active involvement or they lose focus. we recently sat in on a 11th grade english class at a local catholic high school... most students bound for UC or Ivy schools. we watched these bright kids struggle with a poetry exercise in which they were directed to develop and maintain a single image for as long as they could. 2 lines... maybe 3. the kids didn't even recognize when they had added a new image or lost hold of the original. very bright. very creative. limited focus. ... am feeling some sympathy for authors and game developers who is creating media for the new generation o' purchasers... and we suspect that gamer attention is gonna continue to shrink. developers of crpgs will be tasked with creating rich stories and characters for an audience with 0 patience. HA! Good Fun! tl;dr Also, I agree with Wrath-- the linked 'voiced PC' rant was kinda sad. One of the biggest things that DAO needed was some more personality. With a fairly cookie-cutter world, a blank slate protagonist, little in the way of plot-based mysteries, and no memorable antagonist, the game relies almost entirely on the JNPCs to hold the interest of the player in a narrative sense. Impinging on player freedom a little bit to inject some character by way of the PC is a plausible way to address this. It's not without its drawbacks, and it is perhaps not the best way to do so, but it also has some advantages. one thing we thought were true misguided 'bout the linked rant were the attempted contrast with ps:t and tno. protagonists such as revan, sheppard and tno is very much not blank slates. in spite o' the cliche amnesia shtick, they got very detailed histories and a canned raison detre. tno even had a static appearance and his voiced lines, while few and far between, were done by a single actor. tno gots far more in common with revan and sheppard than he (being a "he" is just another aspect o' the static nature o' tno) gots in common with the bhaalspawn o' the bg games or the grey warden o' da. by utilizing tno to makes the ranter's point very much crippled the rant for Gromnir as it revealed a rather fundamental and glaring misunderstanding. tno = blank slate? hardly. am personally not a fan o' the sheppard, revan, tno approach... with TNO being arguably the most restrictive example. yeah, you end up with a potentially more compelling story, but you sacrifice considerable player freedom to imagine and define their character. am tempted to makes a rant o' our own regarding the biowarian decision to leaves the ultimate antagonist of not only da:o, but also me2, ill-defined. many developers and boardies has had the misfortune o' reading Gromnir's long-winded posts regarding the importance o' villains in a crpg with necessarily vague protagonists. truth to tell, we is exhausted by such efforts, and more than a little saddened by the fact that the biowarians ignored an aspect o' interactive storytelling that should be so damned obvious. how does they make such a mistake... twice? bah. oh, and am gonna disagree with meshugger that the da dialogues were noticeably terrible. individual and collective lines o' da dialogue were written with competence and creativity... showed a good range o' intelligence, wit, and pathos. da had some excellent jnpcs that were brought to life via dialogues that revealed considerable craftsmanship. unfortunately, not all the jnpcs were fantabulous (which admittedly is a less than noteworthy criticism) and allister ended up being horrible as a non-romance-able character, al were okie dokie... save for his tedious and tearful reflections o' duncan which were wasted as they did not actual make his ultimate actions seem plausible. regardless, for the most part, we approved of bio handling o' the npcs o' da, joinable and otherwise. am conversely very critical and unconcerned regarding Epic fantasy plot. all fantasy plots is silly... especially as they is more fantastic and epic. am not gonna see us complain too much 'bout a fantasy plot, 'cause most such stuff is lame, and the larger the scope, the more ludicrous such plots necessarily become. even so, the biowarians did very little to keeps our attention focused on their plot chapters. the brood mother stuff were kinda intriguing, but is maybe ironic that the dwarf portion o' the game were the most grindy and tedious. demons and darkspawn... the demons had cliche motivations and plans, and the darkspawn were mindless. well shucks, am amazed that such adversaries produced uninspired plotlines. have been wanting to see what bio did with awakenings, but we is waiting for a patch before playing. who woulda' thunk it would take more than 4 months to release a patch? *shrug* in any event, we can see why bio might be choosing to go back to a revan/sheppard protagonist as it is an easy way to deal with some o' the flaws in da... though we has 0 notion regarding the degree to which they is adopting a static protagonist model. our concern is that the biowarians is fixing without genuine recognizing the real problems. HA! Good Fun!

Kids these days are marvelously uncreative. am understanding that you were not intending to broach a serious issue, but we will respond as it applies to da2... and other games being developed. to continue, Gromnir does not recognize a decrease in child creativity compared to when we were young. however, we can fully understand why it would appear that kiddies lack the creativity o' the previous generation. children, and young adults, got similar creativity as folks from our generation, but kids nowadays gots a much more limited attention span. is much more difficult for kids to reveal their creativity if they can only concentrate on passive activities with brief durations. kids needs constant and active involvement or they lose focus. we recently sat in on a 11th grade english class at a local catholic high school... most students bound for UC or Ivy schools. we watched these bright kids struggle with a poetry exercise in which they were directed to develop and maintain a single image for as long as they could. 2 lines... maybe 3. the kids didn't even recognize when they had added a new image or lost hold of the original. very bright. very creative. limited focus. ... am feeling some sympathy for authors and game developers who is creating media for the new generation o' purchasers... and we suspect that gamer attention is gonna continue to shrink. developers of crpgs will be tasked with creating rich stories and characters for an audience with 0 patience. HA! Good Fun!

You could be right. However, when Prohibition ended the mobs controlling black-market booze ended as well. (Yes, yes, they found other criminal activities in which to indulge... probably drugs! ) Despite the fact that liquor is and always has been taxed up the ying-yang, there still is not a significant black-market booze crime syndicate working the streets. So I'm ready to see if legalizing weed will end up with the same benefits. Couldn't hurt to try, and if things go downhill fast, what is legal can be made illegal again in a jiffy. it is true that rampant lawlessness and corruption decreased following the repeal o' prohibition, but don't think for a moment that the mobs sudden disappeared. it is maybe worth doing a search regarding the ATF and its forerunners... specifically take a looksee at the origins, activities, and failures of the ATU. also, am not certain it is so easy to put the genie back into the bottle. booze production and consumption had a long history in this nation before the Volstead; prohibition did not change American culture. drink at weddings, parties, feasts, and even mass. Volstead is one o' the many examples o' why paternalism, even with the best intentions, is a doomed approach in a democratic society (or at least that is Gromnir's pov.) regardless, it is very difficult to draw cultural parallels 'tween booze and mj as booze were, even pre-prohibition, far more accepted and acceptable than weed has ever been. Americans simply don't have enough positive history with weed. course, once you make legit... *shrug* once kids sees positive and neutral images o' their favorite actors and athletes getting wasted, we suspect weed will very rapidly become accepted by the younger generations... particularly if the activity is made to look kewl (as 'posed to the way it is currently portrayed in media as sorta a ridiculous habit for unwashed losers.) HA! Good Fun!

we noted that you "pointed out" the silliness... not that you believed the silliness. is more amusing that you recognized the problem without realizing how silly/stoopid reliance 'pon after-the-fact punishment would be. HA! Good Fun!

am thinking that the one being silly is vol. Gromnir is also wanting gaider to do more showing, 'cause we don't really believe his talking. that doesn't mean we expect gaider to show us anything before da2 release, but it does mean that we ain't gonna believe biowarian claims regarding their games as their imagination has increasingly been exceeding the actuality o' their product. the impact o' the origins didn't come close to living up gaider's personal and emphatic billing, and da darkness also were kinda cw network darkness at best. the balance o' da powhaz/talents and classes were bungled and we cannot help but wonders what were the point o' adding crap like Perfect Storm to a game. even more offensive is this talk o' da2 when we still ain't seen a patch for da:a... nearly FOUR MONTHS following its release. again, we want showings more than talking, but we doubt anybody who has lost faith in bioware's claims will be convinced by anything save for an actual play-through of da2. we enjoyed da:o, but not because it bore any kinda resemblance to the game described by the developers on their message boards. we liked da in spite o' the fact that it failed to deliver on many of gaider's claims. HA! Good Fun! ps when pushed for details regarding da darkness, we did finally elicit a response from gaider that were very telling... we were told that da:o would be "dark, but not too dark." such a statement made it very obvious to us that da would only be incrementally darker than any previous title, as gaider's statement were delivered to reassure fans who were reluctant to embrace a dark fantasy game. "dark, but not too dark" made it clear to us that if bioware were actively trying to avoid alienating folks who preferred sunny and sugary-sweet cotton candy grade fantasy, there were no way they could make da very dark at all. the lesson being that if you push hard enough and gets gaider exhausted, he will be uncharacteristically honest.

I don't remember saying anything of the sort? probably the pot screwing with your stm. "Yes, punishment after the fact is not a perfect/awesome solution since then it's "too late" & there can be "miscarriages of justice". Anyone who deals with domestic violence (and other such) cases can speak to that enormous frustration." clearly you understate for effect, but even you recognized and identified the problem. but hey, Gromnir is here to help, no? HA! Good Fun!

Well, there goes alcohol too! You don't want to be a hypocrite, do you gromnir? Wait, of course you do. buckethead is really living up to his moniker today. first o' all, we has said we is in favor o' legalization, but you keep missing that point. second, we has noted that alcohol and tobacco is legalized In Spite o' their obvious societal costs. various state, fed, and local actors has tried, at one time or another, to ban alcohol and tobacco because o' the harm they cause to voluntary abusers and innocent bystanders alike. virtual every such attempt has been a failure. 'course somehow krez equates such failures as a rational for legalizing any arguably less dangerous activity? HA! am hoping that it is the pot that makes you soooooo slow. HA! Good Fun!

"With that out of the way...we have punishment laws." oddly enough, you already pointed out the silliness o' depending on such. am curious why you would bring up given how easily such an argument is dismissed. spend a few moments considering all o' the deadly eventualities that laws seemingly is written to prevent... traffic, weapon, environmental, etc. "But the issue is some feel that competitive sports, the playing field should be level." no. sorry, but you either ain't been paying attention or is simply ignorant. sports fans is concerned 'bout the level playing field stuff and the sanctity o' various records, but when these issues come before congressional hearings, more often than not the issue o' health issues and undue influence on impressionable children is the topics debated ad nauseum. "But I don't believe that because a (possibly) small percentage of weed users may be irresponsible parents/irresponsible in general, we should say no one at all can smoke weed." why not? 'cause you thinks you has Right to get high? assuming you is correct and the number o' children injured is small, if a legislator has to choose between the rights of a handful of innocents compared to a multitude o' stoners, which way do you think he is gonna choose... particularly if we is talking moral high ground stuff, eh? really, if anybody is arguing just to argue... HA! Good Fun!

"Asking someone to justify whether a law should be or shouldn't be legal via only "proven facts" is a teensy bit like asking someone to justify their spiritual belief (imo). " never did so. am suspecting you can work out the flaw in reasoning if you think it through a bit more. the list o' activities that is criminalized but arguably less dangerous than alcohol use is vast... but so what? legitimize mj legalization 'cause some other dangerous activity is not criminalized? how does the existence o' a more dangerous and non criminalized activity somehow bolster rationale for removing the prohibitions regarding weed? if you feels better, we s'pose the fallacy is probable more accurate described as ignoratio elenchi. really, the legalization o' tobacco or alcohol does not in anyway impact the pros and cons o' mj legalization. personal choice laws? is a quaint bit o' phraseology. so, given that we is talking 'bout a mind-altering drug, no doubt the State should leave up to individuals to be responsible and not let their recreational drug habits affect their work responsibilities and those persons around them, eh? am guessing that we could dispense with the fda if lc got her way... could be a good thing. and no doubt folks such as jose canseco and barry bonds would be overjoyed. personally we got no issue wit lc's preference, 'cause as we said before, we is having little issue watching folks destroy themselves... but how do you guarantee folks will only hurt themselves? lc is ok with private persons using weed in their homes... or anything else for that matter, right? coke, crack, meth, etc? *shakes head sadly* here is a little fly for lc's ointment: what if your recreational drug user has children? again, Gromnir is willing to go along with the legalization pov, but trying to convince us that the potheads got some kinda moral high ground is difficult to accept. HA! Good Fun!

am thinking that Di is a bit overly optimistic concerning the lack o' a downside. first, just 'cause mj use would be illegal for minors does not mean that weed use amongst minors will stay at current rates. given increased availability and relaxed social contempt, we expect a rise in teen and pre-teen usage... am just not certain if the increase will be significant. also, do not believe for a moment that legalization will put drug lords out of business. weed use will be taxed, and taxed heavily. vices is invariably taxed heavily. the more heavily a good/service is taxed, the more attractive you makes illegal proliferation and distribution. HA! Good Fun!

I'm pretty sure that tobacco does cause cancer, but the amount of non smokers with cancer is significant. Whatever is giving it to them puts the rest of us at significant risk and this cause isn't being addressed because cancer has become synonymous with anti-smoking. But this isn't really the topic. *groan* oddly enough, as wacky as ogrun's bassackwards reasoning would seem to be, it were a very effective defense for the tobacco industry when dealing with individual plaintiffs. now it should be understood that only the most obtuse yutz would, in 2010, argue Against the correlation 'tween cigarette smoking and various cancers. however, keep in mind that People have standing to sue in court... abstract causes do not. ... does tobacco use cause cancer? pretty tough to deny that it does... but keep in mind that hundreds o' other things may cause cancer as well. also, there is much documented evidence that Bob, and Tom, and Phil (and tens o' thousands o' lab mice) smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years and did not get cancer, so how can we says with absolute certainty that the tobacco use causes cancer, yes? cancer caused by smoking not have some particular genetic marker that distinguishes it from cancer caused by the literally hundreds o' other plausible causes o' cancer, so how does plaintiff prove that his cancer were caused by smoking? look at the numbers en masse and it is pretty much impossible to deny a correlation 'tween smoking tobacco and cancer, but look at a single individual case o' cancer and it is difficult to Prove that the cancer were caused by cigarettes. HA! Good Fun! ps to clarify on the weed issue, if Gromnir were to take a moral stance on the issue, we would be in favor o' maintaining the prohibition on recreational pot use. it is also perfectly legal for the govt. to prohibit pot use... this is still a representative democracy, no? until the law changes... *shrug* is no fundamental rights being denied to pot heads, and the notion that weed users is somehow being treated unfair in light o' legalized alcohol or tobacco use is, as already discussed, a nonsense argument. am okie dokie with legalization (if only barely) 'cause we thinks the actual cost o' criminalizing is too high... and 'cause the social cost resulting from allowing recreational pot use does not particularly affect Gromnir. the musty smelling wasteoids who will cheer pot legalization is not really our concern. as we has already noted, the one group o' persons who is particular at risk from pot use is early-teens who is still undergoing substantial cognitive/brain development. if we saw any compelling evidence that suggested that this at risk group would increase in size after legalization o' pot use we would very quickly change sides to the opponents o' legalization.

it replaces lines o' dialogue with emotes and prunes dialogue bifurcation from the player-character side of conversation, thus saving the developer from considerable writing and vo expense. huzzah. if, as a player, you is very desirous of full vo in a large game, then the dialogue wheel is a boon. sure, you sacrifice depth and breadth of writing, but as far back as the ps:t development we were aware of how resistant the average gamer were to reading many lines o' dialogue, particularly as game developers is not exactly hemingway or beckett; convey complex concepts and emotions with minimal text is a rare skill we does not expect to see from some geekling crpg writer. bioware saves player efforts by only making the gamer read a collection o' brief emotes. such a feature may, on some levels, seem patronizing, but underestimating one's audience has rarely resulted in failure. HA! Good Fun!

I do understand your point that tobacco/booze isn't weed (cats aren't dogs), & yeah, technically that's probably 'strawman', but... ... well shucks, don't sell yourself short. not only were you able to untangle, but you even admits strawman... though you inexplicably seem to rail against it. am guessing that that is ok because you admitted being illogical? lord only knows what "its fairly common" has to do with logic, reason, or strawman, so why you would continue to wanna draw parallels 'tween alcohol, tobacco and weed is perplexing. am suspecting that your unidentified reason for wishing to do so is all three substances may be able to be identified as recreational drugs. yes? that's it? *shrug* am honest curious: what Right does you believe is infringed 'pon by the prohibition of recreational weed usage? perhaps looking at the issue from a different perspective might help us understand. we is in favor o' legalization, but we is also dismissive of pothead rights... and potheads in general. our support o' legalization is lukewarm at best... so convince us to be ardent. don't bother explaining the practical benefits and drawbacks o' legalization as such things is known to us. as a student of law and a proponent o' justice, we wish to know what right you is being denied so that we might become justifiably irate in defense o' the cause. HA! Good Fun!

No, my argument is that long term study shouldn't hinder making a decision and alcohol and tobacco aren't psychedelic substances. The only reason that marijuana is illegal is because of Mexican aliens and hippies. Plus you are ignoring all the economical benefits that it could bring, this is a market that if legalized it would explode and give a much needed injection of life to the economy. ... you ain't making much sense... regardless, where does you see Gromnir ignoring economic benefits? we already said we is not opposed to legalization. nevertheless, our pov does not preclude us from exposing the weakness o' other pro legalization arguments. HA! Good Fun!

Yet cigarettes were in circulation before anyone knew the long term effects, which IMO are being exaggerated. Alcohol abuse also makes people dumber, both kill neurons. I really need to see numbers to believe that weed effect on the brain is as great as they say, plus Americans can't get any dumber otherwise their brain cavity might implode. what is with you people? the dangers o' tobacco and alcohol has 0 moral or legal relevance when considering the implications o' legalized mj. is your argument honestly that it isn't fair that pot smokers should be denied the same opportunities to legally endanger themselves? your observations is only persuasive in explaining why tobacco and alcohol should not be legal. "Well, Billy's mom lets him stay out past 6:00 PM." parents everywhere is unmoved by the traditional argument concocted by foolish kids. is less funny when adults try the same shtick. HA! Good Fun!

*chuckle* don't forget the baked goods folks. sudden increase in brownie mix sales following legalization? 'course, if general foods or kraft were heading the fight to legalize, we suspect they woulda' had more success. the reality o' the situation is that the persons advocating legalization is probable the primary reason we has seen virtual 0 progress since the 70's. with woody harrelson and krez-clones as examples o' your poster boys, you gots a serious image problem to overcome. HA! Good Fun!

there is considerable debate 'bout the long-term effects o' pot use. the only consensus we has seen regarding long-term dangers is related to early-teen users. if there is long-term physical harm from pot use for adults, it doesn't have much scientific support in spite of considerable testing. that being said, the short-term deleterious effects o' weed use is not in question. pot use does make the user... dumber... considerable impact on short-term memory and other cognitive functions. 'course, "short-term" is an inexact measure. as with so many chemicals and poisons, the impact on individuals varies greatly. short-term for bucket-head may be a few hours... or a few days. ... so why should Gromnir be bothered if people willingly wants to make themselves dumb? am all in favor o' such stuff. score a point for social darwinism, eh? HA! Good Fun!