Amentep

If it was toggleble like in FONV - sure. As a mandatory requirement...well nothing is as unfun to me, personally, in a game as having to carry a ton of water and food around to travel 10 feet. Mind you this could just be left over trauma from my wagon train always ending up dying of exhaustion or dysentary in OREGON TRAIL too...

I loved old school portraits that were painted and looked cool. I wasn't as crazy about the disconnect in look and color scheme between the portrait and the in world avatar (such as not being able to get hair close to what you want, or color schemes not matching and stuff). That's not something that crops up with the 3D portraits.

While I think it'd be neat to not have the traditional races, I'm not sure it'd ultimately "break" me if I saw Elves and Dwarves and Halflings women with beards because of a lack of resources (heheh IWD2, I

Got to say...I think I have no opinion on this. Most relationships in RPGs are perfunctory or forced upon you (I couldn't create a character with a family, for example, or a family is forced upon me). So in that sense I don't mind romances but don't really need them either.

I've seen Chess classified as a sport. I never would do so, again to me the dividing line is what is the competition about - Chess competition isn't about physical movement, ie the winner isn't decided by who made the most deft pawn advancement.

Thanks; I didn't have that experience, but I suppose we all view things differently. Maybe it helped that I've read part of the book series...?

Is that from the Great Gatsby? From the Django Unchained Trailer (about 1:20) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUdM9vrCbow

I...actually don't remember.

Chess and table tennis would beg to differ. No, I'm of the opinion that the term sport has become so diluted as to become meaningless, so it doesn't matter where it's used. If hopping up and down on a horse can be considered a sport, anything can. Chess isn't a sport. Table Tennis is. Sport should be classed as competitive physical activities. Note that while there is physical activity in chess (and in video gaming most of which involves moving the arm in chess or the hands in video games), I think the litmus test is whether its the physical activity iteself that is being competitive. In other words Table Tennis pitting two players' hand-eye coordination and skill with the paddle can be a sport but the competition in chess isn't the skill with which one moves ones knights or how one elegantly handles a castle move. At least that's the way I see it. Anyhow esport or competitive gaming holds no interest to me; I've generally found playing with people I don't know well to be a fruitless endeavor at best. But then I play games for my own entertainment, not to prove I'm the best at it.

yeah the rating areas show up on the pawns I use, but its all empty and there doesn't seem to be a way (or point) to me adding such.

Same as her other movies, gotcha. Lol, I think this is the first movie I've seen with her in it. *checks credits* Nope I saw her in Cold Creek Manor, but that was almost 10 years ago and I can barely remember that movie much less the small part she'd have had. Well to be fair

Sorry about that. My Pawn is a mage all the way so far. Possibly thinking about making her a sorcerer, but I'm also thinking of doing sorcerer for a few levels to level up my overall magic, but haven't decided yet. With being totally offline, are their just random pawns walking around? I'm not quite how that works. Yeah there are computer created Pawns just wandering around or hireable in the rift. They don't level up, whatever items you equip them with are gifts but their non-equiped inventory goes to storage when they're removed from the party.

I'm offline totally so I couldn't rent your pawn even if I wanted to. :/

I'm a Sorcerer up from Mage, my pawn is a Warrior up from Fighter.

Since I loved the film, I'm a bit curious as to what you didn't like about it. Lets see I've seen recently since last posting... Prometheus - Thoughtful, suspenseful, interesting plot that connects to the Alien franchise without being an Alien film. Not perfect, but really good. Endless Night - 1972 adaption of one of the few Agatha Christie stories to feature elements of the supernatural. Its a bit slow going, but worth it in the end I think. The locals and the house are pretty neat to behold. Not really creepy enough or true mystery enough I think to have broad appeal. Snow White and the Huntsman - The film does some things really well, but then will have a clumsy sequence that is wince worthy or just confusing. The story is episodic and never really gets the through story moving, IMO. Kristen Stewart will probably get a lot of flack about being in the film, but to be fair she's given very little to do for the vast majority of the film beyond react to what others have done.

I've been playing Dragon's Dogma. Basically taking my time with it - one of the few games where I've actually enjoyed just traveling around. Its not a perfect game by any means, but I certainly am enjoying what it does well.

I'm not sure I agree with the classification of piracy (for it to be applied as how the term has been used in this thread you'd have to have downloaded, say, Marilyn Monroe singing it and not paying for the use in any way); I'd agree that the person has violated the copyright that exists (whether the copyright would stand up to a challenge or not) by creating a new version of the song sung by themselves without paying royalties. That wouldn't be the argument, since each "version" of the Temple of Elemental Evil are distinct works copyrightable on their own. The potential undermining of the "Happy Birthday" song comes from it being based on a song that the copyright owners of the Birthday song (or there successors) did not themselves have the rights to and whether or not that earlier song could have been under copyright (because you can copyright new derivative works of things in the public domain but not of copyrighted works). That wasn't the intent with my post; I thought you brought up an interesting situation that I wanted to comment on. Sorry you felt that I was "jumping down your throat" as that wasn't my intent. Copyright violations are easy to do. Ever copy and forward a funny comic strip to a group of friends? Technically you've moved past "fair use" in republishing a work you don't own the rights to. Ever bought a sticker of Calvin (from "Calvin and Hobbes" peeing on something (like a car logo?). Then you're violating Bill Watterson's copyright (which he's never allowed to be licensed for Calvin and Hobbes ancillary items). Ever wrote fan fiction? Downloaded fan fiction to read? etc. I'm not sure definition wise if I'd call all copyright violations piracy though (but this could be a semantics argument) You can't copyright a generic idea. So there's no rights issue involved (although perhaps some creativity related ones). Not really the case for "work for hire" in which case the author is the company (this would include most movies, comic books and comic strips in the US at least).

I didn't say it wasn't ridiculous, I also mentioned that several legal analysts have indicated that they don't think that it'd stand up in court but there hasn't been a challenge mounted. It wouldn't be the first time that a company claimed a copyright they didn't have and dared anyone to challenge them on it. I also think the copyright extensions need to end. Active trademark should be sufficient to keep people from interfering with a companies ability to create and sell works on things that they owned that have moved into the public domain if it comes to that.

Word is Marvel Studios wants to do both.

Rofl...I didnt even know you were trying to convince me of anything. See, your problem is that youre a weak minded fool who can only debate by being overly aggressive and trying to redirect to random points in history. Im not the only one youve taken this stance with so this isnt some one-off cause "you so angy". Rant on but you just look like a tool. Im really surprise by the attitude of some of you whos opinions I respect take property rights. Its "not really stealing"? What? Whether its the stone tablets of yesteryear, the books / 1 & 0's of today, or the pulses of light tomorrow, property rights dont cease to exist because the medium of distribution changes. Also, you dont deserve something beacause you are a special unique snowflake. Here's an easier take then the Bioware example I gave earlier on why MOST Americans (NOT Russians, not Indians....AMERICANS) have committed Piracy. This is why you may say there is a difference between actually STEALING something and Piracy. Piracy is taking the ideas of something that you didn't come up with and using them...in it's most basic form. AKA...piracy deals more with taking an idea or service rather than stealing a physical object. So you can pirate software, you can pirate music, you can pirate movies (saying you didn't steal physical items of these). So where is my example? There's a popular song sung in the US and Canada on people's birthdays. It's basically the Happy Birthday song. I won't repeat it here or write it down, but the instant I said it, you probably recognize it. Have you ever sung that song? Congratulations...you pirated it. That's right...that song is still under copyright and unless you paid the studio for it's use...you pirated. Actually its not a certainty that that the copyright would hold up; it was copywritten in 1935 but for one note, a note split to accomodate the two syllables in "Happy", the song is exactly the same as the public domain song GOOD MORNING TO ALL, written in the 1890s; also there's evidence that other people the songs author used the tune with the words "Happy Birthday to You" prior to the copyrighting of the song. I think the issue is no one wants to challenge the rights in court with a risk of loss. 4 more years and the EU can sing it royalty free, though, IIRC.

Thats one of the campy things I love best about those 90's action movies. I present you with Commando: Hes firing a belt fed M60 and you may notice ~20 rounds hanging by his left hand. He killed about 50 people with those 20 rounds. I think this falls under the cinematic "rule of cool". Seeing Arnie dispatch faceless baddies = cool Watching Arnie reload = not cool

Hahah, well I can admire overacting in certain situations (sometimes its fun to see actors chewing the scenery).

I don't think Dredd has much of a life in the comics outside being a judge (mind you, haven't read a lot of Dredd, so...). I don't think that's the case with the other judges, but particular to Dredd. That said I didn't care about Stalone losing the helmet. The biggest problem, IMO, with the movie was that its predicated on a lot of what I'd call continuity pieces (Dredd's "origin", his "family", the villain taking away things that are important to him) without the context for why they matter to Dredd. The plot would have made an okay third film; it was a disastrous first film, IMO.

I find the "1s & 0s" argument interesting. There's an area in art about taking something that exists (and which you may or may not own the rights too) and being transformative of it so that a new and unique item of the artist's making is created and I almost feel that this is where the argument is going except that when someone says something like "its just 1s & 0s that if decoded the right way would make a game" there's never an explanation of what other use there would be to downloading that particular set of 1s & 0s other than decoding the way to make a game. I'm not sure that digital piracy really falls under property rights (since there isn't a physical entity to have a right to) and I think that's why there's such a struggle to understand what it means by many people. Instead of taking a physcial disc, some electrons are inconvenienced. Some intellectual rights, copyrights, distribution rights, maybe even patents might be violated though. In some ways the Internet has opened a number of issues that I think our society and our laws are struggling to conceptualize. I recall a time a few years ago when a few companies got in trouble for appropriating art from people's deviant art accounts and using them for their own posters. The companies actually said "we found them online and assumed fair use". The end result of these were that the companies were in the wrong, but there was little the creators could do to prevent it from happening once they posted the work online other than close the barn doors after the horses were gone.