Amentep

The most prominent blue people are the Kree and the Atlantians; the frost giants, Nebula's people and a few more exist though. A lesser chance would be a post-Terrigen Mist Inhuman (because they can look like anything). Lorelei is Aurora's - The Enchantress' - sister. Both are Thor villains (The Enchantress and her partner-in-crime The Executioner being particularly early villains in the Thor series in Journey Into Mystery).

Hey, they had to save *something* for the sequel.

In the case of Bishnu Shrestha, he didn't have a gun, he had a khukuri. IIRC, the thieves (who originally started out as just robbers before deciding to try to rape the young woman) were armed with knives and guns, however many (if not all) of the guns may have been fakes (apparently a common ploy in banditry in India). If they had real guns they were at a disadvantage of the crowded space (a lot of chance to hit each other, not as much chance to hit Shreshta) and the fact that Shrestha was a trained military man having just left military service and familiar with his weapon of choice and its use. It is a nice story, even heroic. However, I wasn't really commenting on it or the type of weapon used in it, but the context in which it was posted, since such stories are commonly used to set the tone for the "self defense" argument in such discussions. I understand, but also wanted to elaborate on what happened - I think its important to note that Shrestha was not going to defend against the theives until they attempted to rape the woman which in my mind puts him in a vastly different category that the guy with some martial arts training who thinks that with a little knowledge he can whip the world. And I think its fair point that ties into what I perceived being made - that knowing when to use a weapon (external or internal) is an important thing to understand in regards to self-defense. Situations can easily escalate by deciding to threaten to use a weapon when its not necessarily. If we see it in the police force who are trained on these things, how much easier is it for a civilian to go off the rails (its part of the reason why that - even though I feel that a person has a right to self-defense - most "stand your ground" laws, as I understand them, seem to encourage reckless behavior.)

I hope you would admit that the case set forth by the developers that they don't think they could do it to their satisfaction will indicate a solid point as to why Romance shouldn't be part of the specific RPG of Pillars of Eternity, however. For me the case for/against romance is always predicated in what the developers are trying to accomplish with specific games.

Are any of those the giant Australian megafauna I remember from geology class. That's a great idea, if so. Thylacoleo carnifex is the Australian "Marsupial Lion". The Aptornis defossor is the "South Island Adzebill" from New Zealand but actually much shorter than a lot of other giant birds (which tended towards to be plant eaters except for maybe one which there is debate on). Nothrotheriops Shasta (one of the smaller giant ground sloths with razor claws), Glyptotherium texanum (a giant armadillo that could serve as an aimal tank), Miracinonyx inexpectatus (the "American Cheetah"), Kolponomos (an early Ursid) and Dusicyon australis (the Falkland Islands Fox or Flakland Islands Wolf) all come from North/South America. But there are a lot of extinct megafauna from the Pliocene/Holoocine eras to explore. Might be harder to model since some of them are different from common modern animals though, I guess.

I've always wanted to see a game take a cue of animals from some of the extinct species in nature - and not just dinosaurs (I'm trying to do wolf-bear sized critters from memory so apologies if I miss remember). Instead of a normal fox or wolf, how about Dusicyon australis? Instead of a brown bear, how about a Kolponomos? Instead of a lion or tiger, what about a Miracinonyx inexpectatus? Along those lines I would welcome Nothrotheriops Shasta, Glyptotherium texanum, Thylacoleo carnifex, or Aptornis defossor, or similar. Or, you know...a wolf and a bear and a wombat or something would still be cool.

Life isn't action movie, and guns far more commonly used by criminal elements then some regular joe who saves the day. So this is the exception that prove the rule. It reminds me an old statistic that showed that people who trained in martial arts are far more likely to be involved in fight and require medical attention. In the case of Bishnu Shrestha, he didn't have a gun, he had a khukuri. IIRC, the thieves (who originally started out as just robbers before deciding to try to rape the young woman) were armed with knives and guns, however many (if not all) of the guns may have been fakes (apparently a common ploy in banditry in India). If they had real guns they were at a disadvantage of the crowded space (a lot of chance to hit each other, not as much chance to hit Shreshta) and the fact that Shrestha was a trained military man having just left military service and familiar with his weapon of choice and its use.

I saw a western with Susan Kohner (The Last Wagon with Nick Adams and Richard Widmark) in it a few weeks back; Kohner was a minor film star (best known now as one of the leads in IMITATION OF LIFE) and brought back to the attention of modern film goers by being the mom of Chris and Paul Weitz (co-director of American Pie). However Kohner's mom was also a movie star - Luptia Tovar. Possibly best known now as the female lead in Universal's Spanish-language version of Dracula filmed with at the same time with the same script and set of the Lugosi film, she starred in a number of films from 1929-1945. The picture of Tovar is a publicity photo from the 1930s, I believe.

Well I plan on getting it, but then I liked DA2 so you might not want to use my opinion to base your purchase on!

"They don't have the resurces to implement more than 4 types of Godlikes" I believe is what he meant. Doesn't that mean that there is only four gods, or am I misunderstanding something? AFAIK, a godlike is the union between one of the base races and a god. If there are only four types of godlike doesn't that point to their being only four gods? Or that out of the multitude of gods, only four dally with mortals in ways that produce offspring...

Congrats Enoch!

Man...time really flies then. Doesn't feel like 17 months.

Reminds me of the fun I had when people would refer to Diablo 2 as D2 and I would make comments about Kenji Eno's / WARP's survivial horror sequel, D2 and everyone would be confused. Good times...good times...

What the hell is Eurovision, anyway, I had to pick two girls kissing, because of course. Damnit! I missed that as I didn't get that far, I recognized Lordi and went "Oh someone I know!"* and clicked the check box. *I actually know about from Eurovision, actually...

This'll be the third time in a month that I reference the "there won't be misses in attack resolution, only grazes" decision, that was followed by apparently-useless-because-a-decision-was-already-made discussion, which Josh and co. didn't find so useless. However, I'm not sure that there was 6-8 months of pro/con discussion prior to the revelation about misses/grazes whereas there has been that for romance. This isn't a topic that we've only gotten a revelation on either, the early indicators from various interviews - like Avellone's - was that romance options for the player character wasn't in their radar for the game. The "Anti-mancers" crowed about those interviews every time they came up. According to your own line of reasoning, there's just as little point in arguing against it, since it's already not in the game, right? Also... No there's no real reason to continue the discussion along these lines; the discussion could be shifted to - again - what they've indicated they want to include rather than arguing for/against PC Romance. But then if people want to keep the discussion up for/against romance that's cool too; I just don't think its going to be particularly productive. You do realize that the post you just quoted me on specifically pointed out that not every comment advocating romance is stating "but you gotta have romance in PoE," right? I'm not sure - how in the context of a PoE forum - you can advocate romance without advocating romance in PoE. If this was a general discussion on the pros/cons of romance in video games or even video game RPGs specifically it wouldn't be an issue, but pretty much, by default (and IMO) if you have a thread called "THE CASE FOR ROMANCE" in a forum called "PILLARS OF ETERNITY: GENERAL DISCUSSION" the odds aren't that you're actually advocating that romance be in the next Oddworld game. But we're not talking about buying a product, we're talking about creating a narrative entertainment. A closer example would be that I decided to write a novel set in the future and using a first contact scenario and you arguing that I would be better off spending my time writing about subsistence farmers in China because that's what some people would rather read. I'm not exactly sure what 17 pages of this thread are going to detail within this context that the last few months haven't already mined, to be honest. And that's fine, but that's not what I've gotten that this thread is about. What I've gotten is that people want to discuss romance with their player character, not NPC romance. I didn't say you couldn't discuss it and far be it from me to suggest that. What I did say - and believe - is that such discussion was rendered useless by Obsidian's decision. There's a difference. And I may not be right, but its my $.02.

I thought the discussion (at least in context of Pillars of Eternity) was rendered magically useless by the developers saying the game wouldn't include romances. As a pro-romance as a viable character interaction kind of poster, I see no point arguing for romance in PoE at this point; I'd rather - at least in context of PoE - look at the kind of character interactions they indicated would be in the game and ponder that. I'm willing to discuss the pros/cons of romance in other games or a sequel to PoE, but honestly at this point posting "But you gotta have romance in PoE because...because...because..." is kinda useless in my opinion. The developers are going in a different direction.

Interestingly, it seems that this Godzilla might have other monsters in it, so that makes it much more interesting to me (I really feared a retread of the typical "1st Godzilla film in a cycle" to be honest).

Hahah, somehow I *knew* you'd get Monaco!

If the characters have no interactivity outside of the romance (say, Aerie) then the loss of an interactive character is felt by anyone who chooses not to pursue the romance; in essence the romance is no longer optional if you want to use that character unless you just want an unintersting roster filler. To be fair, that it gives a player "more" options isn't exactly correct. As I mentioned before, the way BG2 game did romance was that there was, essentially one path for the character and you could progress to a certain degree in the relationship with that character without romancing but that the larger interaction was unplayable if you didn't romance, leaving some characters (pretty much everyone but Jaheria) a cipher if you didn't follow the romance. To do romance right you actually need to do two paths (intertwined or not), one so the character is interesting and able to divulge lore without being romanced as well as being romanced. This does give you more, but only because you're creating more content. If Obs has 10 NPCs and thus 10 character interactions, they have a choice add romances (which now adds character interactions) or keep to 10 character interactions which means that for some of those character the ONLY interaction you have with them is pursuing their romance. So you stay the same, but if the only interaction for a NPC is romance and the character isn't romance, the person not pursuing the romance has a character who not only isn't responsive (so just takes a slot) they can't impart any world lore to the player.

Which European Country Do You Actually Belong In? You got: Malta Steve Allen / Shutterstock You’re endlessly curious and love nothing more than getting stuck in a good book. You like to take walks in order to figure out what you’re doing in life. http://www.buzzfeed.com/marietelling/what-european-country-do-you-actually-belong-in

I like the lady at the right who - rather than being asleep - has a "I'm in Hell" expression.

Interesting, so the enigma is solved. A pity you have to kill them but I understand your concerns. But do all rats have disease, isn't it the fleas on the rats that spread disease? Don't rats live in some communities peacefully. I don't know the answer to these questions? Well in theory the plague was carried by fleas (assuming its true it was the Bubonic Plague), the fleas transferring to humans as the rats died. That said even without plague, rats could damage the house, and their excrement could also create health hazards in the home.

Cook meth? ...Wait, are you a chemistry teacher, or...? I wish. I've been wracking my brain about how I can take my knowledge of history and use it to be the best at an illegal trade, but I've come up with nothing so far. The closest would be running for office, but I'm not sure I could stomach that. I do have a nice RV though. etc., etc

My first thought was vole but that would be too large I think for the description you gave (and there would be other signs of a vole). Mus spicilegus (aka Steppe mouse or Mound-builder mouse) maybe?

Amusingly and IMO, typically romance relationships meant little reactivity if the character wasn't romanced; often the identity of the character was tied to the romance. Which means, to do it right, romanceable characters would need two interaction trees, one if the romance is pursued and one where there isn't (possibly not completely different trees, but you're looking at trying to make something so the player gets reactivity with the character based on what they choose to do). So to my mind a "perfect world" romance would need more planning/time (ie resources) than a relationship that exits along a singular axis (or between two poles).