Amentep

I liked Dragon Age 2 although I accepted that it was a short turn around game and understood there would be limitations within that framework. I'm also enjoying ME3 (although not at the end) but not as much as I did ME 1 or ME 2 (which may be down to feeling THE END written in everything that happens in ME3 - its a bit funereal in tone, really).

The same trend is showing in movies (and to be honest probably any entertainment field with high production cost). As an example last years Green Hornet film (no comment pro or con on quality of same film) made a small profit for the studio that put it out - but not a big enough profit to warrant making a sequel. One of the producers said, essentially, that the studio wanted to spend $120 million dollar to make a film that would return a $300 million profit, not $50 million.

You know I can't really remember BG2's expansion ending. I vaguely remember the Jon Irenicus from BG2 proper end. Of course I usually never played BG2 through to the end when I played it. Have more half-started campaigns in the IE engine than I think any other games I played...lol. Most of the time and end is an end; there are a few that disappoint me but if the game is fun I'll keep playing it. I hated Secret of Mana's ending with a passion (easily one of the top worst game endings - at least the US English Translation it came out with - I've ever played) and yet I kept playing the game because it was fun (then ChronoTrigger came out and I never bothered with Secret of Mana again). I'll be interested to see how I feel finishing ME3 (so far I'm not as fond of ME3's gameplay as I was about ME1 and 2).

IIRC they specifically mashed up A PRINCESS OF MARS and GODS OF MARS (I read the first three books - which would add WARLORD OF MARS) decades ago so I can't really remember the specifics other than a lot of the Thern stuff comes from GODS and spices up the Princess plot (but leaves out the stuff about Issus, where the Therns live of the "Black Martians"). But agreed it matched my memory of the spirit of the novels if not actually being a literal, page for page adaption.

If they designed ME3 around any intention to be able to continue the universe past the ending, then it'd be an almost unrecognisable gameworld. It's basically designed with the opposite of that intention. From what I've heard about the end-game I don't think they broke anything that couldn't, conceivably, be "fixed" to give a ME universe similar but certainly still feeling post-Reaper invasion. But maybe I'll feel differently once I get to the end.

Well Dejah Thoris is wearing clothes so there is some departure from the book series (I guess whether that's good or bad is in the eye of the beholder).

I haven't got to the end yet, but having been spoiled somewhat on the basics on it, I can't help but wonder if the problem is that they were hamstrung by certain choices they made early on in ME1 and (i suspect) the desire to be able to continue with the world of Mass Effect (if not the Shepard character) past ME3. Mind you as far as I recall Bioware have said that you create your Shepard within a certain set parameters (ie Shepard wasn't going to be a fly fisherman from Arcturus) so there has always been an inherently limiting concept with ME that the characters and stories were going to have certain things that always happened (at least that's how I always took it).

Saw John Carter (of Mars) again this weekend. Enjoyed it again. Such a fun film that really captures the early Planetary Romance feel.

Yeah, I thought the storyline aspect was a lot weaker than 2. Still enjoyed the game, but felt it didn't match what I really liked about 2. Was working through the DLC of FO:NV; switched to do ME3 (with ME1->2->3 character - thanks face generation issue that made me have to try and recreate my face (and failed)). I'll go back to FO:NV when I finish ME3 so I can do Lonesome Road.

Taking the question seriously, I think we'd have to be able to quantify what a soul is to be able to answer that question, which AFAIK we are not able to do (at this time and assuming they exist). Arguments I've seen in various religions (for example, the idea that souls already exist and are born into the world vs the idea that a soul is created at conception) would have to indicate different potential origins. Also while creationism can be supportive of evolution, the idea of a creator could also add in the possibility of things created without the benefit of evolution which could throw any argument...

I thought he just sang the song, pretty sure Shaft was Roundtree. Hayes was though...

I'm of mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, sometimes quests that don't have any connection to the main plot can be WTF? moments (particularly if the end resolution of the quest proves harder than the end of the game). On the other hand, its nice to not have everything be connected easily to the overarching plot either in that it gives the game world an illusion of breadth; that everything hasn't up and stopped to deal with the opponent's plan.

It definitely sounds strange; and while I'm not sure its a vanity project the interview I read with the SP creators did sound a lot like "We like video games and wanted to do an RPG" kind of thing. That said, it could be fun. Could also be a big mess. I'm hoping for fun though (and I say that as someone who has never watched an episode of South Park).

And yet if you've been playing as a goody-goody character odds are you won't need the Karma point gained anyhow since Karma usually has an upper cap to it; ergo you're really opting to take the good path simply because that's the path your character would take with no inherent game related benefit. The first IMO breaks the game; why is this slave so expensive and how can the seller possibly know my carried wealth to constantly price her out of my buying range? Also as an option, this essentially gives me as the player no choice - so why include it? Seems to me that if you're looking for this kind of quest to be muddied then you're better off at looking at the ramifications of the action involved - seller will only sale if you do something for them that is morally reprehensible (which is the lesser of the two evils to do?) or you buy the slave but the slave doesn't want to be free so now you're stuck with a slave affecting people's perception of you, etc. The second, I can't imagine any legal system that would allow the substitute hand for punishment; it makes no sense in the intent of that kind of sentence (and taken to its logical conclusion is silly - "hey we won't hang this cattle thief but only if we can hang you instead! Because, you know, we actually are only in this to see people hang"; the player's choice is going to have to be to either take on the legal establishment or leave the urchin to their fate. Pragmatically, creating a new hand-less character model and programming the inability to use the hand might not be worth the time/effort to add it into your game. The third IMO only works if its reasonable for someone to have seen the weapon (again I hate it when game characters can see into my inventory - wtf?) but could be an interesting consequence (although it'd also be nice to see nice loot you sell back be bought by people and possibly end up on your opponents too - but I imagine programming could be difficult to do that) Pissing off any faction (as a hero or villain) should have broader consequences, I think. This is a problem IMO between creating what's fun for a game vs what would really happen. I'm not sure the vast majority of gamers are ready to try and spend time trying to figure out which NPCs are trying to scam them; it also I think would be problematic to properly motivate the npc involved (why, for example, would they mess with the "newcomer asking basic questions like a tourist" rather than just tell them to piss off?)

She was good; I was afraid she'd feel too modern but she fit in - I liked all of the actors though and the fact that they didn't have everyone speak english. I do think there are a couple of bits that don't match up - I'd heard there were reshoots and I think that's why.

Err...I'm not sure if you're serious or not but my first post WAS about the movie. My second post is kinda about the movie too. As I mentioned I liked the prequel. I think - as I mentioned it really mirrors the base under seige feel of the original movie adaption of 'Who Goes There' - The Thing from Another World, The Thing (2011) makes sense to be more action oriented than the other version of The Thing which was more paranoid driven and less about action but picking off the characters one by one. But it also dovetails nicely into the earlier film while also establishing enough details that they could do a sequel that happens after the events of the existing films.

Based on what I read the combat is fairly similar to what is generally referred to as jRPG combat - the description makes it actually sound like ChronoTrigger a little bit ("monsters" on the field, you can choose to fight or not, combat is TB) Of course the jRPG style combat is really similar to early US RPG game combat (like SSI's Phantasie) so...

Dude, you rather would have named them the movie "The Thing: Begins" or something? Calling two movies about a creature that takes over people and becomes virtually indistinguishable from the original by the same name is soooo metatextual though!

Yeah I liked The Thing pretty well. Although I think The Thing was maybe a bit better, The Thing was a pretty good prequel to The Thing and it sets up possibilities for further stories (hopefully all called The Thing). I also felt The Thing captured the fighting spirit of The Thing From Another World better than The Thing which was more about paranoia than fighting a monster. It reminded me a bit of a monster film crossed with The Goonies. It was fun.

I've never watched an episode of South Park, so I'm not totally committed, but some of the stuff I've read about how they're handling the game sounds like it could be fun.

Playing Skyrim. Was playing Saints Row The Third, but I hurt my back and can't drive from a prone position (but oddly have no problem hacking and slashing, although I have to lay further away from the screen and Skyrim's dialog choices aren't exactly easy to read from a distance).

It is dark in there. You may be eaten by a grue. >Cast Frotz on Grue

Saw THE THING, a prequel to THE THING (which was a remake of THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD). There's a part of me that hopes if the movie does well enough for sequels they call them all THE THING. Anyhow about the movie, its not as paranoid/suspenseful as the Carpenter film. Actually even though its set in the Carpenter versions world, it does owe a lot to the "base under siege" feel of THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD. While there is some identity/paranoia issues in the story, most of the story is a clear "monster loose, how do we stop it" combined with a "How did the Norwegian Camp get like we saw in Carpenter's move" approach. Its not as good as either of its predecessors IMO but fun enough on its own terms.

who am i? what am i doing here?