Amentep

Maybe Sawyer meant normal doesn't require food or drink? Maybe a link to the quote to see context would help?

Apparently its the 1980s again, when anime in its natural habitat was a hard find and those who did find it were thought to be watching cheap kids fiction and not startling cinematic movies and tv shows of uncompromised vision that just happened to show nudity as well. When Galaxy Express 999 squeaked to theaters in NY and LA, when Castle of Cogliostro was mostly known as a laserdisc game called "Cliff Hangers" and 7 Zark 7 was seen as an integral part of the Battle of the Planets. In the future - we are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives - from around the mid-2000s on, I will not know anyone amid my niece's age and younger who will not watch anime or read manga. Do they look down on themselves in this utopian future of anime, flying cars and jetpacks, you may ask? No, my startling visions of that glorious future that awaits us all indicates that they will be well adjusted and happy with their anime and manga...but less so with flying cars and jet packs. Back to the present, however, I wasn't on the internet in the 1980s so am unsure how I'm posting this message to a forum that won't exist for 20 more years. I shall declare it "movie magic" and move on.

It kind of depends on the game. Usually for fantasy RPGs I play Neutral to Good though and maybe multiple runs through might try some of the evil options. I'm not a fan of "whack a villager = +1 Evil" systems.

I believe he is referring to the fact that PE combat is going to be a series of rock/paper/scissors. All party members will have two or more "weapon sets" that will allow each character to rapidly change their weapons. This is being implemented because they are also adding "flavor" by each type of weapon (crushing, piercing, slashing) being "best" against certain types of armor. (IE: War hammers (crushing) are better than a dagger (piercing) against plate armor.) So your characters will be constantly be switching weapon sets, even within the same battle. Unless its ranged vs melee I'm never crazy about micromanaging my weapons.

Whose fault is it? Default.

Obviously the game being designed determines what is and isn't necessary. Which is in Obsidian's hands. I'm not sure that really compares to the adventuring party. Its probably more like Marco Polo traveling to the east combined with Howard Carter discovering Tutankhamen's tomb laced together with the Conquistadors running roughshod through the Americas with just a dash of hot military army-on-army action and the occasional purchasing of supplies from the locals and terrorizing their livestock for flavor. Or, imagine maybe more practically its like an old military clipper where the hard work and long hours might not lead to anything happening during the tour (although not impossible either) but shore leave tends to be where the action was at, so to speak.

I hope it doesn't. I hope it boils down to what works for the game obsidian is designing and not a "well the masses wanted this, so lets fling it at them". Because that approach never goes down well. Also since romance is a singular emotional outlet, I think its possible to create a narrative that just doesn't sustain it. As long as the NPCs are interesting and responsive in their relationship to the PC and the remainder of the party, I don't think there has to be a romance in the game. Romance is a spice, not what you're cooking (unless you're making a romance/dating sim) so its not necessary by any means.

I'd assume - perhaps wrongly - that the appeal in the case that Zalpha is talking about is the self-identification with a protagonist that is common in fiction. Otherwise tearjerkers would never have someone reaching for a hanky and scary films would never elicit a jump or cry of fright. Which we know they do. There is a certain degree of self-investment in any fictional storytelling that engages the reader/viewer. In that light, identifying with his protagonist and their relationship with Aerie to an extent that it moved them isn't surprising and not that dissimilar to someone saying that two characters romance in a book was "deeply touching and moving" or similar. That said, there are the unhealthy investments in fictional characters that happen with some people which I understand is what you're talking about but I think a distinction has to be made between the two camps as often in these discussions - frankly - it seems like anyone who is "pro-romance" is seen as the unhealthily obsessed and not those who've engaged in a movie story or character point in a healthy, typical to fiction way.

Not sure why its funny; the same thing could be roughly said about any aspect of games. For some posters RPGs are about fighting in tunnels, for others creating and interacting with interesting characters, some its all about the narrative, others for loot or cool abilities. Some may like multiple parts of these in different games and dislike the same in others. We all respond to different things. Generally speaking, when we discussed this before, the main points - and I feel they are fair - come down to: games aren't best designed to take into account complex human interactions ("Hi, I'm so glad to meet you, is that an Amulet of Mara?" *sexy wink*) romance/sex isn't practical in most situations ("Hey baby, after 2 days in the sewer of the Unholy Underground City of Pestilence, I'm feeling a bit randy. Fancy a roll in the hay?" "Sure!" *rips off clothes*) romance tends to curtail the viability of joinable NPCs (Romance dialogue translates to 30 pages of text. Non-Romance dialogue translates to a fortune cookie) So even though I'd like robust interactions with companions - both PC-NPC and NPC-NPC (friendships, rivalries and again if it fit the character, setting, etc. romance) I can sure see why some people see the mention of romance as a call to pass the pitchforks and torches so as to storm the windmill (a la Frankenstein)

I admit, I was a bit disturbed that BGII:ToB went with the baby inventory item route. It seemed wrong on several levels.

Could be, but then again I didn't like the narration aspect as a whole and in general if they were trying for an unreliable narrator they failed, IMO.

Types of romances you liked Relatioship/Romance Thread I Relationship/Romance Thread II Relationship/Romance Thread III Relationship/Romance Thread IV Romance and Friendships Romances, Yay or Nay? The Romances If Romances are Included A Suggestion for the Romances you're considering (if any) Sex and Romance Poll Its a reoccurring topic.

I dunno, I didn't reload when I got bad rolls on Wild Magic either (unless it killed me). Seemed to miss the point of "random event".

Yeah my edition of the uncut STAND could easily stop a bullet. Bit bulky in the shirt breast-pocket as opposed to a handy cigarillo case though...

What about if you love the original Lone Ranger? You have to put aside the memories of Clayton Moore (and, for that matter, Klinton Spilsbury, but you probably did that already). Personally accepting that its a new take on the character I thought it mostly enjoyable and yet with some elements that just fall flat (not terribly surprising considering the script - like Spilsbury's LEGEND - had been revised numerous times). IMO:

Hmm, looking through a list of Sierra On-Line games, I'd have thought I'd have played more of them.

That's happened here in some local jurisdictions. Funnily, in almost every case that comes to mind it was later revealed that the higher-ups were engaged in criminal activities. Again this is why, IMO, we have to be open about cops doing things wrong but also not blaming "cops" in general for every wrong thing ever done by a cop.

The vast majority of cops ARE us and know it. Sure there are those that have the us vs them mentality, but that's why its important to shine a light on them too. That said...a person driving with a broken headlight is stopped and found to be driving on a suspended license. So there's already suspicious activity to warrant some concern. That doesn't justify trying to "scare" her or not following usual protocols (which I gather wasn't to have the woman flip her bra up). Again the bad cops need to be weeded out; but pointing to every instance that a bad cop does something bad and say "This is why cops are outta control!" only promotes the us vs them view of society in non-cops and cops alike.

Why would they immediately jump you? Even if they thought you were some other guy? I've seen police follow people because they thought they were suspicious - some of it even racial profiling. But none of them just jumped a person without trying to stop them and talk to them (even if it starts with a loud "STOP" or smthng).

I disagree with their ability to do that, I don't think its a "loophole" as described in the article so much as thumbing their nose at the law. Eventually someone will challenge it legally and I can't imagine it passing muster. That said, if you're not doing anything illegal...what can they get you on?

People should always wear real Tricornes. Tricornes are cool.

Never known a cop to promote that mentality. That doesn't mean if you're between them and a killer you won't have footprints up your back, but there's always the needs of the individual vs the community to balance out. Been stopped a few times by cops. Never had a problem with answering questions. If you're not doing anything illegal...what can they get you on?

I read this bit and imagined the constitution with "like" buttons by the amendments. The problem is this is the same line of thinking that causes cops to protect other bad cops. That tarnishing one of them tarnishes them all. No, being open and honest about your dealings with the public, investigating and - if necessary - taking action against cops who go too far will only tarnish the image of the police in the eyes of those who'll never trust the police. They're not all brutes; but the system shouldn't protect those that are, either.

It taught me that I'd die of dysentery or be swept out of my wagon by a swollen river if I ever traveled west of the Mississippi.