Amentep

Working animals are probably not that hard to represent abstractly, probably harder to represent in a way that actually makes a difference in gameplay. Particularly riding animals, as you then pretty much have to address mounted combat.

I love the "work in progress" graphic on the M&M screens.

I imagine that planning for mounted combat takes more planning than throwing in some animations. Particularly when you're talking about mounted party vs party combat. (Or party on horses and cows vs zombie trees wearing cloaks riding aboleths wearing gandalf hats).

I don't disagree. But as Gorgon says, if they want to bump Russia out for this, they really don't have a lot of room to maneuver until next go around. Then if they want to ban Russia like they did SA they can (but I seriously doubt they will, to be honest).

Curious, one of my teachers is from there. You probably know him seeing as the island is 3 feet wide I had a friend in college from there. Last I heard she was in Jamacia though.

Or south into Mexico...

I thought it was about making money Well there's always the "why you say you do it" vs "what you get out of it".

I agree with Agiel on this; the Olympics are about forgetting why we hate each other, why we hate our differences. Boycotting or moving the Winter Olympics (moving would be impossible at this date anyhow) is pretty much ensuring that the kind of connections the Olympics foster, the sharing of unequal beliefs in a framework of acceptance and sports competition wouldn't happen. Fighting ignorance about minority groups has to include the ability for people to meet and see whatever group has been defined as "other" so that those who fear that "other" can see they aren't so different after all.

So...it'd be pretty awkward if I posted pictures of Tanit Phoenix over in the attractive women thread today, then...?

Cats, cows, and horses plus walking scary plants...all wearing gandalfy wizard hats and wearing cloaks! And then undead versions of all of the above. There I think the wish list is sorted.

So he's like a lot of players when they get a new game in that regard? Put it in and run with it? Not me, I buy games, open them and read the manual while eating lunch. Does mean I have awkwardly timed lunches though, so I may want to rethink that strategy... Unfortunately reading the manual didn't guarantee I *remembered* what I read in the manual when it came time to play the game...I remember misreading something in the Fallout manual and really messing up the character I wanted to play because I put too many points into the wrong SPECIAL skill (not that it was game ending or anything, but I did have a "why do I suck so much?" period until I realized the error of my plan).

Yes, even random encounters (which I like in P&P because it can lead to unthought of possibilities) is best worked into play in ways that fit the goals the DM is striving for. Which gets us back to cRPGs. And IIRC; since there's less room to creatively adapt random encounters, there probably has to be more planning up front about what random encounter might mean.

I've read that some studies are showing that playing Tetris before bed helps people forget things that are stressing them or causing anxiety that prevent sleeping; wonder if that would have helped?

That's assuming the group triumphs easily. If the group is forced to use a fair bit of their available resources (such that they have altered their plans and now have to go rest or resupply) you've still effectively kept the idea that the world doesn't revolve around the goals of the players (ie its not a narrative being played but a world being inhabited). If they have to run away, then surely they think its dangerous. That said, for me, I prefer to see random encounters as "local color" as much as opportunities for combat. It can help stage dress the world for the players. I think as a DM (and again this is where P&P so vastly differ from cRPGs) you can adjust your encounters. Just because you rolled a pack of wild dogs on the random encounter table doesn't mean you have to have the dogs attack the players. Maybe they sit outside of camp growling and run away when the players try to deal with them (disrupting sleep). Maybe the players are followed by the pack for several days and after a tough planned encounter they attack the weakened group. Maybe the druid can interact with them if there's a druid allowing you to provide some more information to push the story you want to tell forward. cRPGs will struggle with the kind of "on the fly" adjustment and probably always will (although as they become more complex they may be able to take into account larger, more complex reactionary programing).

I agree that this is a greater issue than Isabella's specifics. And I should point out that while I don't think its an ideal solution, I understand why the games are set up that way. I just think its weird to single out Isabela in this case as a bad example (or Zevran in DAO).

I received this in the mail yesterday and have been itching to play, but probably not till the weekend due to a busy schedule, but have heard a lot of good things about it, so I'm looking forward to it for sure. Played some more, definitely having a good deal of fun with it. Came across a puzzle and I couldn't solve it though... Local Co-Op has been fun as well; the RPG elements I don't think are too intrusive for multiple players as has sometimes happened with these types of action games with stats/equipment.

The eyes look different - made out of something other than what the rest of the statue is?

Still not seeing the retcon.

I'd love that, but I doubt it. I haven't seen any supporting hints and Bioware is not hesitant to completely retcon epilogues. Which epilogue are they retconning? The one where she "dissapears into the wilderness and is never seen again" that was retconned with the "Witch Hunt" DLC?

To me that is a problem with her character however, as it makes her feel even more of an unbelievable caricture than the innappropriate attire and lack of armour do, realistic and believable motivations are important to establish a characters personality and backstory, when all of this is just thrown away for the sake of the illogical BUT THOU MUST plot, then I fail to see why I should particularly care about that character. Much like with Avelines incompetence as a guardswoman and dereliction of duty despite the Qunari presence. If there were problems with the narrative then make a better one, or go back and release an enhanced edition, if a small company in Poland can do so then a big firm like Bioware should be able to easily. After all making Dragon Age 3 a better game doesn't do much for those dissatisfied with DA2. I'm not disputing that the narrative could have been better; all I'm saying is if Isabel had been dressed as a nun and never talked about Sex but had the same interrelation to the story, she'd still have sat with thin motivation for year in Kirkwall to allow for the story to play out as planned. To me this is a problem with the story; they shouldn't have made it so that any of the characters were essential, yet Anders and Isabel are but also with very little rationale behind either, IMO.

I'll agree about the armor bit. The sex talk I'm neutral on. I think the parts about her not pursuing her own objectives or being killable are kind of defined by the story narrative being spread over time and the whole Qunari bit relying on their pursuit of the stolen book which would fall apart if she left (and possibly if you killed her). Which is really a problem(?) of a highly structured story with little elasticity to respond to the player's action (thus limiting their options) and not a problem with Isabela as a character, per se...

Since none of those are as common cultural stereotypes -- yes. Dunno where you come from but the "horny man" and the "beautiful chaste girl" are fairly common cultural stereotypes. But it seems like your problem is solely derived off of your personal perception of stereotypes. So as you said, YMMV. Is she any more "sexually available" than Morrigan or Zevran? Or...well any of the romanceable NPCs if you give them enough gifts? They're all pretty much designed to be sexable if that's what the PC wants.

Let the Wookie win. No, not really. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_MuywHuEoM

Here's the thing though: she is not a real person, so "because she wants to be" is not a real reason. I get that they gave her motivation and backstory and she's a modern (medieval) independent woman in control of her sexuality, but the reality - like, in the real world, reality - is that she is a video game character. And as a video game character, in a game played mostly by men, many of whom will never finish the game or pay much attention to her backstory, she is a scantily-clad woman who has big boobs and talks about having sex A LOT. I am not saying such a character should not exist or cannot exist, and I am not saying there was not an honest attempt to write her intelligently. But, fundamentally, you can't get around the fact that her function in the game is more sexual object for the player than sexual being. I'd disagree since the player doesn't have to have sex with her and can very easily lose her through the game (or, for that matter, not have her in the group at all, IIRC). I'd also argue that her function in the game - like Sten or Zavren in the first or Fenris in the second - is to have a party combat role while at the same time fleshing out part of the Thedas world culture that we've not actually seen yet (Rivani). Like Zavren, she comes from a background and/or a culture that promotes casual sex. Would it have been better if she'd been "the flat chested, homely one who liked sex"? Or if she'd been the "one with boobs who hates sex?". Or if it had been a "masculine man who liked sex" instead of a woman (or elf-man Zeveran)? Any character can be reduced to a simplistic (and silly sounding) sentence. So you admit that you see a "flaw" in the romance that actually applies to ALL of Bioware's romances (which is actually a problem I agree with - the sublimating of an NPC's character in order to have the Player get a 'positive' romantic outcome) but you only consider it a problem with Isabel because she's the only one who "wants" sex?

I find it sad, not funny.