Amentep

We ask that the users of this board treat one another with respect, even when opinions differ. Please remember to discuss issues and ideas and not other users, their mindsets or motivations.

So with this merger...do we get a sequel to two great developers ultimate collaboration... Hunted: The Demon's Forge from InXile and Bethesda? I keed, i keed...even though I liked the game.

We ask that the users of this board treat one another with respect, even when opinions differ. It is possible to have a fundamental disagreement on these forums without attacking one another personally. Please stick to arguing facts and not motivations or through processes of other posters. Thank you.

Our main option is posting...posting and staring at the screen...staring at the screen or posting. Our two options are posting and staring at the screen...and playing Obsidian games. Our *three* options are posting, staring at the screen, playing Obsidian games...and reading about Politics in other countries. Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our options.... Amongst our options...are such elements as posting, staring at the.... wait, I'll come in again.

Gotta talk about something. Guess we could try just staring at our screens for a change.

To bad you didn't misread it as 'talking carp'...

That's about it, with a lot of question marks in the middle.

I admit, that was my first concern as well. How will Microsoft view InXile, Obsidian and Bethesda? Small, Medium, Large? Or that they should all be one thing? Or Thunderdome? Also since they're buying ZeniMax, I guess that means they get alpha Dog, Arkane Studios, id Software, MachingGames, Roundhouse Studios, Tango Gameworks and ZeniMax Online Studios in addition to Bethesda.

I am shocked at this. Really didn't expect it in any way. Just floored.

Yes, I have impeccable timing. For context - https://news.microsoft.com/2020/09/21/microsoft-to-acquire-zenimax-media-and-its-game-publisher-bethesda-softworks/ Edit: So @Madw0rkah0lik there's hope after all!

I think I mentioned there are attack ads locally attacking a guy for being a defense attorney (he defended murderes! Drug dealers! Rapists!) which ignores the fact that in our system of justice, everybody is entitled to a competent defence. Don't get me started on PACs. They're just an excuse to allow people to contribute more money than they're legally allowed to support a campaign and to attack opponents without directly connecting the smear and muck raking to the candidate, which is just wrong IMO. You can't really legislate to stop it either.

The original poster posted they found a fix: Unfortunately the full post and several others were deleted due to personal sniping.

FWIW Obsidian does not own the Fallout IP, and does not own Fallout: New Vegas, so them working on a remaster of the game would be up the Bethesda, which would be fairly unlikely.

We ask that the users of this board treat one another with respect. Calling people trolls is not that.

General Ripper, is that you...?

You make a good point; to clarify I was mostly trying to express that there were indigenous peoples of the US that took the side of the north, to counter a (perhaps misreading) or redneckdevil's initial post that the support was universally for the south. I also wanted to try and point out that that these choices were dependent on their own unique relationships and needs, not to vilify any group. As you correctly point out, I only mentioned about 16 groups that I can recall having read supporting the war efforts of either side, but that was out of around 600 or more culture groups.

Iirc, the US would have a negative population growth if not for immigration.

I think often times people want to make things simple and in so doing give a false impression because rarely is anything simple. Simplicity glosses over the years of racial tension around the country caused the ill treatment we have inflicted on ourselves based on race. Sure there were lynchings and mob violence in the south, and it was more prevalent there. Certainly the Jim Crow laws were unique (but exist, primarily, because the North kind of gave up on 'fixing' the south), but you can find examples of gerrymandering to disenfranchise or violence in the north. For a Rosewood in Florida, you get a Greenwood district in Tulsa. For a race riot in Atlanta (1909) you get one in Chicago (1919); for one in Watts (in 1965) you get one in Newark (1967). Maybe history in public schools is better now but back in my day, a lot of this wasn't ever touched on (and no mention of the Asian immigration restrictions via quotas or what was really going on with native peoples for the most part, although perhaps some sort of ambivalence about Custer had begun to creep in). The Japanese internment camps were seen as bad, but were presented as I recall as a bit of an anomaly and not part of an interconnected picture about fears of Asians in the west. That said, I seriously doubt the South would have honored any promises made to the native peoples anymore than the North/US generally did. There was too much money being poured into the plantation system for them to give plantation lands back to native peoples, and too much money in mining in the mountains. Lincoln I think from what I've read mostly wanted to preserve the union. I don't think he was a fan of slavery, IIRC, but he'd have kept it if he'd been able to keep the union together. He didn't really have a lot of chance though, having spoken out against the spread of slavery he saw as inherent in the Kansas-Nebraska act while a Representative, South Carolina succeeded before he took office.

What do you do when two bears spawn?

IIRC it was about 3,000 that fought for the north (and lost about 10%), but were primarily the northern tribes that had been working well in the northern states. So yes, the vast majority who picked a side, sided with the south. Note the the reasons they did were complex and differed between groups. The Choctow, for example, sided with the south because their laws allowed slave ownership, and their agent who they liked was a southern sympathizer. Combine that with the US government having more or less ignored them and their issues for years and its easy to see why they'd side with the south. The western Cherokee siding with the south was a bit weird - yes it was the US government who sent them west, but it was to open up the southern states for southern plantation owning whites, so I'd imagine if everyone else around them weren't supporting the south so that they would have to fight in their homes constantly, they may have chosen differently. The big difference in the industrial revolution 'wage slave' and the slaves of the south is that - as far as I know - the factory owner didn't have a legal right to kill you, to break up your family or to chase you down if you left and drag you back to work for them (albeit some of what they were allowed to do could kill you and/or break up your family; I don't recall them being able to drag you back to work except when prison labor got used).

As I recall the Delaware, Pamunkee, Lumbee, Iroquois, Powhaten, Pequot, Ottawa, Seneca, Huron Oneida, Potawatomi and Ojibwa fought on the Union side. The Cherokee (western and Carolinian), Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, and Catawba fought on the Confederate side. I think the Creek ended up fighting on both sides. Wasn't it the Oklahoma Creek who sided with the Union? The Lakota, Arpaho, Cheyenne and others were still fighting the US out west when the civil war started if memory serves me, and not really considered to have taken a side. At any rate, while you can argue the civil war was a libertarian movement against 'big government' (big business is, IMO not supportable, as the whole continuation of slavery was necessary for the economy as it was established, and therefore supported the southern wealthy), you'll never escape that what 'big government' was doing that the south objected to was freeing the slaves. It will always come back to slavery and protecting the money interests of the wealthy southern families that had invested in the plantation system and that needed to feed the cotton gin in volume to be sustained.

...with turnips...??? Seriously though, I don't like Minsc either. I also preferred Imoen as a thief. But I'd rather have a classless system than hybrid class system mechanics and so was never fond of BG2 forcing me to have her a dual class character. Anyhow, imagine if Khalid and Dynahir had been the survivors in Irenicus' dungeon instead of Minsc and Jaheria...!

Since you can post, can you send a PM to @Fionavar?