Amentep

Of course it is. Because it is real. No, it isn't. Its fiction, which by its nature is not reality. It can never be real, it can approach reality, it can simulate reality but it can't ever be real because it is artifice. The only benefit to simulating reality is if it enhances what you're doing, but reality shouldn't, by necessity dictate what you do. You lost me there, and I don't think that is what I was arguing ...and it's also false. Actually I wasn't specifically responding to you (hence why I didn't quote you), but its not false. Reality doesn't have a plot, it doesn't have foreshadowing. There's not rising movement and a denouement and a fade to black. So to be, ultimately real, is to be ... well potentially very boring. What most people call "realism" isn't really realism, its mirroring aspects of reality within a fictional context so that as one reads/watches/interacts with the fictional world they can suspend disbelief such that they can see the fictional world as something that fits into the real world. But its not reality. It's not. A mage is infinitely "better". Magic itself, as something that defines known relity/physics makes that suspension easier - especialyl considerign a fantasy setting. Superman on the other hand has his powers explained as "biology", yet they make no sense even within his own universe and are contradictory on several levels. This we'll just have to disagree with. A person who has demon blood that boils with magic and who is able to pull magical effects out of the aether by sheer will is no more right/wrong than Superman being able to do the same because he has Kryptonian genetics. Both are fantasy settings, anyhow. Anyhow, IMO, as long as they're internally consistent with their own established fantasy 'reality', I have no problem with either. To claim that immersion lies SOLEY within the audience, and not in the work is wrong. I'm not sure I did; what I was trying to say is that - at the end of the day - the developer can only control how simulationist of reality and how internally consistent their game is and if the game is "good" there will be those who can be immersed in it and those who don't. IE, if I make the best isometric game in the world, so great that Fallout fans, BG fans, PST fans weep openly when playing it, there will still be those who feel the isometric games aren't "immersive" to them regardless of the quality of the game. There are certain things that can be controlled by a developer - how internally consistant it is, how the game play works, how the interface works, but they can't control for who plays their games.

Excellent point. I like (role)playing a character who's doing things the smart way and avoids combat if it's the optimal thing to do, even though as a player I really enjoy combat. The character needs the incentive (in the form of XP), not the player. Wait what? I mean, this is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard in this context. I can feel my IQ drop by just repeating this sentence, nay, by looking at it. I'm wondering how the character knows that by killing something, he will gain a certain amount of XP and have a boost to all of his abilities my self. He bought the monster manual.

*shrug* I just wanted to say how awesome I think this project is, and the project began on 14th September so I guess this is simply a "Project Anniversary". Coming up: - "Funded/Birth Anniversary" ...anniversary of the live broadcast when the kickstarter ended...

Well you could try for some non armor ones... ...is grime sexy? Malcador - how do I know its a woman in the tank? (Specifically, its a tank trap) EDIT: oh for the heck of it, saw this in my folder:

Plus its Kryptonian, so practicality is totally out of the window anyhow as the armor is practically unbreakable (once they get to earth, I guess on Krypton the army jumps into that giant ocean we see and spears dinner with their armor for kicks when they're bored )

:(

Well that's a bit awkward. I probably shouldn't mention I noticed her shoes, either, should I?

I have no interest in GTA V. For the record the only Rockstar games I've played was The Warriors and Red Dead Redemption, neither of which I'd recommend. EDIT: actually thinking about it, I played a preview of Red Dead Revolver and thought it terrible too.

Nah. There are probably some people in Siberia that have never played a GTA game also. Yes I'm sure there are also some people on the moon who have never played a GTA game before I don't live in Siberia or the moon and have never played a GTA game. I'm not against them on principle, but there's nothing that I've ever read about them and no trailer I've ever seen that makes me think I'd actually like them. It doesn't help that I haven't really liked the other Rockstar games I have played, either.

Am I the only one bothered by the fact the front and back stripes don't match up?

Something being more or less realistic/unrealistic isn't really logically valid, IMO. Unrealistic is defined as that which is not realistic which means its a binary concept. What you're actually saying is that unlikely things can still scale - the human lifting a ton is slightly less unlikely than a human lifting 100 tons (which, with respect to a human lifting a single ton is more unlikely and both are greatly unlikely compared to a human lifting a pound) I don't agree that realism by default is believable and I'd disagree that pursuit of realism is an inherently laudable goal. A woman can win the lottery, her husband, an NBA basketball star, could be struck by a meteor and killed while sinking a three point shot from mid-court and her daughter can be a savant of the highest order and her son could be President of the USA. - all things that are possible for individuals (and thus real) but all highly unlikely and cumulatively less likely. Now the obvious point to make here is that these scenarios - despite being theoretically possible - are all highly unlikely alone, much less applied to one family. Which is the reason why the general rule is that suspension of disbelief tends to allow an audience to accept one unlikely (or impossible) plot element in any given story and anything that logically follows from that element that's unbelievable. Now I'll also say that the minute you bring a narrative structure into a "realistic" scenario you've developed an artificiality that is opposed to reality, so the idea that a fictional narrative should strive to emulate reality is to desire random events with no plot or character arcs. And while it might make a novel experience, I'm not sure that I'd want everything to follow that template. The question of verisimilitude, IMO, really only applies to internal logic, in other words is the work true to the rules that it sets out? That's the question to be asked. One man's Superman power is another man's mage casting a spell to summon a demon. The idea that one fantastically impossible idea is "better" than another is ridiculous; the idea that should be asked is "does this fantastical idea logically follow from the suspension of disbelief plot element" and then judge whether or not the work is internally consistent with itself. Now onto "immersion", IMO immersion is the ability of the person to "lose themselves" in a creative work, to find oneself divorced of thinking about the mechanics of the real world. Reading a book where you stop noticing that you're reading words on the page as those words conjure images in your mind; to forget that you're sitting in an audience listening to 40 individual instruments being played but to only hear and see music; to forget that you're rolling dice to see if you open a door, but to see your character opening that door in your minds eye; to lose sight of the fact you're clicking a mouse to attack a thug but only thinking of attacking the thug. And in that sense, there is no formula, no way to please everyone. Its not a technological limitation in computer games that can be overcome, because the ability to immerse oneself lies not with an object or even how the object is used, but in the ability of the individual to project themselves past the object into the realm of their imagination, to lose themselves there and forget that physical shell in that physical world which defines their day-to-day existence. From a creative standpoint, you can only make the best creation you (and your team if collaborative) can make. People will either be immersed in it or not; you can't control that because you can't control your audience and for every game that is lauded for its "immersion" there will be those who just can't get into it as the ability to immerse lies with the individual, not the creator and not, entirely the creation (as mentioned above, the creation aspect can control the internal logic; inconsistency may be a hobgoblin, but its also a guarantee to make people think about the object and not get lost in their internalization of what the object provides). Or, you know, something like that.

Since we know that there were copious reshoots and restructuring of the end including the removal of segments related to the wife and kids in Alaska, the going theory is that Fox had a bigger part that ended up on the cutting room floor.

Works better than purpink, I think. I thought re-spec was already confirmed in some form, tied to the lore (so not always available) way back in the mist of time.

Thr whole intro was dumb. Why didn't they just beam the device above the volcano and drop it. don't tell me their computers can't accurately calculate how much time it would take to fall and therefore how high up they needed to beam it. Wouldn't that violate the prime directive (like that ended up mattering) though? Native's see the bomb from on high coming down, course of history changed. Now since they fubared the prime directive ANYHOW, it seems like doing something like that would have been less interferey then what they ended up doing which - honestly - should have gotten the entire command structure of the Enterprise reassigned and Kirk out on his ear.

Diablo III on my PS3. It has been fun, reminds me a bit of doing Diablo on the PS1 but with better graphics. Fiddled a bit with all the classes and I think I'm committed to following the Monk.

I enjoyed it. Its not perfect* but it was a pretty good pilot as long as you buy into the central conceit. Very surprised at some of the events in the story that I wasn't expecting. Also, was it just me or did it look like they had trouble keeping Orlando Jones' film-makeup right scene from scene? *spoiler

I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV, but I'd describe your feeling as one of ennui. I suppose depression could be it, but it sounds more like you've done the things you enjoy so much you can't enjoy them because they've become routine. So kicking the routine for awhile may help. Getting the pilots license, if its something that'd interest you, could help kick your general malaise* in the pants. Once you get the license you can decide if the plane would help. *someone really should do a story with a military character named General Malaise - that is if they haven't already.

They will be dearly missed... Who let you out of your cage, Roby? Judging by his avatar I'd say he escaped using his own cunning. And lost his pants in the process. Looks like Max from Shining Force. He had one of those almost toga-esque fantasy tunics.

I've got that, not yet gotten around to watch it. Anyone know if the TV series (Dragon Riders of Berk, IIRC?) is any good? Anyhow, I wished I'd seen How to Train Your Dragon in 3D for the final sequence/fight (probably the only film during the modern 3D push that had a sequence I wished I'd actually seen in 3D). For my part, I watched Insidious Chapter 2. Noisy crowd was a bit annoying, lots of little chatter even if they jumped and screamed at the scary bits. Thought they did some pretty good stuff fleshing out story from the first with a bunch of different elements. There are things to quibble about (like how the one kid got to sleep so fast at one crucial point) but overall I thought it was good and think they've left some stuff open to explore without rehashing this same story (so they can move past this family and James Wan not returning without problem, if they want to - and this weekend's box office pretty much guarantees they will).

Looking up the exact data, they're counting "media appearances, apparel contracts, and fundraising" which undercuts their point. Because at the point you start counting non-public money you're moving away from the "highest paid public employee". Under their method Arnold, when he was governor, would have been counted for both his governor's salary and any residuals he was making from his past movies/books or appearance fees he might get.

OMG! That's so cute!

Hazel dormouse in its natural state.

I think I might have picked a baby Gundi pic, so it's probably even more cute.

Gundi!