Matoyak

It sounds the opposite to me...

One need not be malicious in order to betray something. Would you call Melisa's betrayal of Justin's confidence malicious? On top of that, one doesn't even need to know they're doing any betraying in order to betray someone. It can be accidental, it doesn't have to be intentional. Now, am I saying that's what's happened here? Eh. Dunno. Probably not. But it isn't as cut and dry as "they weren't malicious, therefore they didn't betray any trust". Words aren't that rigid in meaning.

In Bethesda games, items can (and often do) have an "owner" tag (Or an "owned by someone other than the player" tag). You can take them, but it's stealing and there are consequences if caught. Mostly the consequences are "Get stabbed or shot to death, or put the law and the former owners to death yourself". In Oblivion you could pay a fine or go to jail. (The latter would then kickstart the Thieves' Guild questline, if you had yet to track them down yourself).

Wait. I though that most NPC are unkillable because the chance of friendly fire is big enough to make players complain the game is too hard if they kill something by mistake. In games like Skyrim and Fallout it's mostly a case of "this quest is given by this NPC, and were we to allow them to be killed it'd either mean we'd have to replace them via another NPC or cut that quest out entirely"* combined with "this game is on average 20-60 hrs long***, and with the possibility of multiple factions, betrayals, and the insanely complex and complicated clockwork world and physics simulation we've created, it'd be really bad form to allow quest givers to die."** *Bethesda does both of these. The former means the characters are SUPER bland and generic, and the latter would be really bad design as the default in a game like what they make. Too easy to accidentally kill someone, or for them to get accidentally killed by the hundreds of potential threats they face in the wasteland even when you're merely in the area. **This is mostly covered by the first asterisk but it can't be over emphasized. These kinds of worlds are monstrously large and the potential combinations of possibilities approach "stars in the universe" levels of big. The devs have no idea what will befall any one quest giver at any time. ***These are REALLY conservative numbers. I spent 200 hrs in Oblivion before beating the main quest in my first playthrough. 300 in my second. 80 in Skyrim and never beat it. These games (by default) need some kind of allowance to get these quests to kick off. Invincible quest givers is the least bad option, honestly.

IIRC it lowers your speech checks, barter checks, and other such stuff. Makes it harder to accomplish things via smooth talk. (Though that may have been a mod?)

~nods nods nods~ I've grown to rather dislike the egg-related relative theories. They're brought out for every "what if x was related to y???!!!" theory someone dreams up. It'll eventually be true, because it's used for darn near everyone with every potential combination. I just find it the most boring possibility and that you really have to stretch to make it work.

I mean, the solution to the timing issues is to not have them take place at the same time. There's law stating he had to condense it down into such a short period. Many of these story lines (The exceptions being the ones dealing with parental control [ie: Tedd and his Dad]) could take place when the group is in college, for instance. It'd be a different story and different flavor, but that's an extreme case. Most of these could be spread out across weeks or months and it not really change too much. That said, I agree with your general gist, I just don't think the time frame issue is all that important a factor. I mean, there are (hopefully) reasons why he's compressed so much into so little time, but the way the comic has run thus far strongly implies the timing isn't completely rigid or necessary to be so compressed.

It really seems like a CSS or JS file from another site was dropped in a tad too hastily, when combined with the other color and layout issues this one has over the initial one on the forums. I mean, it's rather nice that we're not AS blinded by the vast swaths of white, so I'm not saying we should go back or anything. Merely that this one needs some tweaks

That's my thoughts on this as well. I think the chances of Carol having magic are very very low. But eh, with EGS it's hard to know.

AFAIK, It's just referred to as "Stagnant Water" like InfiniteRemnant said, and it's known stagnant water is bad to drink. It's one of those things where English behaves a bit odd. Water becomes stagnant when it sits without flowing in certain conditions. It's both what the water is and what it has become.

The crooks are there to attack and kill you, so that you have someone to attack and kill. You're supposed to kill them when the police attack them.* Very nuanced design. *IIRC, I'm only oversimplifying a very little bit here. As I remember it, the only sapient group with less nuance are the Raiders. (Or maybe the Super Mutants?)

Oh my. ( ) ( ) Woof. xD Being able to memorize terrain features is pretty useful for a soldier type. Knowing where the best cover is and possible dangers is probably something that Tara is good at. Terrain features is one thing... but the context says she's memorized the tree formations well enough to be relatively confident in finding their way back to this exact location in the forest. It's one thing to be talking about "Near x boulder, y tree grove, and z hill", but to be "This pattern of trees leads us to this location in this forest of trees" is a level above. Very impressive, even for a soldier type.

Depends on the moral character of Carol, and depends on if Sarah thinks to say "Everything here needs to be completely off the record" before telling her anything, and how much Carol's willing to be beholden to that in addition to how she views betraying and endangering family and family friends.

Yeah, those are some...worryingly large hips. @_@ Are they? Or is it the waist which is worryingly thin? Fair point... the proportions are worrisome I guess is the better way to put it.

Anecdotally*, 95% of the time it's the latter. Very rare for me to experience anything anywhere close to the middle, much less the former. And the ones that start out in the middle veer sharply towards the end by the time the day/night is through. Intellectually I know that the majority of the time it's in the vagueries of the middle, my life just doesn't come close to reflecting it at aaaallll. *note that this is a mere 25 years of experience, so...keep my relatively young age in mind here. Also, much like Hack and Sweveham, I grew up in a family with an alcoholic in power (Step-dad, in my case).

Well, aren't there cars that just turn on via a button on the key now, rather than turning the key? I know that my dad's pickup you don't turn the key in: You push a button. But that one requires the key being plugged into the slot. No turning though, just button. Pretty sure I've heard of ones that work at a distance. It's not quite a port. They're actually versions built from the ground up for those environments, without using any of the Java PC codebase, from what I remember. But yes, Minecraft: Pocket Edition is def a thing.

If it's one of the parody "Make fun of the show" shows like YU-Gi-Oh Abridged or DBZ Abridged, that's not really a replacement for the show, and doesn't fill the gap if someone was hoping for something to be good, but ended up disappointed. And (not saying this is what you're doing in this case, but I've seen it a fair bit on other forums) sometimes suggesting watching them as a replacement can come across as a way to brush aside the criticism of the show, in a "If you don't like it, go watch the thing that makes fun of it. Obviously you're THAT type and thus I can ignore your criticism" dismissive kind of way. (As an aside, I also really dislike those kind of parodies in general. I just don't find them funny at all).

I still haven't been able to figure out what you're saying, so I can't say one way or another whether that's what I was trying to say.

Why not? She's player. She's not in real danger. If you die in the game, you die in real life.

Hmm. The hips are derpier than the faces to me.

Huh?

Uh-huh...? I'm very uncertain as to your point. Rigid doesn't mean "unchanging over time", it means "not flexible".

'xactly my point.

To be fair to her, though, we don't know when that flashback takes place, right? Andrea's been here for months, and the actual flashback could be years ago. Especially if this half of the world is a particular interest area for Andrea. If Tara is used to Andrea giving out random facts about this world, then it's easy to let it gloss over. Think about any time your S.O. has talked to you about a specific detail of their work or school major. These are topics that come up enough to make you think you've heard it all and don't really need to completely grab hold of the specifics... especially if it's in a field you understand little about and have already decided won't ever fully understand. When I talk about specific aspects of learning programming, there's no way my gf would be able to remember specific trivia about a random language construct. She doesn't know enough about the subject for the info to do her any real good, and doesn't care about it beyond it being something I like, and thus she likes it by virtue of it making me happy. Point is that unless we learn this flashback is specifically their preparation for both of them coming over to this world, there's ample reason to not get too down on Tara for not remembering this one aspect of the world.

In a programming language you can't suddenly decide to change the meaning of a key word. You can't change what the language considers as a scope limiter. They're ALL rigid in that you have to conform to the language specifications, or if you wish not to, then create a new version of the language / a new language outright. You can't just decide that the keyword "final" means "ironically final" or "actually first" (like for example what happened with "literally" or "awful" in English). You'd have to change the language definitions itself, and it would be a conscious, explicit change, which is not close to normal for how spoken and written languages change. Not really, no. Nothing explicitly about esoteric languages. I was talking about programming (and markup, to some extent) languages in general. There are interesting differences and interesting similarities in how they evolve and are used. Having the equivalent of a programming linguist chat about that and related topics with a spoken and written word linguist could be neat.