Game of Thrones - History and Lore: House Greyjoy has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia on that post.

Game of Thrones - History and Lore: House Greyjoy has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia on that post.

Game of Thrones - History and Lore: Catelyn has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia.

Game of Thrones - History and Lore: The Free Folk has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia.

Game of Thrones - History and Lore: Mad King Aerys has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia.

Game of Thrones: The Night's Watch History has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia.

Game of Thrones - The Old Gods and the New has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia.

Yeah, Tony Stark and Clark Kent are two very different individuals. Clark always puts others first, to the point that he won't use all his strength and power to its full extent, because he knows he could cause more damage than the villain he's trying to stop. Yes, he's a boy scout, but there's a bit of a lesson in a story about an alien who tries to act more compassionate towards humans, than most humans.

Also, he's THE superhero. period. I don't care if they make his powers and villains not realistic. I'm so fucking tired of lex luthor. He's a great villain, but geez, give it a rest already. There's a bunch of other great villains in the superman lore, and it's about time we see him be matched physically and not just intelectually. Zod is one, Darkseid is another. I would also love to see Doomsday or Brainiac.

No. I'm not going to study theology to help you make your case. Where you show you don't understand science or logic, I try and explain it to you. You are the self-proclaimed god expert in the room, and the one who wants us all to believe what you're saying, so when I ask you a fair question about Yahweh, I expect you to either give me an answer, admit you can't explain it, or accept that your original assertion is false.

"Why did God do X" isn't the right question because it relies on the assumption that God exists and in fact did X. A better question is, "Is it reasonable to believe that a god who does X, Y, and Z exists?"

So yes, you gave me a lot to work with in the sense that you wrote a lot, but the way you write makes it very hard to make connected arguments if I have to come back and ask you for clarifications and detail on your fantastic assertions, and you reply either defensively or with more vague and fantastic assertions. Surely you can put yourself in my shoes and anticipate my questions at least a little bit. Unlike most here, I'm actually trying to understand your point of view, so it's worth using words that I'm more likely to accept.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
Please keep in mind when you answer me that I’m not asking you for the details because it’s an interesting story and I want to know all of the lore like a Star Wars fanboy. I’m asking because -- unlike the majority of people you probably speak with -- I’m giving your faith every benefit of the doubt I reasonably can as a rational person. For me to accept the story, it must hold together. For it to hold, all apparent problems must be resolved without relying on tautology.
My main thrust in this particular comment thread is dealing with the issue that for everything that appears impossible or utterly fantastic to me, when I raise it, you explain it, but with something else equally fantastic (Asserting that God has to punish us for our sins is just as fantastical as asserting that God doesn’t want to punish us), so I’m not left understanding things any better. So, I challenge that new thing, and on it goes until you run out of scripture.
Then, although my questions are as valid as before, you have no real answers. At these times you give quasi-answers: you phrase your answers in the passive voice (“…what was required…”); you answer with a leading question that asserts a comparison without your having to say they're equal (“Wouldn’t you…?”), with a rhetorical question (“Could it be that…?”), or a poor analogy rather than a declarative (The King’s law about adultery, or comparing rapists going to prison with lapsed church-goers (one example of a mortal sin) being sent to Hell); or you criticize how I’m thinking (“…instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.”; and, “use some common sense”). So my question doesn't get answered.
So, as you're talking to a group of mostly logical, scientific-minded sceptics here, why not frame your answers so they make sense to your audience? Ask yourself the next logical sceptical question that springs from the answer you just gave until you arrive at something that really makes sense.

I gave you quite a bit to work with in my replies. The reason I suggested reading the works of theologians is because they discuss the very things you are inquiring about "Why did God do X?", and that very in depth. These are issues which are not entirely concrete because God does not always tell us why He does "X". Some things can be inferred, some things can be logically deduced, and some things are yet a mystery.

I wonder if Blizzard is seeing a dime from these Homages,using their market force to promote this restaurant. Considering how well China respects the Creators of copyrighted material,I doubt it highly.And such a lame attempt at cashing in on World of Warcraft too. Murals,Big TVs. Unworthy.

Now if I were Blizzard,I'd outshine this huckster's game of an eatery in China and make their own Themed Restaurant chain. I've taken people with kids to places in New York City that are special effects extravaganzas with something "interesting" going on at about every 15 minutes. One consisted of a spaceship ride to an alien world,al la 1950's sci fi flicks.and another was called Jeckle and Hyde's
Adventurer's Club where you eat in a supposed Gothic mansion devoted to hunters of the macabre run by the esteemed Dr. Jeckle,who has a cute animatronic transformation into Mister Hyde I'd imagine several times a night. That's the idea of it: having a crew of actors interact with the customers as Magic Mirrors,or a diver speaking from a shark head mounted on the wall.3 tiers overlooking a wall of animatronic Ghoulish delight,little shows,interesting things going on all the time,here and there.

Now try that with the Lore of World of Warcraft as the theme. Maybe a several vinette plot acted out with stage swordfighting and spells special effected to life. There is also a franchise called Medival Times that has horses jousting and the knightly ambiance to boot.You sit as spectators to a 6 course dinner while a show of several acts is going on in the middle. Warcraft Dinner theatre. Both types of show have their advantages. The "stuff going on all the time" thing allows for walk in traffic,so a constant flow of money,or the Super Spectacular you sell like a Play,for a one performance ticket maybe 60 bucks a pop.With Official Blizzard merchendise at the Souvenier stand!

It could work well.It would work well.Will somebody tell somebody about this so something can be done?
KKTHXBYE! LOL

>> ^VoodooV:

tell me...how do you have plausible character development for Thor and Loki, a couple of demi gods.
when you take into consideration this is a comic book movie...and on top of it, the only reason the movie existed was to introduce Thor for the later Avengers movie...I thought they did pretty good.


thats why i used the word tepid.
it was ok.pretty god is fine as well.
i disagree with the dismissal of character development.i was a huge thor fan when i was a kid and there is a ton of back story concerning loki and thor (along with massive amounts of lore) but the movie really didnt touch on those things.not in any substanstive way to relay their complicated brother relationship.in my opinion anyways.

thank god joss whedon went in a different direction and portrayed thor much closer to the comic books (even his gleeful physical bouts with the hulk).

i mean think about it.while nolan has done a fantastic job with batman.singer dropped the ball with superman and green lantern was an abomination and due to those two last failures we may never see a justice league movie.

character development and plot wrapped in a tasty story is vital to a good movie.even if that movie happens to be based on super hero comic books.

>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry
Please keep in mind when you answer me that I’m not asking you for the details because it’s an interesting story and I want to know all of the lore like a Star Wars fanboy. I’m asking because -- unlike the majority of people you probably speak with -- I’m giving your faith every benefit of the doubt I reasonably can as a rational person. For me to accept the story, it must hold together. For it to hold, all apparent problems must be resolved without relying on tautology.
My main thrust in this particular comment thread is dealing with the issue that for everything that appears impossible or utterly fantastic to me, when I raise it, you explain it, but with something else equally fantastic (Asserting that God has to punish us for our sins is just as fantastical as asserting that God doesn’t want to punish us), so I’m not left understanding things any better. So, I challenge that new thing, and on it goes until you run out of scripture.
Then, although my questions are as valid as before, you have no real answers. At these times you give quasi-answers: you phrase your answers in the passive voice (“…what was required…”); you answer with a leading question that asserts a comparison without your having to say they're equal (“Wouldn’t you…?”), with a rhetorical question (“Could it be that…?”), or a poor analogy rather than a declarative (The King’s law about adultery, or comparing rapists going to prison with lapsed church-goers (one example of a mortal sin) being sent to Hell); or you criticize how I’m thinking (“…instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.”; and, “use some common sense”). So my question doesn't get answered.
So, as you're talking to a group of mostly logical, scientific-minded sceptics here, why not frame your answers so they make sense to your audience? Ask yourself the next logical sceptical question that springs from the answer you just gave until you arrive at something that really makes sense.


I gave you quite a bit to work with in my replies. The reason I suggested reading the works of theologians is because they discuss the very things you are inquiring about "Why did God do X?", and that very in depth. These are issues which are not entirely concrete because God does not always tell us why He does "X". Some things can be inferred, some things can be logically deduced, and some things are yet a mystery.

@shinyblurry

Please keep in mind when you answer me that I’m not asking you for the details because it’s an interesting story and I want to know all of the lore like a Star Wars fanboy. I’m asking because -- unlike the majority of people you probably speak with -- I’m giving your faith every benefit of the doubt I reasonably can as a rational person. For me to accept the story, it must hold together. For it to hold, all apparent problems must be resolved without relying on tautology.

My main thrust in this particular comment thread is dealing with the issue that for everything that appears impossible or utterly fantastic to me, when I raise it, you explain it, but with something else equally fantastic (Asserting that God has to punish us for our sins is just as fantastical as asserting that God doesn’t want to punish us), so I’m not left understanding things any better. So, I challenge that new thing, and on it goes until you run out of scripture.

Then, although my questions are as valid as before, you have no real answers. At these times you give quasi-answers: you phrase your answers in the passive voice (“…what was required…”); you answer with a leading question that asserts a comparison without your having to say they're equal (“Wouldn’t you…?”), with a rhetorical question (“Could it be that…?”), or a poor analogy rather than a declarative (The King’s law about adultery, or comparing rapists going to prison with lapsed church-goers (one example of a mortal sin) being sent to Hell); or you criticize how I’m thinking (“…instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.”; and, “use some common sense”). So my question doesn't get answered.

So, as you're talking to a group of mostly logical, scientific-minded sceptics here, why not frame your answers so they make sense to your audience? Ask yourself the next logical sceptical question that springs from the answer you just gave until you arrive at something that really makes sense.

Don't get the hype tbh. Haven't really followed Diablo lore, so the story doesn't really interest me, and the other incentives to keep play, loot and levels, just seems kind of shallow when the combat is so dull and repetitive. Blizzard were sort of put in an impossible position, any innovation would have received flak from Diablo purists but I am still disappointed they didn't really do much new with it.

Oh, and its miserable to play on your own, which always leads me to believe that your enjoyment of it has more to do with the company you keep than with the game itself.

Sorry, can't upvote anything from Histor-ish channel. Their logo is like a warning label: "Caution: Contains wild speculation and complete fabrication presented as fact." Or "Caution: Bullshit presented as fact by making it a question or attributing it to ancient lore." It's a choice between *religion and comedy. Sorry comedy.

He's a little old for a Skywalker...perhaps more of an Obiwan? Wait, am I criticizing people on Star Trek lore, time to go masturbate alone.

>> ^Thumper:

What! You must not be a gamer then. The mouse controls are fine. It allows for intense combat. This game is the arcade version of Skyrim. >> ^Jinx:
Actually a good game if you can get over:
a)The lowest mouse sensitivity setting is high. The default setting is unplayable and the highest setting is what I imagine putting a camera in a blender is like. ie, you spin so fast everything merges together
b)The camera is indeed pretty awful. Targetting can often be a chore in combat.
But I enjoyed the rest of it. I hate WoW with a passion, but I didn't find the quests samey or boring. The game starts off relatively challenging, but it does begin to get quite easy once you start unlocking perks. I was also a roque type character and unlocked a bow attack that fired 7 arrows in a spread. Like him I found that the most effective use of this was like a shotgun on bigger enemies. 7 arrows all hitting together was enough to almost 1 shot even the largest enemies. Still, combat is fun. I'd say the lore is fairly good if not a little cliched in parts. 8/10. Try it after you are disappointed by Mass Effect 3 (you will be, don't worry).


I hope you are sarcastic :3. I use a pretty low sensitivity because I play a lot of FPS games. Precision is more important that how many 360s you can do in a inch of mousemat. Ofc, precision isn't really important for KoA, but its still a pain having to use a sensitivity I am not used to simply because their control options aren't comprehensive enough. Not that KoA is alone in this, I am consistently amazed just how badly developers can fuck up their control schemes. Skyrim for instance had a bug that scaled y sensitivity based on your framerate... Then there is mouse acceleration that frequently can't be turned off without editing a config.txt somewhere. I actually pirate games just to look at the options menu.