-
Posts
6294 -
Joined
-
Well I would simply argue that if the Rednames wanted to do anything to STOP people from talking about supposed conspiracies then TheOcho should have probably not used the vaguely loaded word "initiative" (as opposed to "issue") without fully explaining what he meant by that.
Frankly I think the Devs are sometimes their own worst enemies when it comes to things like this... -
Quote:You certainly did not use the word 'evil' specifically. But everything you HAVE said about it clearly implies you blindly assume remakes are universally bad and things to be hated, which they clearly aren't.If you can find the sentence where I quoted the process as being "evil", feel free to post it. Blind indeed.
If all you can do to support your otherwise viable point is quibble about which descriptive word I used to describe your semi-irrational stand on this then I think you need to go back to the drawing board. You've chosen to hate on this particular remake based on faulty conclusions and knee-jerk assumptions. All I'm suggesting is that you ought to judge things on their own merits, not on blind assumptions. -
Quote:I doubt it. IMDB lists 8 episodes for Bionic Woman but it felt like it only lasted like maybe 2 or 3.Well could it be any worse then the recent attempt at rebooting the Bionic Woman?


Sadly it's failures like that which has probably kept a Wonder Woman reboot in limbo... -
Quote:I'd agree with you if this remake had NOTHING to do with the original author.It's definitely a bad thing if it leads to more remakes. If filmmakers can't come up with original ideas, they should get new jobs. Heck, anybody can "re-imagine" another individual's idea. The true talent of a great many filmmakers these days is the ability to sucker consumers into paying to view the same movie twice.
But in this case this remake was basically WRITTEN by the original author.
Hard to be mad at him if he wanted an opportunity to make American movie money. As I said I had NEVER even heard of the original. Now I'm likely to buy the original movie and novel to read. I'd say that's a win for John Lindqvist.
Stop being so blind to these things to automatically assume "remake = evil".
Sure -most- of them are, but not all. *shrugs* -
Back in college I had a roommate who supposedly did an interview with Elvira for a school newspaper back around 1990.
That's it, no real story beyond that - I just like to flaunt my extensive connections to famous people.
-
Quote:As I said "Let Me In" was good enough that I'm now genuinely interested in seeing the original to see how it actually compares. For what it's worth I never even heard of "Let the Right One In" until I started reading reviews of the remake. *shrugs*These American remakes smack of pure laziness on the part of filmmakers here. Every other movie now is either a remake or a 3D film. That being said, Let The Right One In was better than the remake in every way.
I normally hate remakes because most of them do in fact suck. But again since the actual author of the original novel and screenplay was involved in this remake I have to think it's better than the typical remake "laziness" you describe. If the original is truly better "in every way" then I figure this Americanized version will only bring more fame and money to its author. I don't see that as a bad thing... -
-
Normally I don't like "remade" movies, especially ones that are based on recent originals. So when I heard "Let Me In" was based on a Swedish film made just 2 years ago I initially figured it was going to be a cheesy knock-off.
Fortunately I was pleasantly surprised. This new movie was good enough that I want to see the original now just to compare it for relative goodness. Turns out the guy who wrote the original novel and screenplay for "Let the Right One In" (John Lindqvist) was also involved in the screenplay for this new movie so it make sense that they are very close and true to the source material.
*** mild spoiler alert ***
I loved the simplicity and strength of the characters. The story was straightforward but mysterious enough to make you want to care what was going to happen. I loved how this was technically a story involving a vampire but it more like how two emotionally fragile people would deal with horrors of vampirism as an abstract thing that would stand in the way of a "typical" relationship.
Admittedly the ending itself wasn't too hard to predict, but the film was interesting enough that it was cool to see how it unfolded to reach that ending. I'm sure many people remember the classic scene from Star Wars where Anakin makes the final choice to "fall" to the Dark Side by choosing to help the Emperor instead of Mace Windu. Well let's just say this film's equivalent of that scene blows the Star Wars scene out of the water for overall coolness.
-
I guess it'll be interesting to see how they frame this new show. Will Wonder Woman just be kind of a loner doing things semi-independently or will they try to build up a "scooby gang" of sorts like Buffy the Vampire Slayer did? Will other characters from the Justice League ever be involved here or will the show effectively assume she's the only superhero in the world (kind of like the 70s era show did)?
I suppose they could do all sorts of things with this... -
Quote:Here's the classic problem with trying to apply a generic definition to a MMO game. You're forgetting the key thing here: The Devs are using a RNG to come up with a purely "random" number but they are using that number to choose a drop from a WEIGHTED table. This allows the Devs to claim it's all random while still controlling the drop rate as they see fit.

Let me explain with a hypothetical look-up table. Let's say the Devs are using the following table:
01-10 = Drop A
11-20 = Drop B
21-50 = Drop C
51-98 = Drop D
99-00 = Drop E
Now from this table it would be easy to predict that Drops C and D likely come up far more often than Drop E. But here's the trick: when the Devs use their RNG to generate a number from 1 to 100 there's an EQUAL chance any value from 1 to 100 will happen. But just because there was an EQUAL chance of any value from 1 to 100 happening doesn't mean that has any direct bearing on how that number is going to be applied to a look-up table. Therefore you can easily have STRICTLY RANDOM values be weighted any way the Devs want.
Sure you could complain that the Devs are cheating or being devious by "misleading" us like that.
But remember they are the Devs... they're allowed to do that here.
-
The real problem here is that the Devs were initially sloppy with what they allowed to be badges in the first place. Strictly speaking it would have been far better if the Devs had limited "badges" to only be things that were earnable by individual characters via actions in the game.
Where this all got fuzzy is with things like anniversary badges and vet badges. These badges denote things that the PLAYER has done or experienced in the real world. These things have absolutely no relation to individual characters. Why does Captain Awesome of Paragon City care that a MMO has been around for X years or that a player has paid for a MMO account for X years? These things have no bearing on the in-game universe so these things should have never been badges to begin with.
That being said I don't really mind if the Devs retconned badges like these to be global account badges because I don't really effectively consider them to be "real" badges anyway. *shrugs* -
While it's unfortunate the game forces us to exit a mission in order to start the fame timer I would actually hate to see the Devs waste one second of development time to make this work any differently. At best this was a one time annoyance that the OP experienced. This is not a game-breaking bug that needs to be fixed or even a legitimate "QoL" issue that has no obvious workaround. This is a "lesson learned" that will not likely be repeated now that the OP knows how the game works. Sure it would have been nice if he didn't have to waste some time learning from that, but now that he has it's a moot point for the Devs to "fix" it.
I have never once logged out of the game like this PRECISELY because it's uncertain to me exactly how the game would handle this scenario. I would never expect the game to react to something like this as assumed. Sure it'd be nice if the game held my hand a did everything the way I wanted but I'm willing to accept there are things it'll never be "smart" enough to handle perfectly. This being one of them. *shrugs* -
Quote:Ironically I sometimes think that Lynda Carter did "too good" of a job being Wonder Woman from the point of view that it's taken decades for people to work past the idea of there possibly being a Wonder Woman TV show that does not have to be an exact copy of the 70s era series. Apparently Lynda defined the role so well that no other show since then has been able to make it to the light of day.Now, part of me is all for this, I want to see more of all the DC universe on the big and small screen, but putting WW specifically on TV instead of a movie might work against it.
There's still a lot of memory for people of the old 70's camp series to get past, will need to be a VERY different show to work

I hope that sooner or later a new Wonder Woman show does happen. Even if it ends up being silly it'll break the ice and make people realize that you can actually have that character be played by someone else. Over the years we've seen many people play Superman and Batman but the fact that Lynda Carter has been the only major Wonder Woman has probably been more of a roadblock than anything else. I'm not saying Lynda made for a bad WW, I'm saying the fact that she's been the -only- one people remember is the bad part.
I know people have been talking about who should play Wonder Woman in a new show for years. Frankly at this point I think they ought to find a fresh new face that fits the role as well as possible. An actress who has the least amount of "baggage" from other movies/shows is probably the best bet to move past the Lynda Carter mindset. -
Quote:When I mentioned the "humans as viruses" idea I implied it was not a strictly precise analogy. But I'll try to clarify what I meant for the people who are taking this statement far too literally.Okay this virus talk always gets my goat. It usually indicates the person doesn't understand biology or nature in general. Humans are not like a virus. Virus need other cells to reproduce and can't reproduce on their own. Thats it. Thats the only difference between a virus and EVERYTHING else. We behave no different than any other organism. Given the chance, every other creature from a gorilla to the most simple e.coli will use up all the resources it can get its hands, paws, claws, tentacles, pseduopods or flagella on.
Obviously human beings are not functionally close to viruses biologically speaking, but we are like them from the point of view that we don't seem to be able to establish harmonious equilibriums with our natural surroundings. For instance it's been demonstrated that animals like gorillas, deer or pretty much any other mammal will actually slow their rates of reproduction to adjust/respond to the availability of food or grazing space. A given population will adapt to the world around them.
On the other hand humans (and things "like" viruses) do not self-regulate like that. We have historically demonstrated that we have no problem striping the world around us of resources without regard to the future consequences. This is particularly sad when you realize that viruses at least have an excuse for their reckless paradigms: they have no rational thought to contemplate the consequences of their over-reproductive actions.
So while we don't reproduce like viruses do we do a pretty good job mimicking their ability to destroy their own environment via their own unchecked nature. Hopefully we can learn from that and finally decide to control ourselves. -
Quote:Again I think relative to all the super-massive gas giants orbiting just a few million miles from their respective stars that we've found so far this new planet is in fact "habitable". It's described as being in the "goldilocks" zone. Clearly we don't really know if it's even remotely "Earth-like", but even the Moon or Mars would be "habitable" inside well-constructed indoor environments.Relative, schmelative. There's way too many assumptions being made here. Atmosphere, temperature, adequate amounts of water, a magnetosphere capable of blocking out harmful cosmic radiation. It's very poor science to use this term so loosely.
I don't have issues with using relative terms for distance. The universe is too big a place to be so strict on the word "nearby." But habitability is too narrow a range to do so.
I think the problem is you're holding the word "habitable" to a far higher standard than it deserves for the purposes of this discussion. It's not like we're going to get there anytime soon anyway and by then we may have found an even more likely "Earth-like" candidate by then.
-
I suspect, with all due respect to theOcho, that all (yes I said ALL) of these auras were being developed for the inclusion into some kind of future booster pack.
When the Devs realized two of them (Snow and Firefly) leaked they made a quick command decision to let them become part of the upcoming Issue as a concession to all the complaints about the emote Party Pack. But once they realized yet a third aura (Storm) also leaked they knew they couldn't just keep letting all of these go for free because that'd leave them nothing left to SELL in a booster pack.
We will probably be getting a future booster pack that'll include the Storm aura as well as maybe other auras we haven't seen (leaked) yet. If that happens then I'll be reasonably suspicious that Snow and Firefly were likely supposed to be part of that pack too.
It's all good either way. It's just an interesting insight as to how the Devs react to ongoing situations like this.
-
-
Quote:Here's the first paragraph of that first link you provided with one critical word highlighted:http://us.ncsoft.com/en/legal/user-a...f-conduct.html
See rule #3 in regards to the sex question, as well as some of your "villainous" language.
http://us.ncsoft.com/en/legal/user-a...agreement.html
See 4(k) for the rules for chat channels (namely Global chat channels).
That one critical word is "may". That word makes all the difference.Quote:The following rules govern basic interaction within the City of Heroes, City of Villains, and Going Rogue game and the City of Heroes website (including message boards). Please be aware that failure to comply with these rules of conduct may result in the termination of your City of Heroes, City of Villains, and Going Rogue game account according to the City of Heroes, City of Villains, and Going Rogue User Agreement. 
That one word gives the GMs of this game the flexibility to decide if any given incident is worthy enough to warrant account termination or not. Obviously this means you better do your best to follow these rules. But just as clearly as long as no one complains they're a "victim" of any activity that violates these rules there's relatively little the GMs could do or would even care about.
Bottomline if you're not stupid and don't piss off any other player with your activities it's hard to argue an "infraction" even actually happened. That's not a licence to be an idiot until you're caught, it's more like a bit of breathing room to allow for responsible respectful interaction between consenting parties. -
Quote:Even though the game will let you pay SG rent like that it seems weird somehow.Actually, you can. I just tested it out. My scrapper is still a part of my personal SG, but fully villain, so he obviously can't get to Registrar in AP/GC to pay rent. But I just hit the one in Port Oaks and he happily took my prestige to pay the rent.

At the very least the rules about what you can and can't do in the "opposite alignment from the SG" situations seems randomly inconsistent. Why would the game let you pay SG rent but not let you switch to SG mode to earn Prestige or wear the SG colors? It seems like you should be able to do all of these things or none of these things. Having things "half-n-half" is just silly... -
Quote:I can think of plenty of "villains" who would never be caught dead using foul vulgar language. If your RP concepts of villains are limited only to people who'd swear like drunken sailors then I'd suggest you expand your point of view on that a bit.What's ok, and what isn't?
I'm a roleplayer - and a rogue/villain that doesn't even use the f-word strikes me as silly. 7 year old girls in catholic school uses the f-word. I'm hoping I'm not expected to live up to US TV standard, bleeping myself all the time.
As far as I'm concerned... I think it should be fine to use as foul language as I like. Anyone that doesn't like it should keep the profanity filter ON; that'll take care of everything.
Of course, mis-spelling foul language on purpose to circumvent the filter has to be a BIG NO NO - as it forces people to listen to it, even if they don't want to, bypasses game mechanics, and is clearly something that's spoken out of character, not in character.
I tend to follow the same basic rule of social ettique I follow in the "real" world:Quote:And what's ok to actually do/discuss in RP?
Villains, rogues and vigilantes can be pretty freaky folks. Murder is all in a day's work - so I'm assuming topics of murder, torture and inhuman experiments sort of have to be in the clear... (though at the same time, I somehow doubt it is)
Can people talk about sex, or will we end up black listed for it? It's not quite as "necessary" as violence, but I don't think all the supers around here are gonna stay virgins.
If I'm speaking in a public channel/place where there even MIGHT be people listening I don't know I automatically assume some of those people are kids who don't need to be exposed to foul or adult-themed langauge. It's not even really safe to assume the "automatic language filter" will save you because you can't control who's using it. Better safe than sorry. The only time I would use "questionable" and/or RP langauge like that is if it's on a channel where I'm reasonably sure no one can "overhear" me who shouldn't and I'm talking to people who I know don't mind beforehand.
Seems like a pretty simple way to handle things to me. -
Quote:All Veteran awards apply to all of your characters equally. Examples are in order.I recently came back to CoH after more than four years, and it seems I've accumulated quite a few veteran rewards.
I can't figure out, though, if I can use them on all my characters or just on one. For example, I have a couple of respecs at 12 and 24 months (or so). Do all my characters have a free respec? Or if I choose it on one character, are all the other characters unable to use them?
The same thing with sprint powers, the Sands of Mu, etc. It's unclear from the descriptions how many characters I can use these rewards on.
For example if you have a Vet Award that grants a free respec each and every character can individually choose that particular respec for themselves. It's not like you only get one freespec token to allocate on only one of your characters. If you have one of the Vet Awards that grant a vet pet you can choose which vet pet each character will have. It's not like you only have one pet to share between all your characters. Same with the sprints and Sands of Mu and so on.
Hope that makes sense. Welcome back.
-
There've been times I've daydreamt fun names for characters out of the blue.
But for this game when I actually go to create a character I usually follow this order of creation:
1) Decide what AT/powerset I want to try.
2) Think of a name for it.
3) Think up a vague background for it (i.e. enough to nail an origin for it).
4) Create a costume and power color scheme for it.
5) Play it for like 10 levels or so to see if I like it or not.
6) If I keep it then write up a real bio for it once a have a "feel" for it.
But I figure whatever works is good. Sometimes I don't even follow my own "rules" for it.
Sometimes I'll think of a vague concept first (normally step 3) then figure out an AT/powerset and name that would fit it.
It's all good.
-
Quote:Well when you consider most of the planets we've discovered so far are gas giants that spin around their stars in like 12 hours and have atmospheric temperatures of like 10,000 degrees this latest discovery seems pretty "habitable" to me. I guess everything's relative.Did I miss something? Has the definition of the word "habitable" changed lately?
Uhm, no thanks. They haven't even confirmed that there's water there. Or breathable air. Now, something could be living on that planet. But it wouldn't ever be us.
I couldn't help but feel like the article just wanted to make a splash.
-
Actually the "rate" of increase is the irrelevant part. As long as there is ANY increase in world population, even if it's very slow growth, there's going to be an ever increasing pressure on finite resources. We might be able to avert a resource crisis for a long time using fancy technology tricks. But sooner or later we are either going to have to STOP that growth completely or move some people off this planet, period.
Problem is that overall world population is currently NOT growing slowly. Sure the rate in so-called advanced countries may be relatively slow, but when taken together the total world population is currently exploding like never before.
Once again I do hope for a Star Trek like future for us all. But if our collective history is any indication our first steps into the galaxy will far more likely be on-board ships prefixed with "ISS" instead of "USS". You Star Trek nerds out there know what I mean by that.
-
Quote:Unfortunately what happens in the United States does not adequately reflect what's going on with the ENTIRE human race across the ENTIRE planet. You really have to look at the big picture when you're talking about the human race collectively becoming a multi-planet species.Not true.
Technological increase results less reproduction.
The reasons there are large amounts of reproduction that happens are...
Religion...
OR
Families farm their own food thus need more children to farm their food in an endless cycle...
OR
Low survival rate which means you need to have more children to insure survival of DNA.
With technology and education we've seen all 3 of those be reduced and lead to lower reproduction numbers to balanced out or in the case of the United Sates of America a reduction in population.
