Amentep

Any particular reason you don't like Floyd? Not trying to change your mind, just curious.

Australia looks suspiciously like places I've driven past in the US... I got 9397

I love soundtracks, I could easily list fifteen soundtracks that I've listened to often and recently - Jerry Goldsmith , Bernard Herrmann, John Barry, John Williams, Michael Giacchino, Danny Elfman, Ennio Morricone ... all great talents who've done wonderful soundtracks. That said, I will not use soundtracks as they're not really created to be a musical album and will instead concentrate on music released on albums that did not double as soundtracks (which sadly rules out Pink Floyd's Obscured by Clouds and Queen's Flash Gordon and A Kind of Magic as well...). I'm also excluding collections which are typically going to be great by their nature of including great singles from other albums. Wish You Were Here by Pink Floyd (probably my favorite PF album - but I like most of their work) The Madcap Laughs by Syd Barrett (Syd's best solo album, IMO) Paranoid by Black Sabbath (I could have put their first 4-5 albums on the list) "the Four Symbols logo album" by Led Zeppelin (toss-up with Houses of the Holy) Revolver by The Beatles (toss up with Sgt. Pepper, White Album) Dummy by Portishead (I like the other albums too - they wore the influence of the wonderful John Cameron soundtrack for PSYCHOMANIA on their sleeve on this album and I love them for it) Nice by Puffy Ami Yumi (they have an expansive catalog of good stuff - lots of reissues too) Version 2.0 by Garbage (I like the first album pretty well as well) Destroyer by Kiss (coin flip between this and Queen II by Queen) Who's Afraid of the Art of Noise by Art of Noise (wonderful group; bit hard to keep track of the variations of their songs through albums and EPs and singles...) I imagine, like others, it'd be easy to create a top 50 or top 100 list.

I guess that's why people are complaining that battles are "scripted", if every one of them starts with the aliens ducking for cover and continues with pew pewing over cover, majority of the time. I dunno, I don't think the battles felt scripted (although I understand now why so many people liked the "terror" levels since the aliens seemed more active than reactive there). I just felt that it put a greater emphasis on careful placement of troops and skill choices than on being the first one to surprise an enemy and shoot it down. Mind you I'm playing Resident Evil 6 at the moment and enjoying it, so I'm a bit off the curve anyhow, apparently.

Watched STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS which I thought was pretty good but suffered a bit through some clumsy plotting I also kind of feel they felt too beholden to the previous continuity. It kind of makes sense here to address and they manage to move Starfleet back to the science exploration focus from the military focus that I know many worried about after the first film, but they really need to hit us with something brand-new next time out. I later watched WEREWOLF: THE BEAST AMONG US a relatively low-budget Universal werewolf film. They kept me guessing who the werewolf was going to be for awhile which was nice. The movie is sort of B-movie fun, kind of over-the-top in its way with its semi-steam-punk Van Helsing influenced Werewolf hunters. Even later in the weekend I watched PRIMEVAL the highly fictionalized account of giant killer crocodile "Gustave". It was a bit ridiculous and somewhat vacillates between wanting to be about the rebels/war going on vs being about a killer monster crocodile. But I enjoyed it. Also weird to see Gideon Emery in front of the camera after years of hearing him doing voice-overs for video games (a bit disappointing that he doesn't get to go all Fenris from Dragon Age II on the crocodile though... ) Even later than the previous even later in the weekend I re-watched SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN. Its an enjoyable film, the villains are quite hissable in the classic sense. The biggest complaint I had - this time and last time - is that they give one half of the titular duo - Snow White - very little to do. I know its cool to diss on Kristen Stewart (I've only seen her in one other film - as a kid in Cold Creek Manor) but I don't think its a problem of the actress so much as the character spends the majority of the movie reacting to what other people do around her rather than being the central character who does things herself.

^l never could figure out that game.

They already semi-explained magic in THOR. I don't think the issue with the Mandarin is ever going to be he's a magic character. The issue is that he is - in many people's eyes - a racist caricature, a "Yellow Peril" villain like Fu Manchu, complete with being a conquering descendant of Genghis Khan (as well as being a descendent of English nobility as well). What they did was take the terrorist aspect of the Mandarin (who was motivated by revenge against the societies he felt had caused his family to lose their fortune) into Aldrich Killian who also wants revenge against the society that rejected him (more or less) and his scientific ideas. Essentially both are out to address the wrong that they haven't been afforded the proper status in life they feel due to them and I think that's a reasonable trade off.

Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by PiE's ? Great...now I'm thinking about Pie.

Could be worse, you could fall asleep to Sir Roger in THE PERSUADERS! only for the episode to turn out to be "That's Me Over There" and end up with Tony Curtis' attempt at an English accent.

I used to be that way, and still mostly am unless I'm sick or suffering some sort of injury pain (or the general pain I get from my old ankle injury). In fact I've actually fallen asleep standing up (propped against a wall). Get me comfortable enough and I can fall asleep (got to be careful driving when tired).

Re the Mandarin -

I'd go so far as to say - if they don't stuff up the end (and I think I'm about 2/3 or 3/4 through) - that its the best one since the original (mind you I stopped playing the games in the series about midway through 3). Its not perfect - - but it does most of the things it tries well and I really like Lara's character and development like you. I'm not sure how they'd sustain this game model in a second game not so greatly hinged on a pivotal point for her character, but I'd like to see them try.

Playing Tomb Raider currently. Am enjoying it.

Yeah, I'll be honest its the OTT aspects of Saints Row that got me into the series. I don't think I'd have like 1 has I played it. So looking forward to 4.

Good luck Calax. I helped train a new employee. yay me!

I would cautiously recommend YA. Its not quite through the first story-arc, and I think the second story-arc is more indicative of the long term prospects of the first. That said, I like the characters, we get a decent story that feels important while also serving as an origin for the new team. Some good dialogue and some interesting artwork that takes some unconventional storytelling choices really has sold the title to me so far. I'm currently reading NA and enjoying it.

To paraphrase Heraclitus, "You can never step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you" has always been true. I think the only real difference, in this case, is that development makes people notice the difference more, not that it was never different.

See, I personally feel that conservative tactics feel right. After all, you're supposed to be a guy living in a dangerous world and fighting for your life. I guess there's a difference between how people look at PRG's. Some look at them like leasure strolls and don't like anyting that "inconveniences" them. In other words, they don't want to adjust to the games pace, they want to force their pace on the game. I also find it funny that you're prefectly fine with backtracking to getyour armor fitte,d but backtracking to get food and healing is bad? For serious? The problem I have with the conservative tactics angle (and perhaps I could have put it better) is when its used to make a short game seem longer. Like the kind of thinking that leads to "you could run through the entire map of the world in 20 minutes except you have to eat so all the backtracking adds value length to the game". Note that with armor fitting you already have armor (if you bought some), you just can't use the new armor until its fitted. If you're going to starve to death you can't continue on without food. So its also not exactly a 100% the same scenario And I've said several times that my position isn't terribly consistent because, again, my experience has been that food implementation is either busywork created as a money/time sink with little gameplay value or it has too much value and the game becomes "where do I get my next meal from" simulator and not "adventuring in the lost city/cave fighting/rping/whatever. Again this is an emotive position; which is why if its going to be there I favor a toggle. Not arbitrary, its based on my experience. The thing is - for me at least - you'd need to look at several different things Where do you get food from? If you always buy it are there always ways to make money so that you can get it (I can't remember the name, but I remember playing a game in the late 80s where it was possible to be stuck with no money and no way to get money and no way to survive without food to travel where you could get money.) If you can search for food or hunt, are the skills to do so done in a reasonable way (in particular, since most characters start out low skilled, could a character survive with low skills in the early part of the game?) How often do you eat? Is there a "food meter"? Or is it time based? How are screen transitions handled; is it clear how much food is used between them? If there are travel points like BGII does your character ever forage for food while traveling or do they always eat from the supply? If time based, since the game world won't have a 1-to-1 ration in the passage of time, is it clear how much time has passed? How is the player notified of hunger states? Is it satisfied-hungry-starving-dead? Or more granular like satisfied-need to eat soon-should eat now-hungry-really need to eat-extremely hungry-starving-almost-dead How do you know how much one food item effects hunger? If I eat an apple am I full? Not full? Many meter based systems basically encourage you eat everything in sight which seems to be poor modelling for food systems. If I'm starving why would eating three turkey dinner fill my health meter? Shouldn't there be a limit to how much I could eat and drink (thus making it impossible to go from starving to satisfied)? Because of this if I were to play a game I'd rather buy abstract "rations" that are equivilent to, say, 1 day of food. It carries a weight, takes item spots, etc, but isn't overly granular. My preference would be for the rations to be eaten automatically and the game to notify you when you're low on rations (maybe something like rations last X days, notify when X > Y where Y is the number of days it takes to get to nearest known town). Hunting/gathering can add to rations stores. But I gather the kind of thing being promoted here is a lot more robust and along the lines of "you must carry 10 gallons of water with you and press a button everytime you are thirsty". Could be wrong though.

YOUNG AVENGERS is cracking my up. Such a neat title, crazy artwork good quips. I'm curious to see what the second storyline is about. AVENGERS #10 was an interesting one; what happens in the story is certain to come back down the line if Hickman's FF is anything to go by. Also go Manhatten Projects second trade - can't wait to dive in this weekend.

I fail at the internet - I can't find any pics of the crown. Anyone want to help a brother out?

I like armor and weapon maintenance too. In fact I've argued for not being able to use found armor until you've had it reworked to fit your character. I still hate food mechanics. Its all about what button I want to press, I guess. Partially because I find food mechanics to be busywork, a way to make the game seem longer by forcing constant backtracking and conservative tactics lest you run out of food and suffer the penalties/death associated with it. That said, plenty of earlier games didn't have food mechanics back in my earliest days playing games, so I don't really see modern games not having them as being a "games now are dumber" situation.

I've only ever read Slott's comedy stuff (She-Hulk, Great Lakes Avengers) which was always funny. For whatever reason though, as much as I can tell that he likes Spider-Man in interviews and stuff, nothing about what he's done on the title interests me.

Kickstarter isn't really a storefront though. But you are right that it doesn't guarantee excellent games; odds are there will be some stinkers that get made (and good games that don't get funded).

Does raise the question though, what was the gigantic, flying, fire-breathing lizard doing in the low-cut leather cuirass in the first place though... I'm led to believe they're not particularly supportive themselves... Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week. Be sure to try the veal... OBTOPIC: I like the look that Obsidian has provided so far.