Amentep

I took it to mean that if you see in D&D someone has an 18 STR is stronger than someone who has a 10 STR and that carries through to higher carry weight, greater damage, ability to use weapons that rely on STR attribute like a compound bow. The actual numerical values and percentages are never obvious (if I asked what benefit is there to a 17 con vs a 16 con in PoE, could you tell me without looking it up? I couldn't beyond "17 con will have more Fortitude and Endurance") Might being an abstracted quality can create confusion since it means a damage increase to physical, ranged, magical, mental and divine attacks, which seems to be pretty straightforward, Might isn't talking about a physical quality but 'soul power'... ...except then you have Dexterity and Constitution which clearly are physical attributes so the natural question becomes how strong is my 18 MIGHT wizard? And while it doesn't bother me much, I can understand where people find a disconnect with might (and it was there from the early days of PoE1 development).

I think its also fair to point out that PoE doesn't use the idea of physical strength like the BG games do - ie there's no weight limit, only an item number limit and anything goes in the deep stash. I know it was mentioned when PoE was in development, but "might" could possibly have been a poor descriptor, as it represented more of a general potency than it did physical power. Actually I'd argue the critical path doesn't avoid it, its just that there are usually multiple obstacles with multiple solutions that create an illusion that the critical path is not a typical quest. But it is, just odds are it'll be the most complex and multi-staged one. I think collection and combat quests are the most typical simply because they play towards two systems usually present in RPGs - some kind of inventory/equipment system and some kind of combat system. As the player will naturally interface with both throughout the course of the game. the natural inclination is to favor these systems in quest design either through focusing on one (kill the raiders, find the loyhargil) or some combo of both (like collecting herbs to make potions to increase potency in combat).

Well, the lore was what I was more referring to. I think in the case of race though, they gave everyone a deadline to enter by, but I think it'd have been hard to go to backers and say - "well godlikes are supposed to be rare, and if we allow you to use godlike as your race we'll go over 5% NPC backers being godlike...so you need to pick another race". Have to concur. It would have been nice to see the explanation in game, however, sometimes from an RP perspective things that are "taken for granted" shouldn't be lore dumped on you. That kind of info had no real impact on the game itself, so blatantly in your face explaining it isn't really "required". Let the player make some cognitive leaps on their own, it gets them more invested. I don't think a lore dump would have been necessary. Something like Ninjamestari's suggested dialogue line could have been enough. Although perhaps there could have also been more that could have been done without being a lore dump. A group that is resentful of godlikes because they're above the tragedy and because they're coming in and taking jobs. Some charlatan godlikes trying to work a con on some religious types. Some death godlikes who can't find work and have taken to frighting people out of their cash. Any of those kinds of things could have built on both the godlikes role in society and also why there were so many in the area without necessarily needing to lore dump things.

Your right. Not sure where I got 2013 from.

Wasn't there a pretty big gap between Morrowind and Oblivion? Anyways, ESO is still going strong and churning out new content, so clearly they are still invested in the property. Oblivion and Skryim had a 7 year gap (2006 to 2013); Skyrim and ES6 if it comes out in 2019 with have a 6 year gap. Daggerfall and Morrowind (1996 to 2002) also had a 6 year gap. Seems to me Daggerfall (2 years from Arena) and Oblivion (4 years from Morrowind) are the exceptions in the series. (Battlespire and Redguard I'm not counting as part of the main line).

Please discuss and debate each others arguments and not each other.

Sounds like you should've been on the dev team ^^ Thanks for the compliment, but I'd probably have overall made things worse. That's fascinating. Weren't the backer npcs currated though? I feel like they had certain archetypes that they were written as. The Godlike often seemed to be passer-throughs, with no real place to call a home aside from the frontiers and trade routes. They were curated to make sure they fit the lore. I don't think anyone curated backer NPCs regarding their race.

That rationalization could work if it was presented by the game and not a player on the forums. Makes it kinda sad, considering that all it would've taken to preserve the integrity of immersion was an NPC commenting on the number of Godlikes the offer for land had attracted, and a little speculation on how "I guess the whole legacy business doesn't concern them, seeing how they're not able to get kids in the first place". I don't disagree such an explanation should be in the game. That said, since an explanation came to me and the game didn't contradict it, I personally didn't have an issue with this aspect of the game. But totally understand that it was an issue for others.

Perhaps you should go back to school so you can learn to use terms like "high probability" in a proper context. A wizard with 18 might and 18 perception does better damage than wizard with 12/12. I really don't appreciate your dishonest arguments. No one every was arguing this but you. So i dont why you keep saying this stuff. If you go back, this line of inquiry started due to an assertion about Aloth being less-optimal as DPS vs control wizard based on stats made against an argument that he was as good a DPS as anyone else in the party, which is where the 12/12 & 18/18 example comes from. Ultimately I'm not sure arguing a normal distribution really gets anyone anywhere. If you follow the system, the statistics tells us that a 12 perception 12 might wizard will deal less damage than the one with 18 in both on average. The formulas will provide a range and if the RNG is truly random that range will provide a normal distribution which, when compared, will have the normal distribution shifted higher on the 18 character when compared to the 12 one. This again assumes the RNG is indeed random. The problem is I think that while the argument made was statistical ('Aloth is just as good at DPS'), I think the argument on hand wasn't about statistics, but about whether the character was "good" or not. Or to put it another way, I think the problem lies in an argument about whether being less optimized for a specific role is a value judgement about that character in that role. If Aloth's DPS is the same as my rogue's DPS, then my rogue - like Aloth - isn't built in a way that maximizes the characters for a DPS role. That to me doesn't mean the character is bad (unless your goal was to build a high DPS rogue). Given the make-up of the party, the difficulty setting, etc., the character may actually be quite serviceable and fulfill a role within the party. So that Aloth is less-optimal in a role doesn't mean that he couldn't have utility in that role relative to the party. Further there's the question of whether the ability to create less viable builds is inherently a problem within the system. I'd argue that its a natural consequence of trying to build characters to not have dump stats. If the effort is to devalue min-maxing, then the value is going to be either towards jack-of-all-trades where the skills show limited variance or building a character towards a specific goal in mind and applying the stats in ways that will least penalize that role.

I took it that the plethora of godlike in the first game (even though I think its a factor of the fan made npcs) was due to the offer of land and/or work that brought the PC to the area. Given that godlikes can't have children, the area experiencing an epidemic of hollowborn children wouldn't be an issue of concern for them, so there would be less reason for godlikes to not take the opportunity if they needed it. In turn that could lead to more godlikes in the area than would be normally seen.

Probably. And yet I can't feel that video games are mirroring modern movies - studios set tent poles years in advance and will rush out films to meet the tent pole date.

Have the CIA secretly publish a book through Amazon create space called "A Dummies Guide to Killing all Infidels"?

I can see what you're saying. Social commentary can often work as an underpinning to allegorical storytelling. I don't dislike SR4, but I didn't like it like I did SR2 and SR3. To the point I never tried any of the downloadable content for it. EDIT: I will say SR4 also disappointed me by changing the voice actors for the Boss.

I get that a lot of Bioware fans are fans of character stories. Within that context I think they feel cheated if their choice (in this case a gender choice) in character creation provides them with demonstrably less options to pursue character stories. I'm more of the feeling that they should work with the characters as they are created rather than conform to a specific numerical metric but perhaps the change is additive (adding options for Scott) rather than revisionist (changing existing options for Sara to also go for Scott if they weren't planned to be that way from the beginning). The lore also said that the weapons practically never run out of ammo and only the heat sinks need changing. Incidentally, they do have tech which allows for nearly unlimited use of guns via the overheating mechanic, which would actually make a lot of sense to use for teams in Andromeda galaxy - but ... Nah. I don't disagree with you that it'd have been easier to just use the ME1 mechanic. But I do think they give an in-game handwave....

Weirdly enough, I found this to be one of the more gratifying things about SR2. Often I think stories that deal with violence dwell only on the darker aspects of the story. But real life will have ups and down - moments of tragedy and moments of the absurd. SR2 better than 3 & 4 walks that line. My favorite sequence in SR2 was the Boss being kidnapped by the Sons of Samadi leader and being drugged. It was harrowing to play and funnily absurd at the same time. Yes the Boss is a criminal badass. And still I felt very conflicted about the trunk sequence - it was a horrible thing, but from a story perspective it was such an appropriate response for the character. It was cathartic to get it to work and yet it was awful too - a nice story moment to challenge the player's perception and greatly appreciated by me. I think SR4 forgets to ground itself in real emotion and resonates less for it. It also doesn't have a charming scene like SR3 between Pierce and the Boss singing 'What I Got" that is such a great character moment which pretty much made that game for me.

I think the only thing I'm far enough along was to experience a save game issue where it wouldn't load. Never change, BioWare. To be fair, the discrepancy between Scott and Sarah has been pointed out by fans (whether it matters or not) and since we don't know what their solution is I can't say if its a good or bad thing they're addressing it. But I can say they're listening to the fans and trying to improve the game based on feedback. I'm reluctant to see that as a 'bad thing'. Isn't there a message that says "re-purposing for use" or something when you pick up alien tech for your guns? Since Mass Effect guns propel grain size projectiles off of a metal brick with a mini-ME generator and/or use a heat sink to keep firing due to the heat generated in the process, I took it that you found a scrap of metal close enough to the size, density and whatever other characteristics necessary necessary to make slugs from or to use as heat sinks. Seems a reasonable handwave to me, given the lore.

I love the Saints Row games as well - specifically the 2nd and 3rd games. I think Agents Of Mayhem is a spin-off if I remember correctly. From one of the "Gat out of Hell" endings, I believe. But still it doesn't seem to have that same something that made SR2 & 3 such favorites. Didn't like IV as much, so maybe its continuing that vibe, but I really expected to be more excited after I watched the trailer than I was before I started. And I wasn't.

Hmm, I'm a big fan of the Saints Row series, but the new trailer for Agents of Mayhem trailer just seems kinda...meh. I know its a different franchise, but the basic idea I was excited about but...I dunno now.

The likelihood of a licensed DnD game being kickstartered has to be fairly low, I think.

Basically, in the US Israel has a very strong lobby due to a few factors, one of them being evangelical religious zealots being commanded to support Israel in the christian bible. Evangelicals are a huge voting base for the republican party, so republicans cater to Israel. At the same time, the democratic party has a lot of wealthy Zionist donors, so Israel gets catered to by the Democrats as well. This creates the illusion that Jews control more than they really do. What is a product of happenstance is taken as conspiracy. If you want to understand the source of this aspect of conspiracy theory, you may want to read about the Russian text, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (1903). As I understand it, that book purports to represent plans by Zionist groups to take over banking institutions so they can control governments and newspapers with the end aim of creating a one-world Jewish state. It was mostly derived from re-writing Joly's satire Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, adding in Herl's The Jewish State and parts of Goedsche's Biarritz and is therefore not a real document but a fiction. And while it has been debunked periodically, part of the conspiracy alludes to collusion between banks (run by Jews according to the Protocols) and newspapers (either run by Jews or beholden to banks) and thus for full on believers any debunking is naturally repudiated because the source is considered suspect. While its use in the west had waned since WWII (but is still referenced in the Middle East), it has gained additional spread through the Internet leading to its rise in conspiracy theory again.

The film more or less squeaked out in the US. I seem to recall reading about it in 1997, but it didn't come out until 1999 (and then presumably only because that was when Universal's Mummy reboot opened). But it was definitely in the can by March 1998 when it first premiered at a film festival in Belgium. Supposedly it test screened badly, hence the edits to the US version. Having never seen the longer version (but heard its a stronger film) I can't help but wonder if in reality the distributor really just wanted a cut around 90 minutes to maximize showtimes. Which was pointless because, as I recall in the US at least - it didn't see a release until August 1999 when it premiered on VHS where running time wasn't important. It was directed by Russell "Highlander" Mulcahy and hearkens back more to Hammer's Mummy films (which each featured a different Mummy) than those of Universal (a point underscored by the inclusion of Lee, I think). It was for me - an admitted fan of the Mummy Film sub-genre - a frustrating experience. Kudos for trying something different, but the film (at least in the US cut) never felt satisfactory in its story. I haven't seen it since August 1999 (on VHS), and its on my list of films to try and re-watch. Its a pity the longer version isn't available in the US as I'd like to see it and compare to the US version.

Ono no Komachi? Lady Ise? They're the only two of the Thirty-Six Immortals of Poetry that I can remember, but both pre-date the Magna Carta. In fact I think most of the Thirty-Six Immorals of Poetry female list (that Komachi and Ise are both on as well) all predate it - are you sure they've gotten up to the Magna Carta yet in her class? I'm assuming its a World History class (or else its a World Humanities class, which would make more sense to be bringing in Japanese poets), so James Madison wouldn't necessarily be covered though.

His dad - actor Robert Earl Jones - lived to 96. Longevity is probably in his genetics. But lets be honest, James Earl Jones (who is now 86) was only 57 when the original Coming to America came out - that's not really old anymore.

I agree for the most part - other than I think video games will always have some filler content (ie simple quests) because they can't be as naturally reactive as PnP RPGs can. To use BG as an example, the fetch quest in Candlekeep to buy some bolts forces the player to interact with a merchant and also doles out much needed XP so there is a systemic place for it. Such a simple quest can serve a real purpose at the beginning of the game. But I think this discussion has hit at the core of the problem - its less about fetch quests and more about simple quest design and particularly as I see it simple quests that persists well beyond the beginning of the game when their use in orienting the player to the game's system is long past.

As I understand it, all S.J.Res. 34 does is disapprove the rule "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services." That FCC rule tried to argue that ISP were in a different class to providers of services (ie that COMCAST and GOOGLE were inherently different). The kind of protections that were afforded by the rule was more along the lines of "a broadband provider can't deny you broadband if you don't agree to us selling your data" and "a broadband provider can't sell your data without you first agreeing to your data being sold". There was no such provision that non-ISPs, like Facebook, couldn't sell your data, because as non-ISPs the non-ability to use their service didn't necessarily remove you from the flow of information. That said, as has been pointed out since "Protecting" hadn't been implemented, technically no one lost any protections they didn't already have. I can't tell if the Privacy of Customer Information (section 702) of the FCC's "Telecommunications Act of 1996" is what protects some information or not (they at several points say "telecommunication services" includes "information services" in other sections but not in 702); I have read that some data mining is protected only by the particular ISP's internal policies. Oh I'd agree as well, I believe even police officers are trained to aim for the chest. You only mess around with trick shots in the movies. To be fair, I think most media outside a few particular characters (like the Lone Ranger) didn't intentionally go for trick shots either.