@SlasherMan said:I talked to a buddy who beat the game shortly after I did. I chose the Roche path; he went with Iorveth. It felt like we were talking about two different games at some points. I understand the basic storyline and endgame are going to be the same, but yeah. I cannot even think of a game that hits this level of difference, with the entire central chapter of the game (which is also the longest) being so different. My only hope is that these decisions can be carried over into different playthroughs on TW3.Well, it makes sense, since now you've got the hang of it, and know exactly what to do and what not to in combat. I'll probably go for a second run later this year or the next. Really want to see the Iorveth side.I was quite amazed to see that Chapter 2 essentially becomes an entirely different game with 90% of the quests being unique to Iorverth's path. A lot of RPG's feature branching paths based on your decisions, but never have I seen a game take it quite this far.
Nate_is_my_fake_name's forum posts
I found this game to have the single hardest tutorial I have ever played. In fact, I didn't really stop dying constantly until I hit level 5 or so. I also started using my wired 360 controller, and I think that works better than the M/KB controls for this game. After that, the game was much more manageable. I loved the game in general, though. Rather than replay the entire first chapter, I loaded my save near the end of chapter one, and made the different decision (sorry, I know that is worded poorly. I am trying to avoid spoilers). Though I have not played much since then, I noticed an immediate change--Flotsam is quite different at the end of chapter one, depending on what you decide. I cannot wait to play the second chapter and see it all differently...the fact that they would even do something like this is pretty impressive to me.
Can someone explain something here?
You can spend real money to buy PLEX, sell them for ISK, and then use that ISK to buy the best gear you want. How is simply paying real money so much worse; are the end results really any different?
Maybe those guys wouldn't be quite so tired each day there if they didn't go on 5 hour binges every night and have a hangover each successive morning. They should learn that they are at E3 to cover games, not to party like its 1999 if it is going to affect their performance.I think you nailed it with this comment. Having appointment after appointment and dealing with moving through huge crowds is part of their job there, but doing a 4 hour podcast while drinking every night? That's all on them. It's bitching about first world problems.
Exactly. Or all the musicians there...E3 is an "industry event" in name only.
Oh yeah, fuck STephen Spielberg, JJ Abrams and that dude from Chuck for being there as well unless they were to be involved with any games or having any meetings.
Spielberg especially, bringing his fucking brat along.
@FancySoapsMan said:What is more preferable: a homosexual couple that chooses to adopt and raise a child, or a heterosexual couple that never has a child simply because they don't want to?I have, simply that because homosexual couples are less preferable to society they should not be classed as the same as heterosexual couples. Defining them as marriage effectively makes them the 'same', when it is erroneous and IMO harmful to do so.
@Inkerman said:@SeriouslyNow said:Uhh.... No, you haven't.Bigot implies my views are completely irrational or baseless, yet I've just explained, quite clearly, an entirely rational basis for my views.
@Inkerman said:@hidys said:But there is no good reason to do that other than to say one is inferior to the other which is pretty discriminatory.But one is inferior to the other, as I have explained using the Generia example. This is not because of some moral or religious issue, it is a scientific fact that homosexual couples are of less value to society than heterosexual ones.
No matter how intricate the mask, you're still a bigot.
I still don't understand how or why there's opposition. I've yet to personally meet anyone against it. The entire foundation of the United States was based around the concept of separation of church and state, and besides the church, there is literally no legitimate reason to oppose homosexuality.Exactly. If the Catholics (the entity as a whole, I'm not saying every individual Catholic feels one way or another about this) does not want to marry gays in their churches, I see no issue with that. The government, on the other hand, needs to be fair to everyone. If two homosexual people want to share their love, money, and lives together I don't see why that is functionally different from two heterosexual people doing the same thing.