Shagger

You say that, but it's happened before. When the original Dungeon Keeper first launched, it was really buggy, especially the AI. About a year later, they came out with Dungeon Keeper Gold that included the Deeper Dungeons Expansion, but it was also heavily patched and fixed a lot of the game's issues, but if you wanted those fixes you had to buy this new version. If you only had the original, tough luck. And guess who published it. Seriously, whoever you are reading this, take just one guess and I bet that's all you'll need... I know, what a shock. OK, this was before the days of internet patches, so it's unlikely even EA would try to pull this kind of bullshit again if they wanted too, but I'm sure they could have found a way for people to get an updated version of the original without buying the Deeper Dungeons. This was a huge dick move even by thier standards.

I'd like to remind everyone, and by everyone I mean @Kane99 and @Heatman, that this thread is meant for discussion on levelling speech mechanics in video games. The last post from each of you made don't mention this at all and instead are all about Fallout 76. @Heatman, I'm particularly concerned about what you're trying to do here I've seen this from you before and I think old habits are starting to creep back. @Kane99 may have started it, but it's similar attempts you have made to goad people into more off-topic posts that put have put threads completely off the rails in the past. It has got so bad that threads end up only existing as a private chat room for whatever off-topic conversation you feel like having to harvest posts. Just because somebody goes a little off topic, it is not an invite for you to have an entirely different conversion in that same thread. If you want to discuss Fallout 76 with @Kane99 or anyone else, use PM's or got to/start a Fallout 76 thread. This really isn't hard. One of these days, I'm going to get board of warning you.

Good reply, I find myself very distracted... Now, if you don't mind either answer the points raised or don't answer at all.

Yet you would happily chant it without even so much as clue what it meant? Do you understand how stupid that is? This is why football have earned thier unfortunate reputation. It takes just one homophobic or racist prat among thousands to start something, swearing and slurring that there aren't literally hundreds of kids around him, and the ignorant idiots start joining in like sheep without so much a clue that there're even saying. 95% of football fans are perfectly civilised people almost all the time, but 90 minutes between two whistle blows at the weekend, they mould into a hoard of Neanderthals, and that's apparently a valid excuse for thier rancid, prejudiced and even violent behaviour. This is why I gave up on football years ago, because I no longer trusted that those people were really OK. I didn't know, still don't know, what version of that football fan was the real person. The dickhead during the game, or the happy, Joyful Joe during the rest of the time.

In the UK, a "rent boy" is a male prostitute. Rent boys go back as far as prostitution itself, but the term was more widely use back in the 70's an 80's as an insult, largely against the gay community. The thought occurs that it was not Chelsea's own fans or Chelsea's own board who referred to themselves like that. The further thought occurs that is was, in fact, fans of a rival club that decided to start that up. So it is a slur and the origin is homophobic. You really haven't got a clue, have you?

You're the one that can't handle woman playing football for money, that's offensive to you, and yet we're the triggered ones? The same thing every time with you so "Get woke, go broke" idiots. You call us "snowflakes" and triggered" when it's you lot are hyper offended by anything that threatens your vulnerable masculinity. Woman in sports, women in the workplace, woman in power, women pretty much anywhere other than in front of an ironing board or a baby's changing table because there you don't feel threatened by them. You're the one that has issues here, and they extend well beyond some stupid argument about woman's football. To be honest, I don't actually watch football at all anymore, but I do watch women in other sports including one that is traditionally dominated my men, motorsports. I can enjoy the w-series with feeling like less of a man because I'm comfortable with my masculinity. You see, I'm not as sensitive as you are, I'm not weak like you are. That's why I don't disguise my reality that woman are at least equal to me. You're the easily offended, triggered snowflake here. Let me tell you though, there's no reason to be so upset because just there's woman out there who would tan your ass at football, it's doesn't make you less of a man. I think you need a a hug...

As gender is the only discerned difference between the two, it's obviously got everything to do with gender. Whether you're aware of that or not, that is you issue with the woman's game.

I'm not going to mince my words, what you just posted is not just obviously wrong, it's disgusting. @Crazycrab clearly put up a lot of evidence to your contrary about the quality of the woman's game and left your argument so utterly destroyed there is no point in me taking that any further, so what I'll do instead in explain why there is such a big wage gap between men and woman in professional football, because it's actually very simple. Football for men has been a professional sport for around 150 years. In that time, it has grown, developed, gained in popularity, gained investment and a following to become an industry in of itself worth $billions. The men in the sport are paid far too much and that's a product, or perhaps a mishandling, of the time the men's game has had to grow. It had all that traction without rival, and not to mention many decades to grow into the, frankly, lucrative world it is today. The woman's game, by contrast, has not only been a professional sport for a mere 30 years or so and has thusly not had the time to grow into lucrative world the men's game is. It's also got that men's game as a commercial rival, creating a challenge to get this off the ground that men's game didn't even have to contend with. The woman's game quite simply has not had that chance to become what the men's game is. It's only been in the last few years I've seen the woman's game get at least some sort of push by mainstream media at all. That little insight was my favour to you, and that's all you get from me as I'm not interested in spending my time on here debating with a sexist little twirp. I know you posted again as I was typing this, but I don't care. Got help you when the day comes you actually have to deal with woman in the real world.

I tend to level things up in a balanced way, so speech just takes as long as it takes. I do consider crafting and combat skills mor important in these types of games, so speech isn't a huge priority as there is usually another way round a problem.

The longest game for a single playthrough that I've played is Kingdoms of Amalur. With the DLC included, you could easily sink over 200 hours into it. I was fine with that because that was a kind of game that works well with that kind of length, but I was to play something like a FPS, hack and slash or an interactive narrative for that long it would drive me mad.

It depends on the game. In most games autosaves override each other, but Skyrim, for example, keeps a history of around 5 autosaves before they start to override. In my experience, most games autosave in a regular save slot that could override with a manual save if you wanted to. doing so would place the next autosave into a brand new slot as you don't really want an autosave overriding your manual saves. This can vary, so it's best to know the behaviours of the game your playing. Do you mind if I ask if there is a specific game that's causing you grief prompting you to start this topic?

Should I use my power of invisibility to fight crime or for evil? For the second time in as many posts, keep discussion about PS+ on the appropriate thread if you don't mind.

Can I remind you that there is a thread dedicated to PS+ in the video game deals section. Please keep discussions on PS+ there.

God, not another one...

The Broken Steel DLC for Fallout 3 has got to be the very worst example of this. Without the add-on, the game literally just stops with the story half told. It's actually a good DLC to tell the truth, but it was clearly always supposed to be part of the story. I am all for expansions, I don't mind supporting a good game post release, but not like this.

This is a gaming centric topic, so I'll move it to the general gaming sub-forum, I have to agree. Games today just don't offer the kind of upfront value they used to with them being so incomplete. They get chopped into bits and sold back to us instead of being a simple, convenient one-off purchase. An argument could be made that games are larger and do offer more value for money than the perhaps they used to and and it would be true of a lot of them, but they're more creatively inept and so similar to each other that it feels like you're playing the same shit all the time, and that's before we get to the people who keep buying the same tired franchises year after year like COD or FIFA. I still believe that you can have amazing experiences with games today, maybe better than ever before, but it's so much work to find such games these days.

You wanna let this stew? Well tough, because I'm taking this off the boil. I don't know what this is about, this post of yours leaves far more questions then it answers, but I do know that it is not normal for someone to join a forum them immediately post something like this. I'm locking this thread, and might I suggest that if you want to continue to post on this forum you drop the cryptic or don't bother at all.

You are really not getting this. You're still operating on the assumption that kick-ins will always be short pass to somebody from the side of the pitch regardless of where they are, but no professional footballer will play it like that if they have a chance to use a kick-in like a set piece to, for example, cross a ball into an opponent's box. It's not uncommon for footballers to do that now with throw-ins; What world do live in where you live in that makes you believe teams won't use kick-ins the same way?

Everything that I have to say about the game's horrendous monetisation is in this thread here. The worst of the monetization is mostly reserved for the endgame (but that's obviously very important in Diablo), but I have heard game itself is apparently pretty decent apart from the constant prompt to pay money for shit. I personally wouldn't support this even knowing I would never spend money. Playing this game would be like going on a date with somebody who has HIV. It may be fine, even brilliant up until you're invited inside and only disaster awaits beyond that however badly you want to end the date on a high note.

Surprising to nobody, NASA are nerds who like Bethesda games, more specifically The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and quoted the game recently in a public statement regarding the new James Webb space telescope. The first images from the new telescope have been making the rounds on social media promoting an interaction between the official Starfield account and NASA on Twitter leading to Bethesda quoting from Oblivion. Full story below. https://www.techradar.com/news/even-nasa-is-an-elder-scrolls-oblivion-fan So, yeah. A cool story if not that surprising.

I think open world games do this better when the story and overall progression is more liner, like GTA, Horizon: Zero Dawn/Forbidden West and some of the AC games. Bethesda open worlds, like The Elder Scrolls and Fallout, as much as I love them, do not do this well at all because every story and side story goes on hold until you get back to them, amidst what are often quite immediate and desperate scenarios. Like there is something that story-wise need addressed immediately, but you can hold it off literally for weeks in game doing nothing to address it and it makes no difference. Obviously, that's not the game's fault, it wouldn't be fair to penalise the player for doing one thing instead of another, but cleaver writing can round this problem. This is one of the things I felt HZD/FW did especially well. You hit a checkpoint in a side mission, and there was only so much urge to get to the next step. It's difficult to explain, but it was very subtle and very clever. The games also gently encouraged the side quest to played in a certain order, especially in the earlier parts of the game. It made sense to both players with a completionist and more direct play style.

Do you seriously believe that players when the have a kick-in near the opposing team's box that they'll just pass the ball? They won't, they'll take the chance to play it like set piece, I guarantee it. I suppose they could make a rule to forbit it, but how could they enforce such a rule? You can't just say they're only allowed to kick the ball so far, nor could they disallow the ball to fly from a kick-in when a ball is allowed to fly from a throw in currently, it just wouldn't work. The wheal dynamic of out of bounds would change. Defenders, for example, would no longer try to try to put a ball out of bound to the side rather the back because what's the point in preventing a corner when the opposing team will get a kick in just a few feet from the flag anyway.

If they did this, every time the ball went out of bounds outside the, let's say, "middle third" of the pitch, it would effectively turn that into either a goal kick or corner kick depending on what side outed the ball. It wouldn't speed up play because you would inevitably have players making walls to block the ball and position defensively like what happens free kicks and corner kicks, so it wouldn't the desired effect. Not to mention that the football itself is very different object that it was 160 years ago. The materials and design make modern footballs fly, spin and react to touch in a very different way, so even it made sense 160 years ago to have kick-ins, it doesn't make sense now. Suffice to say, this is a stupid idea.

The thing about electrical current is that it's not really voltage that kills, it's amplitude. Yes, tasers run at an absurdly high voltage, but the amplitude is extremely low, a few milliamps at most. The voltage is what the nerves and muscles react too making that high voltage far more painful than a shock at, say, the 230v supply that runs through your home, but that home home electrical supply could be running at 13 amps, making it far more dangerous. That's why tasers run at such a high voltage, so they can operate a very low amplitude and make them safer whilst still effective.

The EU's Senet or Parliament building or whatever it is they call it is located in the Belgian capital of Brussels.