... The tone of my response is fine. The words I used are fine. When someone says something as mind-boggling as Zyx did in response to my comment, I think "what the fuck are you talking about?" is a reasonable response. It's not a matter of maturity. Removing those words won't change the content of my response, and I don't think I should be required to respond with a level tone when I'm told I'm talking about something wrong - or more specifically, told to shut up. Also, look
Phaedyme
Phaedyme = her I'm not fighting, I'm confused about Zyx's response. I'm also not going to hold back my frustration when someone says something frustratingly obtuse. I don't think the tone of my response has any bearing on the message , which is that Zyx totally missed the point of what I said, got defensive as if I were attacking him , and told me to stop talking that way about my reaction to the film.
Yay for more backstory in the book - and the contradiction with the comics doesn't really matter because it sounds like the book hangs together a bit better.
Zyx, wtf? Could you please be clear as to what you think I'm saying? Because you're coming across as extremely defensive and reacting as if I'm attacking the movie for saying that Kirk's line highlights the way the reboot was handled. It's not a nitpick, and if you think I'm reaching to call it a lampshade hanging, I suggest you don't know wtf I'm talking about. That and you're coming across as pissed off because I'm taking a step beyond saying "I liked the f
1. Those really aren't replicators as of TNG canon. 3. Totally agreed - like I said, i think they played that for laughs. My comment about swelling probably being itchy was just minor detail. 10. Did you follow the link I gave you? Kirk improvized a gorram mortar while fighting the Gorn captain. :) What I mean is, Trek characters are more like pulp characters and pull off implausible MacGyver stuff all the time. 18. Red matter's darned weird, really. I wouldn't be surp
Zyx, Kirk turns to Spock, says "Time travel is cheating" and then enters the transporter. That specific comment hangs a lampshade on the whole premise.
Zyx, I have no idea what you're talking about. That is, I don't know what you think I'm responding to. I just wanted to link to tvtropes to expand upon what I'd said earlier, and to point out my own distaste for Trek time travel. I was not making a comment on Kirk's childhood (which, no matter how quickly it passed, was more than we'd seen previously). I was strictly responding to the time travel conversation. Scoutdog, Yeah, I agree with several
Mascrinthus, can you update the links in the OP? A forum update broke them. Here's some working links: The Reluctant, Chapters 1-6 (and 7 and 8) The Galactic Civilizations Universe - The journey from then to now <a href="http://draginol.impulsedriven.net/article/124732/The_Dread_Lords_the_Arnor_the_humans_and_the_Altar
I said this before, I know I did, but I really liked how Kirk hung a lampshade on the whole time travel thing before beaming back onto the Enterprise. I hope that the next film does not rely on time travel as a storytelling device, though. For the most part, I am done with Trek time travel stories, and have been since Generations. Except for "More Troubles, More Tribbles." That was fun.
You have to make separate scenarios for each race - and because you start with Xeno Ethics, I don't think you can actually choose a morality - I seem to recall not being able to build any morality-specific buildings despite having all morality-based techs.
Yeah, Creative Good +25 creativity. I think there might be another +creativity tech, but I'll be damned if I can remember it right now. It might be in the Thalan tech tree if it exists at all.
I can still connect. If that helps any. :)
Edit: I'll post a response later. This one was all kinds of fail.
We'd all be happier if you hadn't suggested that. Point. NM, Mumble. STAY AWAY.
There's no reason to get so damned defensive. Seriously, look at what I said in the first place - and compare that to your massive overreaction to it. Don't be so oversensitive - you're looking way too much into what I said. That said, don't play games - you know exactly what gay means. Don't try to use the dictionary to obfuscate.
Ah, Mumble, you should give Impulse a shot (unless your machine won't run it). Of course, if you only play DL, it probably doesn't matter much.
I refer back to the Onion story I linked a couple pages ago.
I disagree that RTS games lack thinking, or that clicking precludes thinking. I do agree that they tend to have a frenetic pace, and many designers seem strangely averse to providing a useful pause function. I remember Star Wars: Rebellion would obscure a huge chunk of the screen when you paused it, and disallow any interaction with the UI.
NTJedi, I've read those discussions. I perhaps should have been more explicit in saying that I do not believe those are really problems. Civilization has done just fine with having one race - and games like Civ and Alpha Centauri create variations in civ traits through explanations other than "multitude of races." I don't think you're talking about multiple environments adding multiple options. I think you're talking about multiple environments adding more overhead and complex
The original Trek timeline (with DS9, Voyager, TNG, and further novelized adventures) still exists, and still has stories going. It's also where the Star Trek MMORPG will be set. The new Star Trek movie is a reboot in an alternate timeline.
I don't think movies can have a sexual orientation.
I'm not seeing what's wrong with Elemental only having two races (and six civs/factions per race). Nor what's wrong with initial training being a part of a unit's stats. That seems like an evolution of unit design as seen in some 4x games. Also not sure why land-only (although I'd be surprised if there were no room for navies) is a bad thing. I don't think that a game requires multiple races or environments to have real depth of play.
It's possible that Nero dismissed the idea of saving Romulus by acting in the present because his family is still dead in the future, and he has no guarantee of making it back to that future once he's prevented Romulus' destruction. He also was waiting for Spock, so he wasn't going to leave that area until he had Spock. That meant two and a half decades of constant vigilance.
Is this what it takes? BRB, upgrading.
I disagree. Sometimes (frequently, even) games do have a subtext to them that the designers may or may not have intended. Some frequently even have a subtext that is simply pervasive in society, that the designers simply passed along because it's an everyday part of some people's assumptions. I disagree that any depth of analysis of games is a waste of time, and the idea that games shouldn't be taken seriously as full-fledged media (like movies, books, comics, music, etc) is total non