Amentep

Considering the difference in length, not a surprise. Length is part of it (as I tended to get bored about halfway through BG2). But I also found BG1's end to be terribly frustrating and only beat it the one time I did by cheating. To tell the truth, I prefer IWD and PST to either BG games.

I've played ME more times over my ownership than I ever have either of the Baldur's Gate games. In fact I played BG to completion once, TotSC once, BG2 twice, ToB once. I beat ME three times with just one of my characters (I've got 5) and ME2 twice (once each with two characters). Can't say one is better than the other since its up to personal taste, but for me I found ME a lot more replayable than BG games.

It doesn't change the fact that the game publishers are apparently the only people concerned with a second-hand market (book publishers don't, music publisher's didn't, comic book publishers don't (in fact they cater to this market), car makers don't, movie producers don't, etc.)

Dare I ask?

Basically the game industry sees killing the used market as a way of raising their profits. Which was, I believe, my argument when EA did the same thing. It is funny, as you mention, that apparently every other industry (except the food industry) has a thriving second hand market without problems.

The Thresher Maws killed me a lot. And I accidentally drove into lava a bit.

Yeah you can't necessarily stop them coming. I just wouldn't feel comfortable putting stuff out for them (I'm just weird that way). Oddly we never get raccoons (which may be why when I see them they make me paranoid because seeing a raccoon around here usually means its rabid) but we do get opossums all the time.

Yeah, I wouldn't feed racoons. Ever. Don't care if they're adorable. They're dangerous and encouraging them to come near human habitation is pretty much asking for them to pillage people's garbage, and could lead to a rabid racoon attack, IMO.

Saw Piranha 3D over the weekend. A big old "ugh" to the film. I loved the original Piranha film and high hopes for this one, but its a total mess of a film. Its also much more of a gore film (ie the point seems to be showing gore than anything else), which I personally find to be a disappointing approach. As a fan of B to Z grade films, I can live with one dimensional characters, but most of the characters in this film don't even rate a dimension. They do whatever the plot calls for them to do for plot expediency, not because it makes sense or has been supported by character development (or even a line of dialogue). The attacks have no suspense (the big piranha attack on the beach party goes on so long that its actually boring instead of suspenseful) and often have no rhyme nor reason (the piranhas seem to be pretty much wherever they need to be for the plot to have an attack). Several times attacks are broken up for visual gags, deflating the scenes. The last minute "shock ending" is laughable (and spoiled by the trailer). That said some of the cast manages to do well with what they're given (Elizabeth Shue, Ving Rhames, Christopher Lloyd) just simply because they manage to invest the characters with enough spark to gain audience sympathy. Special kudos to Jerry O'Connell who manages to play a loathsome porn producer with appropriate combinations of "gee-whiz we're going to make a movie" enthusiasm and seedy "hurh-hurh-hurh" attitude (with occasional teen boy "boobies!" approach). Steven R. McQueen and Jessica Szohr play the main leads and unfortunately the film undercuts any real buildup to their characters (Szohr's character's boyfriend gets a bigger shaft, having an unexplained-by-the-film reaction during the beach attack that mostly seems to have happened so there could be some more gore effects). Kellie Brook manages to invest some sympathy into her character whose storyline seems to get dropped with McQueen's and Szohr's (as she seems to be trying to play matchmaker between them, but again that whole storyline doesn't get any screen time beyond a few nods early on). The 3D itself is a mixed bag; some of it seems well thought out, some of it not thought out at all. Parts of it are obviously upconverted and some parts of the film don't seem to be 3D at all. Overall I'd say its a big missed opportunity not worth shelling out the dough to see in 3D in the theaters.

Van Damme and Seagal were both invited to join in, but both turned the project down. Seagal reportedly turned it down due to issues with one of the producers (he'll be appearing in Robert Rodriguez' Machete in September). Van Damme reportedly turned it down because he didn't think it was the right move to make (or alternatively he wasn't crazy about the character/plot; I've read different rumours). Also reportedly turning down a part was Kurt Russell (who would have had the Bruce Willis cameo) and Wesley Snipes (who was unavailable) and Forest Whitaker (who initially signed but then had scheduling conflicts).

Like in Space:1999, but without the radioactive explosions. Will it still go through a black hole? And find a planet of robot people? And meet metamorphs? And will there be a moonbase with Martin Landau commanding? And will they always send out Eagle 1 with Alan Carter piloting?

If its fun to me, I don't care how the combat is done.

To be fair, the government/army intervention is taken straight out of the original film from 1973.

Does the university register you for your courses? (I ask because where I work we have hand registered the majority of student for almost 15 years). That should be HAVE NOT registered the majority of students for almost 15 years.

I like to play games and get entertainment value in them. I don't invest myself heavily in game companies other than if I play a game and like it, I'm more inclined to pay attention to the company's next game. And if I've liked a bunch of games a company has made, then I'm more inclined to lurk/post on the company's message board to keep up with what is coming next. Beyond that it just seems like a bunch of "my dad can beat up your dad" arguments.

Does the university register you for your courses? (I ask because where I work we have hand registered the majority of student for almost 15 years).

The article is about a new discovery that indicates the fungi was around doing its thing 48 million years ago (due to fossil leaf evidence). Well, it's nice that we're getting the news on this in real time. I imagine it takes some time to find zombie ant bitten leaf fossil evidence.

Are you insane? The ME fanbase would have a collective heart attack. Why? I like turn based games. (I actually think there would be less useless fervor over DA2 if it had been called "Dragon Age: The Champion of Kirkwall". To many people got hung up on the idea (at least in my opinion) that DA2 should be a direct continuation of DA1 with nothing at all about the game changed other than a new/more story)

The article is about a new discovery that indicates the fungi was around doing its thing 48 million years ago (due to fossil leaf evidence).

Looks good to me.

And you were all about the dwarves when you first started posting anyhow. Go Dwarves, go!

Scott Pilgrim vs The Word I enjoyed it. The audience - which was larger than I expected given what I'd heard of its dismal showing this weekend - laughed a lot and seemed to enjoy it. I grinned so much my face hurt. The nods to classic video games is pretty hilarious. I have not read the comics, so can't make any comparison, but the movie felt like it managed to juggle an insanely large cast of relatively main characters without making me lose sense of the main story. Good stuff and well worth seeing on the big screen.

As a different approach (I loved Titan Quest so can't say I disliked the way it worked) I kinda like how FATE handled this - having the pet be able to travel back to town and the loot would be sold. It had its limitations (the animal could only carry so much and of course wouldn't be able to fight while gone) so there was always the choice over whether it was worth it to go back to town in person or just send the pet. Could be an approach that would allow the game to work the Mule (assuming they return) a bit more into the game play.

That's... exactly what people care about when they like/don't like gameplay changes. But I don't care if it changes. The crux of most of the stuff I've read on the bio-boards boils down to "OMG! You changed it! How dare you!" Doesn't matter if the game itself might still be good because/despite the changes and that's what I don't get. So DA2 isn't going to be a bigger/better/longer DA:O; well so what? Once we accept that its different, why can't we look at what DA2 is on the terms of what it offers as opposed to what DA:O offered. That's where I get lost.