Amentep

I avoid the issue by saying the rather pedestrain "I like movies".

I don't really get what the big deal is, to be honest. If I lost sleep everytime some game that looked like i'd enjoy came to some system I didn't have I'd never have slept through the 90s.

For my movie watching I viewed FREE BIRDS (2013) - I didn't have any real expectations (other than having liked Reel FX's BOOK OF LIFE in October); thought the film was fun. It takes its concept (which even it seems to admit is goofy) and just runs with it. George Takai (as the voice of S.T.E.V.E the time-travel machine) steals several scenes. THE LAST OF SHEILA (1973) - Composer and lyricist Stephen Sondheim and Anthony Perkins were both fans of puzzles, games and mysteries. They were also friends who held scavenger hunts in Manhatten for their shared film/theater friends when in town. So its not surprising the two would try their hands at writing a mystery. This is a particularly good one - a slow burn of a story that throws puzzle pieces both obvious and obscure and dares you to put together what has happened and who is the killer. Lots of 70s star power (Richard Benjamin, Dyan Cannon, Raquel Welch, Ian McShane, James Mason, James Coburn and Joan Hackett (with Yvonne Romain in a small part as the character Sheila)) and clever directing from Herbert Ross keep the subtle layers going on. One criticism of the film might be fair - that unlike other classic "drawing room" mysteries there isn't a really likeable character involved to root to solve the mystery, and yet it fits this film (which somewhat satirizes the film business on the side). Coburn in particular seems to delight in playing the game obsessed film producer who - because he's still a success - has the others at his beck and call. A day after the film was viewed I was still puzzling some of the elements - realizing I'd missed some connections WITCHCRAFT (1964) - UK Horror film starring Lon Chaney Jr. A cult brings back a witch (who was buried alive instead of burned) and trouble brews. More creepy mood than out and out fright; some scenes are quite effective but the story becomes a bit of a run around at the end. Also seems to have trouble deciding what role Chaney's niece has in the whole thing. Directed by Don Sharp who directed a few films for Hammer. KRULL (1983) - I've seen Krull numerous times, but oddly this is the first time I've ever seen it in wide-screen. To some benefit because I felt the story was better connected in its delivery while not trying to figure out what I was looking at in a pan-and-scan version. The themes that true love was the strongest thing there was makes more sense when you can see the parallels in the story (the Beast doesn't try to stop Colwyn from getting the glaive even though its a legendary weapon because the bond between him and Lyssa is more powerful which is what he focuses on breaking; Ynir and the Widow of the Web as a cautionary tale for Colwyn and Lyssa). Plus there's lasers and swordfighting.

Yes, but the Inquisitor chain don;'t look like Dragon Age, it never have such thing before, now it look like Spiderman games, or Batman I even argue about that when the PAX demo show it, but they don't listen. The only purspose of that thing is to make it look "awesome" How come the Inquisitor can throw that chain over 100 yards? Then jump like there is no gravity toward the enemy or objects, suddenly the chain just vanish. I don't think the thrown distance is actually a 100 yards; there is a distance where even if you could target the foe with a bow or magic the chain won't grab it. Also a grab can be blocked by objects (just like most direct attacks) and the pull can be interrupted too. The chain "vanishes" in the same way corpses, arrows, magical/physical destruction vanish. The game is not a chain throwing similator.

Entirely possible! I've fought my first DA:I dragon fight now, and she played a good bit like the High Dragon at the Temple or the Dragon at the mine in DAII in my opinion. Flying and fireballs or flame breath to start, lands and fights and then flys again. Landing locations were all around the "area" (three locations at least). Like the Dragon in DAII, waves of dragonlings would also attack. No Balistas or other environmental damaging elements that I found.

Dunno if this counts - "Police: Man falsely tells police he was stabbed, robbed" from: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/man-charged-after-allegedly-stabbing-himself-claim/njFwc/

*shrug* YMMV, of course. My experience with the dragons in BG2 when you find them is: You can micromanage incredible, plot and plan all of your resources, ensure how you can hit them, how you'll tear down their resistances, positioning etc. or You can go away, come back in 5 levels and kill them with all your better equipment, abilities and spells (and HP!) without a lot of planning other than making sure not everyone can be hit by an AOE at once.

(From the pretty ladies thread) ...But if we have fake people on the forum, how are the arguments real? My "slippery slope to solopsism sensor" just went off.

This from a review of Metacritic that gave the game a 5. It makes me sad. When I remember awesome Dragon fights in BG2 and ToB it makes me even more sad. Doesn't sound that different from the dragon fights in DA:O or DAII to me, though. My only experience with a dragon so far was it fireballing us all to death when we wandered into its area. I don't remember the fight vs Flemeth in DAO but vs Archdemon I spent lots of time running from Ballista to Ballista, running around with archer avoiding dragon attacks and trying to damage him as much as possible while using other 1 or 2 member to fight off waves of enemies coming all the time. It wasn't just standing there and HP grinding. Archdemon was still mob the monster, just broken up in a pattern like the DAII dragon in the mine. In this case you had to run to the ballista, in the case of DAII, the dragon had a pattern where it'd fly off to a rock where it couldn't be mobbed by the PC/NPCs every so often (and then dragonlings would come out to attack) but from a strategy perspective the vast majority of the fight is mob the dragon and throw all of your abilities at it, use the "rest" fighting the dragonlings to recoup. But my memory of the Dragon in the Temple of Sacred Ashes and Flemeth are you basically mob both and if your level is high enough and you time your resources and skills well, you'll succeed (which, to be honest, was also the BGII dragon fights, in my experience).

This from a review of Metacritic that gave the game a 5. It makes me sad. When I remember awesome Dragon fights in BG2 and ToB it makes me even more sad. Doesn't sound that different from the dragon fights in DA:O or DAII to me, though. My only experience with a dragon so far was it fireballing us all to death when we wandered into its area.

So it have stats...? Yes, Dragon Age Inquisition has stats (or "Attributes" as they're termed, IIRC). The same stats pool from the previous games (strength, dexterity, magic, cunning, willpower, constitution). Two are important to each class (Strength/Constitution for warriors, dexterity/cunning for rogues, magic/willpower for mages). Special items usually provide boosts to these. What doesn't happen (which IIRC was the case in DAII as well) you don't get ability points at level up that you choose to apply to raise your stats. Nor do you have to raise ability perks (like your thief can't unlock a lock until you choose to put a point in locks). So it is different from DA:O in this respect (but as I mentioned, more in-line with my memories of DAII). To be honest I haven't checked to see if the Abilities auto-raise at level up (I'd been assuming they did because that's my memory of DAII so never bothered to confirm). You do get points that you apply to your skill trees.

No lol. I am little confused on the comment, as if I am supposed to get something that I don't lol. I think its a reference to a Fallout: New Vegas mod - http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/47449/?

Actually I don't mind either idea, to be honest. And if nothing else, its better than the humanoid raptors with guns idea they had originally planned the next JP sequel to have before ditching that whole production attempt.

I really liked this when I was test playing an archer. But positioning and elevations also helpped as a mage - being able to get up on a high enough perch that the enemy had trouble getting to me saved my glass cannon from being a broken cannon a couple of times!

How could one possibly not realize that they were at/near the end of DA:O??! It's been a while since I played it, but isn't it communicated very clearly that the other plot threads have been wrapped up and that it's time to go kill the Archdemon? It wasn't the final fight, it was the "going to Denerim for the landsmeet" bit so not the end end, but like right at the end. So I misspoke. I restarted right after getting to Denerim so still had the Alienage and a few other quests to do.

To me this is a matter of player engagement, really. High levels of engagement with a game means high interest, multiple playthroughs, feelings persist (perhaps permanently) that the game was a benchmark for an age. Mid-range engagement with a game means completion of the game, maybe some fond memories Low engagement means game is never completed, playing it might be forgotten Negative engagement with a game means that the player has developed antagonism for the game, such that they become an advocate against it; feelings persist (perhaps permanently) that the game is a nadir of an age (possibly even feeling that it permenantly damaged gaming). I think that gamers tend to divide over whether mid-range engagement with a game is acceptable or not; some people want only the highest levels of engagement and not finding that is disapointing (and can cause negative engagement) others are okay with mid-range engagement. Or something.

Don't worry, you are in good company on that note. I don't think I've ever had a PC I didn't hate 3/4 of the way through any game. Or a game I didn't wish I had played differently 3/4 of the way through. Weirdly I usually restart a lot early in the game but am okay if I commit to it. Although I did restart Dragon Age: Origins right at the final fight (not realizing I was at the end of the game or I probably wouldn't have done that - durrr).

Blaspheme! Probably, it seems popular to hate. Don't forget to leave the Hinterlands... Yeah, it seems pretty obvious you're not supposed to do the early sections chronologically. That said, uncovering blank areas on a map was fun to me in BG1 so I probably overstayed in the HInterlands (was still fun... ) I've started a second game to test a few things (and I'm a horrible restarter). EDIT: I'm still early in the game (because of restarting and wandering the hinterlands) but I love the big line of sights; on the storm coast saw a dragon fighting a large giant creature on the opposite beach and I just watched it for awhile.

I'm early in the game, but enjoying it so far.

It hasn't made back half of what it cost to make counting worldwide sales. I think it'd be hard to justify a sequel unless it was really paired down (even beyond the cost of the first film, which still cost more in 2005 than the new film has made world-wide).

^Surprising you didn't like Robocop 3 then (unless you've never seen it) since Frank Miller legendarily claims to have turned in the same script for both movies (because they changed so much first time around).

It certainly has its flaws as a series, so I can understand that.

Supposedly alt-155 but that produces 'ø' when tried here. And unfortunately 'my 10ø' just looks wrong. alt-0162 = ¢ Its not the same thing, there was a huge controversy when Kingdom Come was first KS I haven't seen anyone complain about Tomb Raider because the main character has always been female and that's part of the accepted narrative of the game When Tomb Raider was previewed in the game magazines back in the day, it was originally previewed with Male and Female protaganists. Later previews the male was dropped. Now, apparently, the producers say they always wanted Lara but did the male as a placeholder thinking the game wouldn't sale with just a female protaganist but reaction to Lara was so positive they didn't need him. But from the gamers perspective at the time...they dropped the guy.* *Edit: Not that I cared, the game was fun.

I find those distracting from the real message as well, to be honest. If one wants to debate the theories fine, but it seems to me the wrong tact to take with a woman whose basic stance (in many people's minds - whether true or not) is that gamers are "anti-women" is to start throwing snarky commentary about how they look or dress, thus advocating that a woman's worth is in appearance rather than other qualities. YMMV.

A little Joan of Arc leading the charge: