Mr W Phallus

Watched Harry Potter 6, 2 and 5 last night. Followed by the Usual Suspects for some reason. Then Harry Potter 4 today. (With friends I'm not that sad cool). It's amazing how much the films (obviously I'm just talking about the Harry Potters here) swing from genuine brilliance to appalling crapness, but despite it not always being intentional on the film-makers' part I really struggle to think of any films that entertain more, or make me laugh as much as the Harry Potter series.

Oblivion's system was flawed, mostly because you had to choose major skills early on before you know how you're going to play and because of the broken enemy-scaling which could leave you at a high level but relatively weak. From what I've seen, though, it sounds like they've fixed (read - tried to fix) this for Skyrim though, so I look forward to giving it a go. But like TN said, it's nice to level up 'naturally' rather than arbitrarily. Although having some kind of perk system to gain additional abilities and skills every so often is quite nice. As for the whole 'level five pipe' thing. I'm all for having your skills improve the more you use a weapon, but the idea that you can't use it full stop is a bit ludicrous. If it's a weapon you could feasibly pick up, you should be able to use it, albeit badly. What about aesthetic ones (like in Reach). You still have a reason to keep playing, but you're not restricted in terms of gameplay.

I think, by and large, it's always fun to upgrade stuff. I guess to get it right it's all about finding the balance between upgrades actually making a difference to how you play and not making your success reliant on them. I seem to remember when playing Borderlands (as Mordecai) that some skills seemed extremely useful (mostly involving Bloodwing) whilst others seemed pretty pointless (marginal changes to reload times etc.).Then again, even unnecessary upgrades can help add that unique touch to your character, and give you more of a personal investment in them. In Assassins Creed 2 & Brotherhood for example, I really like that they have so many weapons to buy (I know it's not quite an upgrade system but I think it's comparable), even if ultimately it won't make a whole lot of difference to your success in the game. Whichever weapons you choose to buy help forge your identity within that game. I think the most satisfying thing about upgrade systems is that they provide both a goal to work towards and tangible feedback of your investment into the game. The better you do the more you are rewarded. Another thing is that, in a medium that is hardly renowned for it's narrative, upgrades and skill progression can be used to suggest character progression. It almost sounds cheap to describe it that way, but watching a character grow literally more powerful can figuratively portray character development much better than the stilted dialogue found in most games. This probably hasn't been used to it's full potential at all, but hopefully it will someday.

Entitlement culture? The rioters didn't feel entitled to the things they stole, they just saw that they could steal them. The riots don't need rationalising beyond mob mentality and opportunistic theft. Avarice and covetousness are hardly modern phenomena. People like to lay the blame somewhere, because identifying 'the cause' seems like a step towards 'solving' the problem. Well it's human nature that is to blame, and the only thing separating the rioters from the non-rioters is inhibition. The rioters acted without thought or care for the consequences for other people - that doesn't excuse their actions of course - most people (you'd like to think) would stop themselves out of sympathy for those they are making suffer. However, if someone offered me the opportunity to smash up a shop and take whatever I wanted, and no ones livelihood would be harmed in the process, I'd jump at the chance. Smashing things is fun. Getting stuff for free is great. What's so hard to understand?

Bending the rules. (I'm sure it's fine)

I disagree. I think most rioters follow a mob mentality. Basically, they see someone else doing it, and do it themselves. These people mostly wouldn't be criminals otherwise. Obviously though, it's still wrong. The same thing explains the kids doing it. I mean hell, if I was that age, and my parents weren't super strict I don't even know what kind of trouble I would get into. Kids are much more susceptible to this sort of things than others. Whilst there will be a significant amount of people just there 'for the laugh', there is certainly organisation. Yes it's mob mentality, that's why they're so easy to manipulate. It's very easy to take charge of a mob, one guy could easily start up a chant of 'let's get x shop' and away they go. I remember reading last night that there were people seen riding around Manchester on mountain bikes, passing information onto people in cars. In another incident (in Birmingham I think) rioters escaped police through back streets only to meet up at a clearly pre-arranged rendezvous point. Whilst not everyone is a gang member or hardened criminal, they are definitely there pulling the strings. And for those who think that the police are doing nothing here are the arrest figures (as of 10am this morning) Metropolitan: 768 (167 charged) Greater Manchester: 300 West Midlands: 109 Nottinghamshire: 84 Merseyside: 50 Avon & Somerset: 24 TOTAL: 1,335

Hmmm think I'm gonna have to delve way back into the past. It does seem like I hear more bad things than good when it comes to Spider-man (the Clone Saga comes to mind). I'll try looking for some of the collections of early 60s stories then take it from there. Thanks though.

Here's a thread I didn't realise we had. I reckon I've seen 39 in total. However ones in red I've only seen parts of or never watched it all in one sitting, and ones in orange I need to rewatch because it's been a long time since I've seen them (and I probably was too young to appreciate them fully). Purple is my favourite film (which I just watched again the night before last in fact). As a bonus I've seen Steven Berkoff's play adaptation of On The Waterfront, but the film is still sat in my Lovefilm queue.

So I'm in the mood for reading some Spiderman. I have read (and in fact own so may re-read) a fair bit of Ultimate Spiderman but never any of the main canon. Can someone give me a good jumping in point? I mean I want to start at the beginning really but does that mean going right back or has there been a Year One/Rebirth-esque retelling more recently? Obviously Gwen Stacy's death is a biggy but what other must read (or must avoid I guess) stories are there?

Each lens in 3D glasses filters out a different wavelength of light; it's why the image looks blurry without glasses. And when you filter out light, shit gets dimmer. That does seem to make sense, but I was under the impression it was different polarisations, not different wavelengths that were being blocked out. (Well with RealD or whatever they call modern 3D, obviously red/blue 3D is different wavelengths). Each eye is basically receiving a different projection with a different polarisation right? It's going to be brighter with the glasses off because you're receiving both projections at once but even with the glasses on is each individual projection not going to be as bright as a normal film? Edit: Decided to be less lazy and actually do some research for myself, apparently the polarising lens in the projector is the problem, which makes perfect sense. Is it possible to have a light source that only provides light polarised in a single direction?

Urgh thirded on the movie tie in covers. And it goes beyond just the cover, my dad picked up a copy of the movie tie-in edition of The Road, and once he read it I decided to give it a go myself... but the font was huge. It was gigantic. And there were gaping chasms of blank space between each line. I mean font size isn't something I usually put much thought into but the fact that it was a movie tie-in and I could just see the publishers though process laid out in front of me - 'the vast majority of people actually attracted by the words "now a major motion picture" are going to be such idiots, lets not scare them away with big words, let's not show them too many words at once they won't be able to handle it without a picture' - I couldn't handle reading it, I had to go and buy myself an older edition. The cover of that wasn't great to be honest, but at least it wasn't patronising me.

Console yourself that it happened so early in the game, my game glitched on the penultimate thieves guild quest so I could never do the final mission. (Didn't find this out much later when it was far too late to revert to a previous save). I've still never worked up the energy to start a new game. If I remember, when I was trying to find out what was wrong with my game it's possible to advance your stage in a quest using console commands so if you look on an TES wiki it might tell you how to make it so you've talked to Jauffre. (Lucky you're on a PC as well, mine was on xbox so nothing I could do).

Valve behind schedule? Quelle surprise.

'But I am the chosen one' - what a brilliant line.

The greed doesn't surprise me at all, but I'll never stop being amazed at the bad business sense companies will show. Ok so they have the big name titles like Mass Effect and Battlefield which means people probably will by their games, but in the long run they're missing out, as Sporkwaffles pointed out, on all the incidental buyers, the ones who catch it because it's in a Steam Sale, or even just from it being advertised on the Steam Store front page. At the end of the day I can't seem them coming of any better for it.

I think its more the fact EA aren't letting Steam sell the DLC, so why should they sell the game at all? EA are denying Steam business, so Steam are saying well screw you let's see how well your game sells without our support. It's not about Steam forcing people to buy through them, it's about Steam punishing EA for restricting the sale of DLC in the first place.

Add dual wielding, add melee only weapons, take away health packs, add equipment, take away dual wielding, re-add health packs, add a different type of equipment... From the looks of it though they're just going for new weapons and keeping Reach's equipment. Kinda boring.

The point I assume Thursday Next is getting at, is that the principle of 'stand[ing] for your freedom, for your speech and for your life. No matter the odds or consequences.' is a very American ideal, based on the principles set down in the US constitution. It's pretty typical of Western society (not just America) to assume a universal subjectivity, that deep down everyone is the same and they all have Western ideals. You're assuming the moral you take from Captain America is one that speaks to any free-minded person, and yet it is intrinsically American in its attitude. Personally I agree to some extent that just because the whole world disagrees with you, that does not necessarily mean you are wrong; at the same time there a very few minds that deserve the benefit of the doubt. It's a very dangerous message to spread, and one that, as I said, is typical of America's aggressive personal freedom stance. Also not everyone apart from TN has a 'mild interest' in Captain America, so he's not really stubbornly opposing everyone else.

Dean, Dean, Dean. I just know you're the kind of guy who complains about the explosions in Star Wars. The director's job is to be anal? About camera angles maybe, or the actor's performances, but as far as realism goes you might as well say an artist's job is to paint a picture as close to real life as possible. Someone has already posted a TVTropes link, although I'd say this one is even more appropriate. It's a farce, basically, and both the director and the (informed) audience know it, but we all play along. Why? Because it sounds better. How the hell else are we supposed to know a bullet hit the shield? It's audio-tactile feedback. But most of all, you're taking the term 'vibration-proof' far too literally. Bullets can still go through a bullet-proof vest. Shatter-proof rulers still break into several pieces. Sound-proof headphones still let some sound in. Bomb-proof suits are still susceptible to bombs. The suffix -proof, in the word of the OED is 'Used as the second element in adjectival compounds, with the first element designating that against which resistance is offered, as bullet-proof, heat-proof, plot-proof, shatter-proof, shot-proof, sound-proof, thief-proof, etc.' RESISTANCE. Not absolute prevention. Resistance. I'm presuming the point of vibration proofing his shield is to stop high velocity impacts breaking all the bones in his arm? You don't need to completely eradicate all vibrations for that, you just need to reduce them significantly. You so silly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9QzPRGD4b8&NR=1 Shining references in Doctor Who?

That reads like he's trying to imitate the guy from EpicMealTime (badly). :/

Neither do I. But if I go through it again, that literally would just be repeating my last post.

Mmm Maple Syrup, Bacon and Pancakes. Some of us in the UK have seen the light. It's not really any different from eating pork with apple sauce, or duck with plum sauce, or honey roast ham; meat goes well with sweet things. Another use for maple syrup, back when I made bread (in a bread machine, I'm not that cool) my favourite was maple syrup bread. If I remember correctly I came up with it myself in a culinary experiment. I think it was as simple as pour in 3/4 of a bottle of maple syrup into normal white bread mix and put a bit less water in so it doesn't get too soggy so I guess it's not that impressive. Edit: Thursday you meat sauce post ninja.

I didn't intend vulgar and profane to be used synonymously, I use the word profane to mean 'a word which is considered profanity'. I don't think there are really any suitable synonyms, other than swear word, because I consider swearing to be pretty unique in the way that it can be both socially acceptable and unacceptable. In hindsight I would probably drop the word vulgar from that first sentence entirely, since the 'vulgarity' of profanity is a separate issue to the point I was making but that makes no difference to the point I was making. And as I pointed out, it doesn't matter whether your circle considers it taboo - your circle did not give the word it's extremity. The word was considered extreme long before you were born, and this extremity comes from the word being considered a taboo. I didn't directly use the word overuse, because it not so much an issue of how many times a swear word is used (I'll use fuck as an example again), but rather the attitude which leads to the overuse of a swear word. Attitudes towards the word bloody changed. A major part of this was, as you said, growing secularity - a form of social change. Now secularisation itself won't affect the word fuck, but other social change can. If society were to change so that, for whatever reason, everyone was of the attitude that the word fuck is appropriate all the time, anywhere and is completely harmless (and to some extent this is happening) then, as I said, it would lose its extremity in the same way that bloody did. The second reason why bloody lost its offensive nature is because the meaning became obscured. Well I would argue this is already happening with fuck; whilst the original sexual meaning is for the moment retained, it is used in all sorts of non-sexual ways, as an adjective, a noun, a verb - it doesn't really matter. 'Lastly, from this last post' Not the best use of English there, generally we are taught to avoid using the same word (or variations of the same word) in close proximity because it doesn't sound very good, BUT crucially, this is an aesthetic matter only, the meaning of the word last/lastly does not change because it is overused. Profanity differs from other words because its meaning is intrinsically linked to the attitude people have towards it. If you start throwing the word fuck around like any other non-extreme word then it stops being extreme because you're not treating it like it's extreme and therefore it can't express extremity; if you throw the word last around like any other word it still means last no matter how many times you say it. The point I'm trying to get across is that it isn't irrational - it serves a purpose. Perhaps taboo is the wrong word, it suggests you should never ever swear. Think of swear words, then, as a fire extinguisher. (Bear with me here). A fire extinguisher exists to serve a purpose. No one in their right mind would tell you never to use a fire extinguisher - hell in the case of a fire I'd encourage you to do so - but using it at the wrong time is a fineable offence. I quite like this metaphor, it even extends to those times where you come in drunk from a night out and set the fire extinguisher off for a laugh; you know you shouldn't but it's still hilarious (I swear a lot for comic effect, especially when drunk). But if you use the fire extinguisher too much, and an actual fire happens, you'll find that the fire extinguisher you've been using isn't adequate for the job any more. NB: I realise lives are not at stake over the casual use of a swear word (depends who you're swearing at I suppose) and I'm not advocating the introduction of fines for swearing.

Understand the meaning of the word or? In answer to yours and jonny's posts: It's not so much about whether the social circles you move in consider swearing to be taboo, but the fact that society in general puts a taboo on swearing; it's the fact we call words like fuck, shit etc. swearing at all. The fact it is considered taboo is what gives it its extremity. Consider the word bloody. Technically it is a swear word, as it derives from the expression 'By our lady', but since the expression has been contracted to the point where the original meaning is obscure, and since religious expletives are nowhere near as frowned upon now as they once were the expression has become harmless; most people wouldn't even consider it swearing. If everyone were to take the attitude that the word fuck is appropriate all the time, anywhere and is completely harmless it would go the same way as bloody, either becoming just another word for sex or a meaningless, slightly archaic, harmless expression like bloody. Even within your own social circles, are you really saying that hearing the word fuck from someone who swears often, has the same impact as hearing it form someone who rarely, if ever swears? The more it is said, the more it's meaning and impact is diluted. I'm not trying to say people shouldn't swear, or that it is wrong to swear. Swear words should be used sparingly, however, if only to retain their meaning. I do think that young children should be taught not to swear, not so that they never do in the future, but for the same reason we gloss over many topics when talking to kids, because it is a subject which needs to be approached with a certain amount of maturity and respect. A small child isn't going to know the difference between swearing appropriately and swearing needlessly. It's not about the words being wrong or harmful, but inappropriate at certain times (a lot of the time in fact, unless you are in a constant state of extreme emotion).