Amentep

You did not. Damnit. That's a hilarious typo. Took me a minute to even recognize I did it.

I admit I'm slow to pick up game mechanics and sometimes make blindingly stupid errors.

Yeah, I never do first try on Hard unless normal has no complexity. I'm just not that awesome first time around.

Haven't tried the other dragons, I did Hinterlands at 12/13 too. I'd imagine though since you can technically get to it without opening the other areas up, it'd be weakest of the lot.

I kept reading NY as "New York" and was thinking "Oh Bruce is visiting New York for Christmas". Awkward.

Well Earth 1 you have (off the top of my head*) Kal-El (Superman) Kara Zor-El (Supergirl) All the residents of Kandor, the Bottle City (captured by Brainiac) Zod, Ursa, Jax-Ur, Non, Faora, and the remaining Phantom Zone Criminals Dev-Em Chris Kent (Zod's son) Karsta Wor-Ul *For the record I'm not carrying about pre/post-CRISIS and adding the additional earths are a headache (but honorable mention to Kal-L and Kara Zor-L, Superman and Power Girl of Earth 2)

That's actually the origin from Roman poet Ovid. The original Greek myth involved three sisters monsters*, Medusa being the only mortal one. Each were with snake hairs, boar tusks, wings, etc and could petrify at a glance (they were children of Phorcys and Ceto and counted the Graeae as sisters). By 490 BC, Medusa began being described as beautiful and deadly (a relief described her as "fair cheeked") with Ovid giving the rape origin in 8 AD. Since Medusa's head is on Athena's Aegis, the general thought is that both are adopted from another pantheon early in Greek culture at some point and may have a completely different original origin somewhere in the mists of time. *"monsters" who, in their main story with Perseus, are hidden on an island so hard to find Perseus has to steal the Graeae's eye and blackmail them to find the location; he then uses gifts from the gods to kill her in her sleep and fly away to rescue his love, so no less problematic than Ovids...

You know my original idea when John Harrison was still thought to not possibly be Khan in STID was that Harrison was from the Mirror Universe invading our universe first (rather than other way around from "Mirror, Mirror"). They could still use the Mirror Universe if they wanted to get Shatner-Kirk in the next film and he was willing to play the villain. Just say that the MU wasn't rebooted when the main ST timeline was (reasonable given that a rise of a Nero like character was rendered nigh-impossible by the damage done by the Terran Empire to Romulus and the control of the MU in the future by the Klingon-Cardashian Alliance). The resulting inbalance between the MU and regular univese timeline (no longer matching up by stardate) could lead to a catastrophe in the MU where they turn to the ruthless Kirk as the person to solve the problem (created by the regular universes reboot, hence his assault on the regular universe). Or not. There's a reason why I'm not a screenwriter.

I don' think they're attempting to lie. There isn't a spell that "heals" you unless you're knocked out (the revival spell). Most people would say that was a "resurection" type spell. Albeit I think you're technically correct.

I listened to half hour about DAI before giving up, personally.

I think all of DAI's AI went into the damn bears. Sneaky little bastards coming out of nowhere to maul me in the middle of fight with bandits...

Its true; like games Hollywood could make the same money by pumping out lower budget films in the long run too. The problem is that there is a mentality in business that its better to make a $20 million film and make $70 million than to make 5 $4 million films and make $10 million on each film. This seems to exist in games as well for the "AAA" producers. It also exists for retailers who don't like budget-titles as much because they give lower profit on the sales. That said there were people making niche games all the time, they're just distributed like crap because the distribution system (excepting digital) isn't friendly to them (and digital can be a long shot to get noticed unless you get picked up by a digital platform).

Yeah, I'm not sure how we got to real world death in either scenario....

And blind devotion to the status quo continues the deaths of innocents that could easily be prevented. Wait, so not preventing a game from being made out is allowing the deaths of innocents? What?

When the lim x → ∞ = 0 happens in probablility, sure something might be possible, but the scenario is such an outlier that its near impossible to account for. Should Nobakov never been allowed to write Lolita? Should Lanzmann never been allowed to make Shoah? The problem with your theoretical hyperbole is that there are probably books and movies that already deal with the themes or incidents that you're talking about. And Japan has already put out games involving the rape of virtual minors.

Would you support a child-rape simulator? A holocaust simulator? How does saying the consumer should make their own choices imply support for any specific game content?

From the article: and How are these concerns any more legitimate that Jack Thomposon's concerns? Because this: Sounds exactly like the anti-game rhetoric of the 1990s when stores banned Night Trap from sale (after misrepresentions of what the game was about). And the correct response to retailers about concerns over "marketing adult products to children" is to get them to realize that video games aren't the sole propriety of children and to follow the ratings on games when selling and advertising video games. Not to get them to ban any video game that isn't playable by a child.

You would only be banned from australia if the country officially would not allow you in, not whethere anyone can or will take you there. Therefore you are not banned from Australia. If you were in Australia, you would not be banned from buying video games in Target Australia because you could walk in and buy them. Note that you are also not banned from buying Grand Theft Auto in Target Australia - you just can't because they don't carry the product. The product is banned from sale in the Target stores. You can't infer that. For profit organizations can and have done things against their own short/long term best interests with respect to profitability because it seemed like the "right" thing to do at the time by leaders of the business. No Target banned the sale of the game from their stores - all stock was removed and presumably in the process of being returned to the vendor. This would be different from discontinuing the item, since in that case the store would continue to stock the remaining supply but would discontinue immediately the further purchase of the item. If I'm wrong and Target Australia is just not stocking more but selling the remaining stock let me know; I'll amend my position to "Target Australia is discontinuing sales of GTAV". I know ban has a negative connotation but this mental calistinics to get around using the word is silly. If Target banned smoking in its stores would you be asking "So Target has banned themselves from smoking in Australia? Do I ban myself from smoking if I decide not to smoke?". If you go to take a standardized test calculators are banned from use. Would you ask "So ACT banned themselves from using calculators? Do I ban myself from using calculators if I decided not to use one?" Most movie chains have a ban on showing XXX films. Would you ask "So Regal Cinemas banned themselves from XXX films? Do I ban myself if I don't watch them?" Generally speaking this is true of most average people when given a choice between things they are passionate about and things they are not. Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.) -Walt Whitman Most in-store bans I've seen get quietly reversed unless there's someone really passionate about the issue. The loss in sales will eventually triumph the public relations goodwill of not carrying that "evil devil music/movie/games/book". I remember when several chain box stores wouldn't carry CDs with explicit lyrics; most ended up doing so in the end. Given the stances I've seen, a lot of game journalists seem to have decided to eschew impartiality and instead embrace activism. IMO you can't be an activist and a journalist.

By that logic, a store that isn't wheelchair-accessible is also a hotbed of censorship - after all, they keep the limited public of wheelchair-bound would-be shoppers from ever seeing anything they're selling! No that has nothing at all to do with what I was saying, particularly since what Target-Australia has done isn't censorship and I even stated as much in my post. If a store wasn't wheelchair accessible they have defacto banned the wheelchair public from patronising the store even if accidentally, which was the whole point of the ADA in terms of requiring accomodations to allow access in the US to public spaces. I'd be okay with that statment as long as you can provide evidence the games weren't selling (which would be a factual component I have no way to confirm). I can confirm "Target Australia banned the game from sale in Target Australia stores". Who said it wasn't selling? I inferred it when you indicated the profitability, in the post I quoted. Again I can't speak to sales or profitablity and whether that played a role in the decision as I have no data with regard to that.

No I didn't miss your point, it was (and is) irrelevant to my point. I never addressed that choking was/wasn't warranted because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Agreed on T3. I figure the idea is that this is Alternate Universe Reese so I can buy the different actor I think (and the different T-1000)

I think that games journalists should be allowed to have their own unique opinion with regard to this issue; I don't see any reason why they should be made to conform to any particular line of thought. That said I think most people who are "pro" gaming should get worried when retailers start taking arbitrary stands over the content of individual games (while I disagree with it, removing games from shelves that have specific ratings is, IMO, no different from a movie theater chain deciding not to send "XXX-rated" films along with the G, PG, and R films to their multiplexes.) I'm sure each games journalist has their own "feel" on the matter. RE: Censorship, technically McIntosh is correct, its not censorship - censorship edits content and then distributes the remainding approved content to the public. The described scenario is a banning, pure and simple - which keeps the public from ever seeing it (in this case the limited public of Target Australia shoppers). Well, we can, but shouldn't we then also say "Target banned [insert game whose distribution isn't profitable for them] from sale in its stores, too"? I'd be okay with that statment as long as you can provide evidence the games weren't selling (which would be a factual component I have no way to confirm). I can confirm "Target Australia banned the game from sale in Target Australia stores".

I think the term being looked for is "platonic love" not "platonic romance". Plato defined love as being two types, Vulgar love and Divine love. Vulgar love moves the person to the physical (beauty, sex, reproduction). Divine love is a love that moves a person to the spiritual. Hope this helps.

How would the police know he had existing medical conditions for that to be a consideration in whether they used a proper response to the situation? Choking someone, was not a proper response to the situation. That wasn't what aluminiumtrioxid's point was, his point was "accidently killing a dude through the compression of the chest which triggers a host of existing medical conditions"; thus my point is to question whether unknown pre-existing medical conditions can be considered at all before an action is taken by the police. Because they can't by definition; they're unknown. This does not mean that taking the action is valid (or invalid) by necessity. Just that I don't see how the pre-existing medical condition can change that validity/invalidity of the action. In essence, it was either right or wrong to choke/restrain the man or it wasn't. The medical condition couldn't have been known at the time so can't be a factor in determining the rightness or wrongness of the action.

Ban is a generic term. Ban is not specific to governments. Rather than arguing semantics, can we concede that (a) Australia has not banned the game from sale in Australia (b) Target has banned the game from sale in Target Australia stores