Amentep

As I understand it the connection is that its Gawker Media (the owner of Kotaku and io9 amid others) that published the video (which was made in secret and published without Hogan's - or presumably his partner's - consent), so the question becomes if Kotaku is backed by a company that doesn't act ethically, how can we expect Kotaku to? This could be a spurious connection depending on reporting structure and control/lack of control between parent and subsidiaries...

So you're okay with people videotaping in secret and without consent (like they did Hogan) and subsequently releasing it to the public as long as the person involved was doing something you declare immoral? That's kind of a despicable position to take, I hope you realize. You're essentially saying that personal rights only matter for moral people and immoral people can have their rights violated because they are immoral.

The thing is that they knew enough of Rocky to make a quip about how it would be better to communicate to them in terms of more obscure directors which are lauded for their talent. So they clearly knew that Rocky as part of pop culture and they used the contrast to communicate a bit about themselves. Namely that they are pretentious twats that consume not for joy but because they want to feel superior to others. I don't think that they meant to come off that way but nature will out. BTW, if you need a good contrast of what an actual cinephile behaves like you only need to look to our own Amentep who manages to be passionate about film without being smug about it. Kudos. Thanks for the compliments.

Reminds me of Barefoot, Kentucky. Kentucky also has a "Thousandsticks" and "Topmost" amid many, many colorful placenames ("Big Bone Lick State Park")

Not that I believe the young earth theory, but logically, if an all-powerful god created the universe, then that same all-powerful god created time (it being a function of the universe), which means dating anything accurate is dependent on whether god intervened (ie god could manipulate time), which would - presumably - be impossible to detect without god intervening to say "yeah, I did it". Therefore, the earth could date to 4.5 billion years, and yet also be 6000 years old at the same time, because god intervened. I've never understood people who believe in an all powerful god fear the data of science - it seems to so devalue the ability of god who they claim to be all powerful, really. One of the interesting things to me about PoE's setup is that yes the pantheon we're introduced to are gods created by man, but while the Engwithans - we're told - could find no proof a real god (or gods) existing, it doesn't remove the idea that there's actually other gods out there that the Engwithans could never see. Yes - that is one of the most interesting parts of the PoE world. The Engwithans stopped looking and made something up. The plot twist in the sequel might involve actual gods of the world who aren't happy about the invented ones. just saw this, so apologies for a reply coming so late, but we would hate such a direction for the plot. obsidian managed to get rid o' the traditional fantasy world pantheon by making 'em human constructs. add more gods simple sends us back to proverbial square one, no? if it were Gromnir writing, we would explore the eothas death a bit more. perhaps the gods were created not so much as individuals but as a system and the system is currently broken. unfortunately, real world calamity is resulting from the failed divine system. eventual, the player gets a chance to deal with the eothas problem in a variety o' ways. fix system, effective replacing eothas with a new deity construct. another option would be to fix w/o a new eothas; make so other deities can absorb the increased load. end system, terminating the power o' the gods... which wouldn't necessarily end belief in those gods. etc. *shrug* the thing is, we don't wanna know what obsidian is gonna do. we want for obsidian to do something we do not foresee, but having reached the conclusion and looking back on the entirety o' the story, we only then realize how all the myriad pieces finally fit together and we recognize that the way obsidian did were inspired. in any event, we don't want a turtles all the way down problem by adding additional deities. HA! Good Fun! I'm not sure there is a need for an additional layer of gods; I just like the fact that they allow you to perhaps continue to have faith (if that is who your character is) even in the face of man-created Dieties either because you still believe in them or because you believe something else is better out there.

James Remar (Ajax in The Warriors) is in tonnes of films. He had a small role in RED which I watched over the weekend. He was also horribly miscast as Raiden (even moreso that Christopher Lambert).

Not sure that comparison fits; there are independent comics out there that succeed far better than some mainstream comics. So the industry is different. The move of rebadging IP characters from the Big 2 in US Comics is heavily bound to the fact that the market where comics are sold is an increasingly insular one.

Yeah I actually wrote a different scenario and I thought "you know that might work" so decided it made a terrible example shortened it to a simple shanking. Anyhow, I didn't think that Cinderella was perfect (if she was she'd have managed to circumvent a lot of the problems by having the Prince know her). I did think that her approach to being positive and forgiving tied heavily into what was established in the prologue from her mom and despite the Step-mother and the step-sisters insistance that she "wise up" and change to get what she wanted, she was ultimately vindicated in a way that says in a general sense "be yourself and you'll succeed". If she'd used the kind of behaviors her step-sisters would have it would have violated the "be true to yourself" theme, IMO.

I don't think anyone intentionally sets out to make a bad game. Its always the unintentional stuff that gets you.

While I thought CINDERELLA wasn't as strong a Live Action working of the fairy tale as some of the others have been - there certainly was room to have improved the narrative - I'm not exactly sure why making her have "worse" acts would be an improvement. Did she need to shank someone in the back to be taken seriously as a character? I just don't get it, I guess.

Even though I did the quest (because...game), I admit meeting Kolsc on the road (or tracking me down in the village) didn't exactly inspire me with a desire to support him. Seems like the Raedric quest really should have been a lot more involved than it is (and your choice is rendered moot by the game itself, in the end, as I understand it).

Nice.

Unless your basis for "merit" is "selling well", of course.

You know 1939 - the "magic" year that many point out as the "best year of Hollywood" had, from a quick glance, 37 sequels. Possibly more because I'm not as familiar with the budget westerns stars (and I'm not sure whether you count cowboy stars like Gene Autry (3 films) and Roy Rogers (1 film) where they essentially play themselves as sequels or not, as often they're a different "characters" each film or a fictional version of themselves later on) but I did count the Lone Ranger serial sequel and the 5(!) Hopalong Cassidy films of 1939.

Bethesda should contract Obsidian to do an Isometric retro-style Fallout game (Fallout: The Isometric Turn Based Game). I hear that Pillars of Eternity did pretty good tapping that nostalgia market, and a nostalgia Fallout spinoff wouldn't compete with Fallout 4 or Fallout 4: Spinoff in the sandbox 3D arena. :biggrin:

For US definition, yes if Mr. Cobblepot hates you, but not all people like you, then the crime isn't seen as an attack on all people like you, just on you. Therefore it is a crime between Cobblepot and you and not Cobblepot and the larger society.

FBI interpretation of US Congressional definition is So the government would have to prove that the accused was motivated in part by their perception of your race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation, as opposed to your pecreption of same (ie if some nut attacks a Sikh thinking he's attacking a Muslim, it doesn't make it not a hate crime because the Sikh wasn't a Muslim).

I think he's saying "why [the] majority of F1/F2 game [fans] hate Bethesda". Not sure if that's accurate, or just representing the most vocal group.

Supposedly a reporter was investigating something regarding Dolezal. Supposedly when tracked down and asked, the parents said "yeah she's our daughter, she's white, here's childhood photos". Supposedly the parents had no plans to be public about their estrangement from her until asked. That seems shaky logically to me because they could have just refused to talk to the reporter had they wanted to keep it "in the family".

Interesting perspective on the parents of Rachel Doleval: https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/the-media-is-doing-exactly-what-rachel-dolezals-abusive-homeschooling-parents-want/ Seems like the writer of that article is swapping unproven accusations and assertions of motivation about Dolezal to unproven accusations and assertions of motivation about her parents. The whole thing may be a sad commentary on a particular families breakdown, but I'm with Gromnir in that I can't see what material advantage or harm was caused by Dolezal's masquerade given that her position in the NCAAP wasn't contingent on her being a particular race. But I admit I'm not following the story terribly closely so maybe I missed something "important".

Firstly, a timer is not a railroad. A railroad is what it implies, a forced progression of A->B->C where you have no choice in the matter whatever. Gameplay wise it tends towards linear corridors or the actual rail shooter, narrative wise it's a non branching story. While the waterchip is effectively a choke point decision you have a wide range of different approaches prior to that. If you take that as a railroad then any narrated game is a railroad except ones with an emergent narrative- BG2 has a 'railroad' where you need to raise money and have to go to Spellhold even if you hate Imoen, Planetscape: Tournament you have to go after Ravel who has to die, Awesome Brotocols you have to return to the AP base at the end, Ultima But Thou Must, VTMB LaCroix forces you to obey him etc etc. None of them are actual railroad narratives though, they are just points at which the narrative meanders rejoin into the main stream; something with an actual railroad narrative would be, say, FEAR because every time you play it it has an identical, linear progression where the only choice is to progress in a predetermined manner, or stand still permanently, or quit. If the narrative forces you into a specific choice or narrative path, it railroads you. I would agree that all of your listed choices are railroads. The difference (and the reason I think Fallout 1's railroad is "bad") is the game fails if you don't follow the railroad in the time the developers set out for you to complete it. As I mentioned it is my memory that FO2 fails if you allow the village to die too soon (before their capture is triggered by you arriving in a particular point in the main quest) - if that's not the case, then I remove my objection to that particular game's narrative. But you can't get around the fact that Fallout 1 gets "game over" if you don't complete the waterchip quest in the time allowed - the game forces you to do a specific action in a specific way - you have to save the vault and you have to save it by a specific time. The argument is the timer adds verisimilitude. This maybe so (but the game is broken of verisimilitude on so many other points, it seems weird to care about this one). But it also fails to address that a player has to do specific actions by a specific time. Let me put it this way, one of the big complaints I recall reading about FO3 when it came out is that you have to care about finding your father. You can't play a character who hates their father for abandoning you and hates him for being forced to leave the vault and doesn't give a **** if he dies in the wasteland. Very similarly, in Fallout 1, you cannot play a character who doesn't give a **** about the vault that sent you out into the forbidden wasteland because the powers that be couldn't be arsed to get off their backside and solve the problem themselves. But unlike Fallout 3 where you can ignore "dear ol' dad" until you literally have nothing else to do in the Wasteland from a narrative perspective, you HAVE to solve the water problem or the game ends. Note, it is my opinion that all computer RPGs - by necessity - will railroad you. P&P RPGs are the only way to have (potentially) a RPG without narrative railroading. With games, there's a limited amount of time/space to implement, so at some point you have to engage the game in a way that the game requires you to engage it. Railroads in and of themselves aren't bad. Railroads in RPGs that will end your game if you don't do exactly what the dev wants when they want you to do it - that's bad (IMO). Railroads that don't offer an illusion of choice that seems to validate the character you've created inherently (IMO again) violate the spirit of the kind of RPG that Fallout wants to be. Not sure I agree with the distinction you're making; other than F1 and F2 having larger quest hub areas (thus having more quests and more ways to complete a quest), I don't see FO3's story as being more/less cliché than the others others (find the waterchip to save the vault, find the GECK to save the village, find dad - who incidently is working on a real-world waterchip to save the Capital Wasteland more or less mirroring FO1). I accept that an isometric world with city hubs and an overland map will probably have a higher quest density than a 3D world that features a continuous environment.

I see - it's the "despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument," bit that's the distinction for me... Sure, there are beliefs that are impossible to prove one way or the other. Whatever I might think about such a belief, I wouldn't call it a delusion. There are also beliefs that are clearly wrong but accepted by many people based on faith - such as: people who believe that the earth is 6000 years old, there was a global flood about 4500 years ago and everyone alive today is descended from the eight people who escaped on a boat, etc. I would put the latter group of beliefs firmly in the delusion category as they are contradicted by reality and rational argument. Not that I believe the young earth theory, but logically, if an all-powerful god created the universe, then that same all-powerful god created time (it being a function of the universe), which means dating anything accurate is dependent on whether god intervened (ie god could manipulate time), which would - presumably - be impossible to detect without god intervening to say "yeah, I did it". Therefore, the earth could date to 4.5 billion years, and yet also be 6000 years old at the same time, because god intervened. I've never understood people who believe in an all powerful god fear the data of science - it seems to so devalue the ability of god who they claim to be all powerful, really. One of the interesting things to me about PoE's setup is that yes the pantheon we're introduced to are gods created by man, but while the Engwithans - we're told - could find no proof a real god (or gods) existing, it doesn't remove the idea that there's actually other gods out there that the Engwithans could never see.

Yeah I haven't got to the part where Wu shows up in JP so haven't reread that speech yet.

Yeah hologram - I mean "for reals". And I knew it was in the book, but I don't remember it being explicitly mentioned in the films (mind you I read JP when it came out; I've never read TLW, so that's going to be interesting - re-reading JP first though).

I guess instead of "more right" I should have said "closer to what was in the film". And dilophasaurus' frills were also an add on, IIRC. Isn't it fan theory it was a juvenile? I'd really like to see them return, to be honest. Was surprised to see the Pachycephalosaurus make a return, to be honest. Mind you Jurassic World "fixes" the problem in a way...