Amentep

I watched the Downey-Law SHERLOCK HOLMES for the first time since the theater. Enjoyed it - particularly knowing how to interpret the clues and being able to watch the movie put the mystery together. RE: Tom Cruise, I can't say he's an actor I've ever been fond of but conversely he's not one I hate either. But dudes been in something like 35 films and I've seen like 7; for the most part he just makes movies I've no interest in seeing.

Yes, but it was sold to someone else, or how else did they get it? That person then distributes what they bought for free. The first person could have stolen it. We've seen games leaked to the internet by finding and hacking a server before they were released. So I don't think it could be really assumed that anyone actually bought a copy. Even if the first person bought a copy, what right do they have - other than that they can - to distribute a copy they've made (as opposed to selling their copy)? If the ultimate idea is to keep things secret than there wouldn't be anything shared to anyone, though. If the ultimate idea is that unique ideas should be shared then certainly there should be some rational reason why a person would share? Could you say why? Especially given the purpose of copyright? Because it gives the author the benefit of their creation but still allows a reasonable window for the work to move into the public domain and thus be inspirational for derivative works.

But isn't the whole point that the pirates are copying that which wasn't sold to them? Ergo your response is that the only safe way not to have people take your work without compensating you for it to not create the work in the first place? It was 14 years in the 1790; this was changed to 28 years in 1831 then 28 + 28 in 1909. I think it stands at 120/95 years for Work for Hire and 70 years after the authors death now. (Note, however, pretty much any work prior to 1920 has fallen out of copyright before the extensions were made with some exceptions, iirc). I really prefer the authors death guideline to be honest (man, with 14 years, 44 Stephen King books would be in the public domain...)

And? People ask for compensation all the time. Crazy homeless guys ask for change. If you want money, you monetize. I wouldn't call failing to donate to a charity case ("the creator asks for compensation for their creation"). Uncharitable, maybe, but not morally wrong. Err...exactly what has the homeless guy created that he's asking for compensation for your receipt of their creation when he begs for change? How does the homeless guy scenario apply at all to what Hurlshot is talking about?

I'm a realist. Gustave Courbet...is that you?

It might be Gary Mitchell, not Khan. Also, the Gary Mitchell episode was titled “Where No Man Has Gone Before” Which kind of makes a complete sentence with the Star Trek movie title – “Where No Man Has Gone Before…Into Darkness” For my part, I watched Breakheart Pass. Its still surprising good even when you know what the mystery is and why the killer is killing people on the train.

Obsidian puts in a friendly loading screen to remind you to eat and sleep because they don't want to lose any players? Might want to include a reminder to "go to work" too...

I thought we were supposed to play all games crying silently into a napkin. Have I been doing it wrong all these years?

PE is not like any game before it, ever! Heresy! Well with this line of logic 1. No game has ever sucked before 2. PE is not like any game before it Therefore, PE must suck. Q.E.D. There is proof that you cannot argue with! Well you could, but the argument would be rather one sided since the proof wouldn't argue back.

I know, right? I have yet to be interested by any of the Spider-Man games, so I think they'd have to radically revamp them to interest me.

They could base it on the current comics storyline

OMG, a game sucking is, like, a major life blow. No game has EVER sucked before, and if Obsidian was the first game maker to make a sucky game, I'm not sure what I could possibly do. It is a future too horrible to contemplate! Game over, man! Game over! I'll scream! I'll pout! I'll nerd rage on the internet in a way that people will notice over the usual nerd rage that infests the internet! Or, perhaps, I might actually act like a rational adult. Hard to say right now...too close to call.

AFAIK, Joan of Arc didn't impersonate or present as being a man. She was commissioned by the king of France, who did so knowing she was a young woman. The example you're looking for is someone like Brita Olofsdotte who impersonated being a man to get into the Swedish cavalry (and after dying in battle the king approved her family receiving her pay) or Frances Clalin joining the Missouri Artillery and Cavalry alongside her husband. The adoption of wearing men's clothing in Joan's case (and in the case of, say, Joanna of Flanders) was more practicality than anything else (for a couple of different reasons) as they weren't trying to hide who they were. Been awhile since I saw the Milla Jovovich movie but skimming over the Wikipedia article, she did dress up as a man at some point. Still you're probably right, I don't claim to be an expert on these sorts of things. The point I was making wasn't that she didn't dress as a man (she did) but she did so for reasons other than pretending to be a man to do armed service - she was commissioned as a woman. Part of the wearing men's clothes was just plain sense for wearing armor to protect arms, legs and chest, but supposedly pants also made it harder for her to be molested by less than scrupulous men who might be under her command. It did also become a point of the heresy trial in England as I recall that she wore trousers. But passing herself off as a man wasn't the reason she did so. Clearly, though, historical precedent show Joan of Arc or Joanna of Flanders are the exceptions in medieval times.

There is not - and in my opinion - cannot be a singular answer to this. Its like asking "Why do you enjoy books?" or "why do you not enjoy being beaten around the head and shoulders with a 2 x 4?" There are multiple reasons why. Some games I may enjoy the combat or I may enjoy the story. I may enjoy the NPC characters I meet or just running around the countryside acting like an anti-social savant obsessed with shiny objects and riddled with anger management issues. And therein lies the truth; its about scope. RPGs have such a wide ranging scope of possibilities that there's a lot of potential to be hooked by some element, whether its a story, a romance, a group of lovably dysfunctional NPCs, crafting, dungeon delving, the ability to shoot your enemies in the groin and have them take it like a man. That is to say, it hurts. No other game genre has the ability to open up a world of possibilities like an RPG and therefore there is no one thing that draws me to them, but an abundance of potential things. I don't care about turn-based combat or real-time with pause or real time. I've enjoyed games with all sorts of mechanics - even mechanics I hated. I don't care if its create-a-protaganist or play some spikey haired dude. I don't care if its 3D, 2D, 2.5D, 4D; 1st person, 3rd person or US or Japanese or European. Because there are so many things there in that all encompassing reach for the stars but keep your feet on the ground approach to RPGs that promises so much more beyond any one element that makes it whole. Or something.

I dunno, I think perceptual problem can hurt a game or companies reputation and while it'd be nice for a game to be able to include something like sexism or more nuanced cultural perspectives between major and minor groups, the truth is I think that there will be a certain group of people who'll see it as being "anti" something rather than an attempt to create some complex scenarios. Maybe I'm wrong; I tend towards pessimistic on these sort of things.

As much as I liked Arcanum, its combat system was terribly flawed IMO and it had at least one game ending bug that I experienced. Its sales very likely are from negative word of mouth - negative word I'd heard before I decided to buy the game and I bought it fairly soon after its release (and possibly dwindling general PC sales as well).

AFAIK, Joan of Arc didn't impersonate or present as being a man. She was commissioned by the king of France, who did so knowing she was a young woman. The example you're looking for is someone like Brita Olofsdotte who impersonated being a man to get into the Swedish cavalry (and after dying in battle the king approved her family receiving her pay) or Frances Clalin joining the Missouri Artillery and Cavalry alongside her husband. The adoption of wearing men's clothing in Joan's case (and in the case of, say, Joanna of Flanders) was more practicality than anything else (for a couple of different reasons) as they weren't trying to hide who they were. RE: Sexism - its a slippery slope; certainly it could add something to the complexity of society but it also runs the risk of seeming like a developer statement of approval to media pundits looking for a story and probably never able to justify its inclusion, IMO.

I actually still haven't seen Letters and Flags...

Those are his really good ones. If you have watched those you don't need to watch the rest. Can't remember what the rest was, but I guess that's my point Off the top of my head (I know he's directed more) Play Misty for Me, High Plains Drifter, The Eiger Sanction, The Outlaw Josey Wales, The Guantlet, Sudden Impact, Pale Rider, Heatbreak Ridge, Bird, Unforgiven, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, and Blood Work were all pretty decent films.

The comics I read as a kid, I don't remember him being unlikable tho. Smart alec, sure, somewhat arrogantly detestable, no. He was relatable in the comics because what kid hasn't had similar frustrations at some point or another. In the film, while his situations might be sympathetic, he was not. eg, the translation to the screen wasn't a good one. Or maybe the actor's abilty to portray "angst" just didn't do it for me. I agree that the new Peter Parker wasn't as sympathetic as the old one as he seemed overly arrogant. Oddly enough, though, I think they made better use of Spider-Man though, cracking wise a good bit when in costume which seemed to fit the attitude of this Parker really well. But particularly early on I had a hard time being sympathetic for Peter (I think he comes off better as the film goes on).

"Dude...you slapped a fiiish. You punched it. Why would you hit it?" "I wanted to make some seafood." lol

I do the same thing! I tend to enjoy those first 15-20 too, but then I'm just done. Happens with every Elder Scrolls game, Fallout was the first game they made that I actually finished. I think it has more to do with enjoying the setting for me, I just lose interest in the enter world after awhile. Only one I did that with was Oblivion so far.

Depends, maybe they do dress in the style of [part] of the continent? Kinda hard to say at the moment.