sukeban

Given the impossibility (physically and politically) and doing anything to meaningfully restrict the flow of weapons into society, I propose the following dubiously legal (but likely effective!) measures: 1. Make gun owners EXTREMELY accountable for their weapons: Any sentence stemming from a gun-related crime is automatically applied to the gun's OWNER, regardless of whether or not they committed the crime themselves. If somebody steals your gun and commits murder with it--YOU get charged with murder as well. Talk about a nice incentive to lock up your weapons! 2. Put gun sellers on the hook financially. ANY gun-related crime tracked back to a store/individual incurs a fine of 100,000 dollars. This would have the benefit of making gun owners extremely paranoid about what their weapons are being used for, and would "force" (if they are rational) them to secure their weapons at all costs, lest they pay a dear price. Most gun owners probably would not even want to deal with the potential consequences of this, "encouraging" many "fence-sitting" owners (not enthusiasts/lifestyle owners) to sell their weapons back. Truly responsible owners and/or those living in the boondocks, would have little to worry about. It would also spike the price of guns, as store owners would have to buy crazy-expensive insurance policies (and raising the price of their weapons accordingly), thus "pricing-out" many thugs and criminals that thrive off of the cheap availability of guns. Would it also price-out some law-abiding citizens? Potentially, but if owning one is that important to you, make it a financial priority and save up. It would also "encourage" gun store owners to rigorously screen their own customers before selling, lest they inadvertently sell to a drug-dealing thug or psychopath who goes out and commits a gun-related crime. Obviously, this would not deter the insane, but then again--no law would (they are insane after all). But it WOULD restrict their access to weapons, since those around them would make dang sure to keep their guns under extreme lock and key (and/or off-premises). It would also likely deter even "private" sales of weapons between thugs, as the seller would know that HE is on the hook--potentially for the death penalty--if the gun he sells to another thug is then used in a crime. Criminals ARE rational, most would not particularly like being faced with that choice. -------------- Anyway, pretty sure that runs afoul of "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" in the Constitution (a LAME provision if ever there was one :D) and it would have no chance of ever being politically viable (since it actually solves a problem!), but it is what I think is best... and it does not touch the 2nd Amendment, instead allowing the justice system and free market to sort out the details.

I generally share that pessimism, that there is simply too much hay (and money!) to be made keeping things exactly the way they are. So I can definitely feel you on that point--which is partially why I wasn't entirely joking talking about the (hopefully voluntary) dissolution of the "Two (or maybe more!) Americas" into smaller, more representative governments that can more accurately embody the aspirations and concerns of those living in their areas. I don't have any problem if folks in Texas want to carry fully automatic weapons in public... so long as I am not shackled to that same standard in California. Perhaps folks in Texas can handle those sorts of weapons without a problem, but I don't really want to take that chance around where I live. That would be where Federalism drags us down in the US, holding us all to the same standard even when we profoundly disagree. Perhaps the US--like the old Soviet Union--is simply too large to be governed by one organization? Libertarians have loads of excellent points, but most of those points are unrealizable given the presence of the federal government and the governing requirements of maintaining such a large state. Perhaps the best solution would just be to dissolve and form unions with those states that most closely align with our own, allowing for the free exchange of populations whilst people sort themselves out? I definitely don't have any illusions about "American Exceptionalism" or swallow any myths about the Constitution being the infallible Word of the quasi-divine Founding Prophets. The Founders were just dudes--educated and wise dudes, but still dudes--and the Constitution was a product of its own time. It's a credit to the Founders that it has endured as long as it has, but I think it foolish to expect that it will provide guidance forever. Granted, it IS allowed to be changed, but in the present political environment that will absolutely never happen. Likely, the Founders would never have foreseen such an existential impasse, where we are unable to govern under the current rules but are unable to muster the political will to change them, consigning us to an inevitable crisis and decline in the meantime. I ramble, of course, but I can see where--in the face of this--having guns might seem like a good insurance policy. I would still disagree about the need to own them, but nobody can argue with wanting to protect one's friends or family. Perhaps the best solution are smaller, more responsive states where we are free to ban--or carry--whatever we please?

I would be fine with banning firearms outright, but as that isn't really feasible at this point, I think that some of your proposals have good merit and make sense. I don't agree that folks should be able to buy fully automatic weapons (where do we draw the line on this--grenade launching attachments, shoulder-fired surface to air missiles, personal acquisition of drones?), but I do agree that placing the onus on gun owners to take responsibility for their guns would go a long way toward making sure that random guns aren't just laying about in homes, ready to be confiscated by the first disgruntled teenager that comes by them. I also agree with better connecting police databases with gun owners, allowing them to better screen people who have no business acquiring firearms in the first place. This, I fundamentally DO NOT understand. Why is it that "patriots" don't seem to hold such extreme views when it comes to infringing upon our other Constitutional rights, usually in the name of "safety" and counter-terrorism. Each year, we lose more liberties to warrantless wiretapping, domestic drone usage, rampant snooping on internet communications, prisoners held without trial, etc. Where is the level of outrage directed at these losses of liberty? Why do NSA men and women not "turn their guns on the ones ordering them" to snoop on their fellow Americans or the drone pilots on those ordering them to drop their payloads willy-nilly across the globe? These same folks probably won't think twice about launching a nuclear ICBM at Tehran or Beijing, yet they openly contemplate treason at the thought of losing their guns? This makes no sense whatsoever and seems to belie a profound lack of... perspective. Are GUNS truly worthy of a civil war? I laugh to myself as I ask that question due to the absurdity of it all. I would also repeat what has been said before--that guns will not help you if the government wants you dead. There is no "Red Dawn" in 2012, and patriots are never going to fight off a foreign invasion, nor a domestic tyranny. If "worst came to worst" they would simply drop a bomb on your house or release anthrax or something. The only thing that would ever match a tyrannical government would be peaceful resistance, with the government shamed into submission (or, more likely, having troops desert their commanders) at the prospect of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their countrymen in cold blood. An opposing soldier's conscience is the best defense against an actual tyranny, as taking up arms will only make their killing you "legitimate" and imbue their mission with renewed purpose. To think that owning guns will protect against tyranny is to fundamentally misunderstand what automated warfare is all about. A tyrannical government isn't going to be riding horses through the backroads of your local county, waiting for you to ambush them with your blunderbuss. Instead they're going to be cruising around in reactive-plating-clad tanks and calling in airstrikes on your house. They are going to be launching ballistic missiles from ships at sea. Likely, they wouldn't even have to risk a human pilot (and their conscience...) in the process, instead just dialing up the local drone. Your camo hunting outfit isn't going to save you either, not when you you're being tracked in like eight different spectrums from various satellites and the other drones in the area. As someone else said, they aren't going to be sending in bumbling Soviet conscripts or lazy Cuban volunteers--they are going to be sending in special ops guys to cut your throat while your sleep. There is no way to win against that trying to meet force with force. If the government ever became a despotism with the full support of the military: WE ARE BONED, full stop. As with many other strange things, guns are increasingly becoming a white ethnic thing--specifically a rural, white ethnic thing. As per the National Exit Poll, rates of gun ownership have been decreasing for decades, yet those decreases have been limited only to those identified as Democrats and Independents. Rates amongst Republicans have remained constant over time, including the newest cohort of Republican voters. Gun ownership is lowest amongst younger Democratic voters, meaning that the gap between ownership between the parties will only increase over time. 22% of Democrats own guns versus 65% of Republicans. In 20 years, this will likely be 15% versus 60% and increasing until only one political party is armed. In other words, if the South ever wanted to "Rise Again!" it should wait a couple more years before making its move. Soon liberals will not have any weapons and hard-core conservatives will be able to go "All-In" in secession if that is what they truly want. Increasingly, I wonder if that is not just the best solution for us all, with conservatives taking the South (minus Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia) and Great Plains (plus Alaska). Liberals and Moderates take the coasts, the Rust Belt (minus Indiana), the Southwest (including Nevada and Colorado), and the North (including Montana but excluding the Dakotas). Southern territories would be contiguous, but the North would have to come to terms with Canada to connect their holdings. I say that more or less tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps one day, if we don't put our politics back in working order again, it will come to that. In the meantime, we can only hope to elect a Democratic House in 2014! >:D

I wholeheartedly agree with all those above, and especially with the sentiment that science is at its worst (beyond irrelevant, and actually impeding the search for knowledge) when it becomes politicized--one way or the other. Global warming seems an easy test case, wherein the notion of anthropogenic climate change is very much the vogue (and IMO, rightly so) in *most* scientific communities, so much so that researchers might bake their conclusions to harmonize with (or to one-up) the established narrative of the phenomenon. On the other hand, you have "scientists" funded by oil companies actively engaged in "debunking" said narrative because it is... "convenient" for their own favored narrative that fossil fuels have nothing to do with climate change. I will grant that science has likely always suffered--to a degree--from situations such as this (Copernicus et al), but these days the phenomenon seems to be reaching new lows. Whether it is climate change, biology (several GOP would-be senators misfired on basic human reproduction), or Fox News viewers "not trusting" the "liberal" presidential polling results, the "skepticism" of science is reaching a high-water mark... at least amongst a certain segment of us. This is not particularly healthy for any sort of constructive dialogue in the realm of public policy, as to have compromise, both sides must first agree as to the "rules of the game" as they were. For many centuries now, those "rules of the game" have been science, the final arbiter of factual dispute. I personally fear for the trajectory of our discourse when one side argues with statements rooted in the measurable, quantifiable, and verifiable--whilst the other argues with their "gut" and "instinct" and "faith" (usually vis-a-vis secular things like the relative merits of tax cuts). This isn't meant to be a dig at religion--as I find the right's aversion to the secular application of data to be more troubling, TBH--but more of a general alarm at this looming and seemingly intractable epistemological crisis.

Personally, the years have moved me from being very much sympathetic to the 2nd Amendment to being openly hostile. Back in the day, I more or less bought that jive about an armed citizenry being some sort of a bulwark against abusive government (back in the PATRIOT Act days, this seemed somewhat more relevant [not that those provisions are off the books...]). However, time has taught me the simple lesson that if the government ever wants to send the black helicopters to your house and kick down the door in the middle of the night... your lame assault rifle with its 30-round magazines IS NOT going to help you. It's a simple matter of state capacity, of which the USA (and especially its military) ranks high. The government isn't a tin-can dictatorship like Assad, ergo any idea that you can "fight the man" over your homestead is entirely illusory. Better to resolve our problems within the democratic context rather than let things ever come to that (understatement of the century!). So if guns aren't guaranteeing our political freedom... whatever ARE they doing (apart from thinning our population in alarmingly large numbers)? I'm no hunter nor a target shooter, but I guess those are legitimate "sports" to pursue if you are into that kind of thing. Outside of that, isn't there a statistic wherein gun-owners are something like 22X more likely to be shot by their own weapon than they are to make any sort of successful defense of self/loved ones/property? Aren't gun owners far more likely to blast their spouse/son/brother/uncle than they ever are to ward off a criminal or thug? So much better to call 911 or pick up a golf club and hide behind the door. Whilst it is undoubtedly true that a motivated individual can find a firearm if they really set their mind to it, it is also true that otherwise benign domestic disputes escalate into deadly violence far more often in homes that possess firearms, not to mention the far more efficacious nature of suicide-by-firearm than a suicide attempt by any other means. What I am driving at is that I agree with those folks that say the 2nd Amendment is passe and outdated. It was instated in a time when the United States didn't even have a standing army or navy, meaning that its militias were its bet and most reliable means of defense. Now that we have efficient bodies for administering our nation's political violence (army, navy, etc.), I fail to see how these colonial-era "rights" to a firearm remain in effect. I also fail to see how the Founders would condone civilian possession of the weapons presently arrayed in this country. This strikes me as NOT their intention at the time the Amendment came down. ****************** Rather than double-post, I would just add that the US is unique in several ways from European and other nations with elevated rates of gun-ownership: First, we are very much multi-ethnic (and becoming more so each day). PC nonsense to the contrary, this can and will spike paranoia, as imagining the "other" is far more simple and in-your-face than it is in a country like Japan or Korea. Ask 10 gun-owners to imagine a criminal... any guesses as to what type of person they will imagine?? Second, we have far higher rates of poverty in the US than nearly anywhere else in the industrialized world. Desperate people do desperate things, like buying guns and using them to "make ends meet..." feeding into Reason #1 with an assist from the always-on, sensationalized media. Leaving aside crime, the economy for most people is utter trash. If you are a marginalized, atomized individual (see below) a) without a job or b) with a terrible job--you are unlikely to be happy with life, and also unlikely to be able to date or marry successfully. As with the Middle East, restless, sexless, unemployed men are bad, bad news. Third, we have terrible mental health services (and healthcare in general). Due to de-funding and the work of the ACLU, we have extremely unwell people walking amongst us whereas a generation ago they would probably have been institutionalized or at least under more rigorous supervision. Mental health care is also scoffed at and demeaned, especially amongst men, as it violates the "strong, silent" trope of traditional American masculinity. Fourth, we have an increasingly atomized society, wherein the individual spends far more time by themselves and with their chosen media sources and recreation than they do with other people. Do you know your neighbors? I do, but most people I know don't. If you don't know and aren't friends with many other people, you are very able to ascribe your worst thoughts to them. Combine this with mental illness = not good. Fifth, gun culture and the fetishization of weapons. This one is low-priority since the US exports most of its media to other countries and they don't behave as we do. Still, given the above, when a disaffected young man spends 12 hours a day playing CoD, they might begin to think "it ain't that hard" and begin to objectify other human beings. Given that slaughter is glorified in this country, said dude could also view this as his only means of ever "being something"--achieving immortality or proving some bizarre point via wanton slaughter. Sixth, the guns themselves. I've never tried to obtain a firearm, but I have no doubts that it is relatively straightforward. Beyond WalMart, the infamous "gun show loophole" appears to allow buyers to circumvent most/all laws when purchasing at a designated event. You could be Timothy McVeigh or Muhammad Atta--the seller doesn't need to care if the price is right. Then you can go to WalMart and stock up on all your ammunition needs and maybe grab a scope or two/three/four/infinite while you're at it. Seventh, we have a large, relatively free, relatively porous country that is simply not able to be policed as diligently as other places. Back in the day, this was papered over due to our higher levels of social cohesion and economic parity, meaning that communities were able to intervene before problems arose and/or people were simply more unlikely to commit heinous acts because their lives held more purpose (job, romance, place in the community) than they do today. If you are a mentally unstable, single, unemployed male living in a broken home and utterly removed from contact with other people and without a reasonable expectation that your life will improve... that is not good. For anybody, the individual or his society. I would also point out that mass shooters are now ALMOST always young(ish), white, men. This is statistically significant, and it points to the sociological and societal problems that I outlined above (and more, surely). Beyond the boiler-plate discussion about guns, addressing the above would likely also help cut down on the incidence of these wicked and senseless acts.

The Dunmer that I'm playing now has the backstory that follows thusly: Was orphan from Morrowind, passed hand-by-hand from charitable Nords from her home in Blacklight after her parents were killed by local underworld figures (were Skooma dealers). Fearing further retaliation from the aggrieved Dunmer, relatives passed her eastward, to Skyrim. Ulfric wasn't in power yet, so things were relatively chill in Eastmarch, where she stayed with relatives. When Ulfric became Jarl, she was encouraged to move to Falkreath, where the extended family had good relations with the local Altmer priest of Arkay. So she grew up there, but had fond memories of the pre-Ulfric Windhelm--and always longed to return there, filled with nostalgia. She learned to hunt, primarily with bow and arrow, in Falkreath. One day, she was asked to fetch some medicine in Cyrodiil, and crossed over the border without issue. Coming back, she was ambushed by Imperial soldiers and was sentenced to death without explanation. All players know the rest. My char is on a post-Helgen pilgrimage back to Windhelm, to visit the town that she has such fond memories of. She'll side with the Stormcloaks and become their best scout and archer, providing advanced intelligence on ambushes and fortress raids before going in and attacking. Between raids, however, she'll hunt a great deal, as she did in Falkreath. She doesn't love Ulfric, but she believes that he is better than the arbitrary and ruthless authority of the Empire; and, she has fond memories of Nords and their kindness. She isn't a thief, but might sneak some wares on the side (leveling up Speechcraft in order to sell). She isn't down with the Companions nor the College, though she might dabble in Illusion just for lulz and RP (read book about Barenziah, seeks to emulate in a way). She'll do the Stormcloaks and Meridia and Azura. She'll enter the Boethiah quest because of her nominal Dunmer religion, but will not sacrifice her friends. Neither will she carry out Mephala's will. She is comfortable speaking with Daedra, and also in defying them. She may do Sanguine and Clavicus (Masque) and Mora. After being set upon by vampires, she will likely join the Dawnguard, as I feel that quest line fits well with an otherwise apathetic (not a white knight) yet good character. I have tried to avoid Dragonborn spoilers, but that DLC is the primary reason for making this char. Anyway, I relate that as a means of saying you can go in a bunch of different directions without enough RP. A Nord might love hunting big game. A Bosmer might love making bows (Fletching). A Khajiit could be a Thalmor assassin (the moons!). An Orc may desire many pelts in the name of Malacath, as well as to trade with silly Nord neighbors. An Altmer could be a dissident, fresh from Hammerfell (the Resistance) and ready to rein in Thalmor blood. Racial choices make for easy, in-built RP ideas. Quest-wise, this is really a patchwork quilt of things that you already know are out there. The Guilds are lame, but you can create your own imaginary "guild" if you choose the right sequence of Radiant and scripted quests for the char. Just do what feels "right," what you think the character would do if they could really choose. Don't do it based on the quest reward (which you already know), but on in-the-moment criteria: fatigue because you just did another quest, a crisis of conscience, a strange desire to do something wicked for a change, an urge to see faraway places and strange things, etc. Ultimately, just go where your imagination takes you. There is no better RP than that.

Anyone? It SURE would be nice if Beth had listed the function of these settings on the Wiki....

Just wondering about the GMST fPotionGoldValueMult and its (in)action in Skyrim. I know that in Oblivion, this setting controlled the final multiplier that went into creating a player-made potion's price (formula was something like: (Player Alch Skill x Magic Value of Ingredient Effects) x fPotionGoldValueMult [default was 0.45] = potion price. In Skyrim, this setting is at 1.0 and does not seem to govern anything. I changed it to 0.1 and even to 100 and received no change in my created potions' values. There is another similar GMST, fAlchemyGoldMult, that similarly does not appear to do anything. 1. Are these legacy GMSTs from Oblivion that have been phased out in Skyrim? 2. Does anyone know of a way to tamp down the price of player-created potions? Any insights would be greatly appreciated.

I think that stats hold nostalgic value simply because of the contrast with the vanilla Skyrim perk system. Stats have the perception of being "deeper" and "more involved" than vanilla perks, and... that might very well be true, at least right now. But I would agree with some others here that the perk system, as evidenced by some enterprising modders (SkyRe and Requiem come to mind), has the potential to greatly surpass them in terms of both roleplaying and character complexity. Given that vanilla Skyrim has, what, twelve perks per tree, this is not terribly difficult to understand. ANY warrior is going to take all give perks in either one-handed or two-handed, ANY archer is going to take all five ranks of that beginning perk. Skyrim suffers from too few perks per tree, lacking any true degree of specialization between characters broadly defined as "warriors." Yes, one warrior may take the Speechcraft tree and the other Restoration, but they will fight exactly the same and have the same proficiencies with their weapons. Skyrim missed the mark in terms specialization (meaningful sub-trees within the larger tree) that would allow one character to develop a specific mace-centric fighting style whereas another would opt for a longsword or claymore that played entirely differently. In this sense, Diablo II serves as a good example. In D2, you were able to develop loads of unique builds (though, of course, some were more min/maxed than others) that specialized in certain sub-trees. Trapsins, Kicksins, Javazons, Bowazons--that sort of thing. You also had builds that were entirely dependent upon equipment, often a single piece, a cool feature that TES doesn't really do and I don't really know why not. I think it is true that casual gameplayers don't want to think overly long about what they are doing in a game, a reality that undermines many features of older RPG mechanics. But I think that a potentially more powerful countervailing force is the degree to which casual players (indeed, ALL players) desire customization and personalization of their characters. I think that casual players would be highly amenable to in-depth specialization if it were accessible in a presentable and straightforward way (like perks), where they could read a description, say "that sounds badass!" and select. That probably cuts against math and stats, but it doesn't cut against customization writ large. Rather than skill-specific perk trees, I would favor three large ones--Warrior/Thief/Mage--each encompassing all of the skills normally housed within that archetype. Players could select which archetype they wanted to align with and select it, bringing them to multiple entry points to the tree, clearly begging the question "what do you want your character to do?" If they want their warrior to begin with maces, they can start there; if not, then elsewhere. Dual-classing would be permitted, but would obviously require the sacrifice of certain other skills. Not exactly groundbreaking mechanics here, just something simple that Skyrim (IMO) really missed the mark on. Skyrim's perks (and really, entire trees) are largely either a) half-assed, ill-conceived, and/or incomplete, b) useless, even for RP purposes, c) completely overpowered and the "obvious best choice." In this sense, Skyrim merely messed up in creativity (needs more perks) and game balance, rather than in the perk mechanic itself. If greater care is taken in developing perks, and in allowing perks to interact with each other in more meaningful/unique ways (synergies and added-effect), then we can talk about how perks are superior to attributes. Until that time comes, however, attributes provide the more meaningful measure of character uniqueness. Also, I think folks lament spears/longswords/greaves/unique clothes for the same reason, that each loss compounds the losses that have gone before, limiting the opportunity for customization and personalization. Is a throwing animation REALLY that hard to add to the game (knives, darts, stars) especially when it can just copy the archery physics in-flight? Would more types of swords REALLY have killed the devs to make, when they share the same animations as the other two? Moves like these toward needless streamlining eliminate options, reducing the number of unique roleplaying opportunities in an ostensibly roleplaying game.. In MW you could you could be as stylish or as square as you wanted to be, the options were there. In Skyrim, you have hilarious situations where there is but a single pair of generic gloves in the entire game....

Having recently played through The Walking Dead, it really drove home the "what-ifs" of quest and NPC dialogue if Beth were to once again take this seriously. The gradual phasing out of dialogue options from MW --> Ob --> Skyrim definitely yanks my chain, taking the "RP" largely out of RPG. Skyrim's NPC relations are entirely determined by completing quests (even lame ones like giving the coin to the beggars), which I think is quite the devolution. Even Baldur's Gate in like 1998 or whatever gave comparatively extensive options for the player to reply with, as well as cool things like actually giving the player a voice (and choice). More options for responses that affect your disposition with an NPC would be a lovely reversal of this trend. Eschewing time-tested and quality game mechanics in favor of streamlining is definitely FTL. Shallow, one-dimensional NPCs and the lack of player character choice are my #1 Skyrim pet-peeves.

Whoa, been ages since I've taken an internet quiz r_r http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/whatcolor_isblue.jpg Did the D&D and got Lawful Neutral Human Sorc (Level 2). That's accurate enough, though I don't fancy myself much of a magic user. Perhaps philosophically more mage-like would be a better way of putting it. EDIT: NAPALM, we're more or less twins.

Not sure why this never occurred to me earlier, but WHY is there an East Empire Company facility in Windhelm? I mean, pre-Stormcloak rebellion it makes a good amount of sense--to serve as the western port for the Company in Skyrim, with direct passage both to Solstheim and to Vvardenfell--but since the rebellion has started... why is it allowed to operate unfettered? I know that it is not technically a branch of the Empire (not a government agency or whatnot), but it was chartered directly by the Empire and is run by Imperial cronies, presumably even during the events of Skyrim. So what would Ulfric's motives be for allowing the Company to operate right under his nose (maybe he likes Flin!): is he a "business before principles" type of guy or is he simply stupid/oblivious? Furthermore, why would the Imperials allow an entity that they largely control continue to operate and provide goods to the enemy: are they opportunistic (potential spying opportunities) or also stupid/oblivious? Your thoughts?

Ha, saw "cultural collapse" and thought this would be a topic about pop culture and the glorification (deification?) of wealth/promotion of casual violence/objectification of women/etc. Definitely was mistaken. I would say "no," however, with the caveat that the OP does have a point that converging toward a monolithic "world" culture does not particularly sound that enticing. I would venture that we are still a long way off from there though, and that viewing the phenomenon strictly through the prism of a western lens is perhaps not the most constructive means of viewing the situation. Recently, I was talking with a friend from China (Beijing to be specific) about the rock and roll scene (yaogun) in her town, contrasting it to the musical landscape in the US and the west writ large. She told me emphatically that there was more room for actual experimentation (and joy) in China--and for the musical "growth" of bands--compared with the west where music truly has just about seen and done everything and where people are largely bored/jaded with new micro-trends and variations in existing styles. The west has appropriated just about every genre from the developing world for its own use, without any thought of how said appropriation (and the indigenous styles of the west) would be interpreted/reflected back at those nations. The result is truly fascinating, if not always pleasing to listen to--can be appreciated on the cultural/phenomenological level rather than the aesthetic. Speaking still in terms of music, but perhaps the best ("worst" in terms of actual musical outcome) of what the OP is talking about has taken place in Korean popular music, which is but a crude imitation of western styles (auto-tune/digital beats/insipid, culturally foreign lyrics/overly sexualized, young performers) that fails any objective test of authenticity but for its craven play for dollars. Tellingly, it is also ridiculously popular. In this sense, I would say "score one" for Chinese cultural curation, even as it perhaps only delaying the inevitable (what culture doesn't like easy listening and sex?). For the time being, Chinese artists have room to breathe, without the almighty demands of return on investment and mass appeal driving their content and presentation (possible due to the stultifying content of CCTV et al). In this sense, Chinese yaogun is perhaps the contemporary equivalent of Elvis--not controversial in a modern context, but given the cultural conservatism of the time--a veritable iconoclast. Where does that lead? I can't say, but likely not toward cultural collapse. There are 7 billion people on this earth and counting, doubtlessly they will have different cultural tastes... even if those tastes are more closely aligned with class/ethnicity/interests than with traditional nation-states.

I would support a return of the draft. Having said that, I would also submit that an all-volunteer force does a superior job of actually being efficacious in a conflict situation; however, I believe that the war-dampening implications of the draft outweigh its actual military utility, especially in this day and age when any conceivable war will fundamentally be a war of choice. It is abundantly clear that chicken-hawk lawmakers and presidents, largely without any military experience and without any sons/daughters/in-laws/whatever in the military, find it far too easy to declare wars of political expedience, to burnish their credibility as "hawks" for whatever fashionable crusade they find will increase their electoral prospects. That this burden increasingly falls on a small segment of the American population (e.g. traditional military families and, increasingly, minorities) absolutely cannot be ignored. Now, I favor an enormous reduction in both our military outlays as well as its "responsibilities" (largely for other countries...), but I also cannot imagine a better method for reducing the proclivity of American politicians to send people they don't know into harm's way for than forcing decision-makers to have "skin in the game" as per McChrystal. That would increase a) the personal dimension of the decision to authorize military actions (politicians having sons and daughters subject to the draft) and b) increase political pressure against war-mongering politicians as middle- and upper-class children (aka "likely voters") are sent into battle (with all the hazard that entails). It may not be the best for actual combat efficacy, but a country is better served without a permanent military class--modern Hessians, Gurkhas, samurai, etc.--subject to the caprice of leaders, that increasingly have little to no connection to their lives. America should re-learn that war requires sacrifice from everybody--not just from the martial class that gives of itself so selflessly. When everyone's children are equally at risk, perhaps military action will no longer be viewed as the best and first response to an increasingly broad set of situations.

Personally, I would like to see a continuation of the Thalmor conflict, with the logical extension being in Hammerfell. Others seem to have elaborated on the finer points of lore, but I, for one, would be vastly intrigued by the geography of the region (makes me think of that Romantic poem "Ozymandius") as well as a possible expansion into the Dragontail mountains with the Orcs and/or to Stro's M'kai as a sort of Mos Eisley of Nirn. Gameplay-wise, I would desperately like to see the next generation of consoles (to say nothing of advances in PC gaming) immensely expand the map of the next game, wherever it may be. I actually favor procedurally generated terrain a la Daggerfall, as means to enhance the feeling of distance between settlements and to add a genuine feeling of space in the in-game world. Skyrim and Oblivion both lack this tremendously, with Skyrim being the worst possible offender. Morrowind, even now, still feels like a large world; Skyrim, emphatically, does not. Running distance between Whiterun and Solitude is like fifteen minutes. Having played some old school (NES and SNES) RPGs recently, I appreciate the sense of scale that they generated even without access to many graphical bells and whistles (Mode 7 definitely does not count). The world of Shin Megami Tensei feels far larger than Skyrim, despite being 20 years older. So sense of scale and--and it is a big "and"--a return to more inter-personal relationships with NPCs a la Morrowind would be appreciated. The mini-game in Oblivion was a step down from Morrowind, but, retrospect, feels downright immersive compared to hearing Belethor's welcome spiel for the 15,000th time. Please Beth, hire writers--a veritable Roman legion of them--to pen dialogue for hundreds of NPCs, including more permutations of disposition than are available in Skyrim. Voiced dialogue is nice and is likely here to stay, but I would also much prefer Beth hire many, many no-name voice actors (I am sure that many of us in the modding community would be more than happy to lend whatever talents we have just for the joy of being a part of a series that we love) instead of the big-budget figures that they currently employ. That said, Belethor/the guy from the Thief series NEEDS to always be featured. I would like to be able to make enemies of NPCs again--and to make friends--and to have this materially affect what happens to me in-game. I recently played The Walking Dead and was blown away at the level of choice --> consequences that that game featured, to say nothing of the superb and taught storytelling. Beth should just buy out that studio and set all those folks to work on TES. So those are my two big things: 1) better sense of scale, and 2) more/deeper NPCs.

Dunno about other people, but I think that difficulty scales with satisfaction so long as the difficulty is manageable and doesn't feel cheap. I mean, I beat Ninja Gaiden back in the day and celebrated--not because I was genuinely happy about the "accomplishment," but because I could finally stop playing the game. OTOH, something like Dark Souls is genuinely hard, but it doesn't feel cheap; and I am legitimately satisfied when I am advancing my characters in that game. I would say that something like de-leveled spawns is probably the most "satisfying" application of difficulty out of those that you listed. It simulates reality a bit better than the rest and also sets aspirational goals for you character to reach as he/she progresses. You are locked out of content by hard baddies, but you can still dominate skeevers and mud crabs and (maybe) wolves. As you increase your level you can dominate more baddies, but hopefully there are still difficult tasks for your character to meet. You are satisfied with your character for a moment (when you can dominate a new type of enemy), but you are always right back aspiring to something better. Nobody except for arcade junkies enjoy cheap difficulty like in vanilla Skyrim. Applying unreal and unfair de-buffs to the player and wildly buffing enemies just does not correlate with enjoyment for all but a select few game players. This is like the hover cycle level in Battletoads; the odds are stacked against you to an insane degree and it is up to your "skill" (memorization of the jump sequence and twitch reflexes) to overcome the challenge. In the process though, you will die an almost infinite amount of times. Not fun... at least for most people. TBH, I think what most people would want is improved AI for baddies rather than insane buffs. Depending on the AI you can then scale the actual hp, damage, and whatever other numbers are in play with enemies to a level that presents a realistic, even-handed challenge. Most people would rather outsmart a skilled AI than abuse its mechanics in an attempt to cut into a gigantic hp pool. That is why people enjoy playing against other humans in many games, because it presents the most rewarding and satisfying challenge for the effort expended. I know that's probably not what you were asking for in your question, but it is still probably true. There is a certain allure in the concept of "god-mode," but that experience gets old after you realize that there is nothing left to do once you reach it. That, I'd imagine, is why people load up on NPCs and beasts as they attempt to use their god-mode character against "impossible" odds. I can see the fun in that, but it still strikes me as a transient joy. I am sure that it takes a certain degree of skill to best hordes of enemies, but I personally find it more rewarding to duel small batches of more powerful enemies due to the more individualized sense of satisfaction. Anyway, pardon the essay. I too find this topic interesting.

Meridia is definitely a friend. A bit put-off at her commanding me to cleanse her temple, but discovered that's how all Skyrim Daedra seem to roll. She and Sanguine are the only Daedra I work for on a routine basis. 1. Meridia 2. Sanguine 3. Nocturnal 4. Azura 5. Sheogorath 6. Malacath 7. Hircine 8. Peyrite 9. Hermaeus 10. Clavicus 11. Namira 12. Vaermina 13. Boethiah 15. Mephala 16. Molag 17. Mehrunes On a side note, I would most definitely sell my Dovahkiin soul to attend a party with Meridia, Sanguine, Sheogorath, Malacath, Azura, and Nocturnal. I'd even throw in Jygalaag too if that were actually possible, as I've always raucously lol'd at that Oblivion line: "Jygalaag is even less popular than Malacath at parties... and Malacath IS NOT popular at parties." Basically, the idea of a Daedra Party is pretty amaze.

On my first play-through I tried hard to sympathize with the Forsworn. I had talked to the Jarl of Markarth and deemed him to be an outstanding tool. The local Nords appeared to be a pack of contemptible chauvinists obsessed with keeping the Reachmen "in their place." And then... the Reachmen... just would not stop attacking me! Desperation led me to freeing Madanach. The stories of the Reachmen in the mines began to rekindle my empathy. I freed the whole lot of them, laid low one of the accursed Silver-Bloods, and then... they just would not stop attacking me! I had been a Breton this whole time. Eventually, I decided to visit their places of worship and dwelling, determined to find answers as to why they hated me so. What I found was disturbing. Evidence of mass-scale animal (and human?) sacrifice, kidnapping innocent children from Karthwastern, constant slaughter of traveling merchants and civilians, consorting with foul hagravenz... the morbid litany just would not end. The Forsworn indeed got shafted by the Nords, but they have steered what had once been The Bullet Train of Justice directly off of The Cliff of Blind and Irrational Hatred. I now rank them lower than bandits, certainly lower than sabrecats, bears, rats, and skeevers. Now I sympathize with Bothela. And slay the hordes of Forsworn raiders with a crooked smile on my face.

I don't quite know about this. As somebody previously stated, Beth doesn't really do shades of grey in Skyrim. MOST of the bandit encampments have pretty obvious references to the nefarious deeds of its inhabitants, whether that be a load of bodies lying outside of the cave, some random journal boasting of roadside robberies and atrocities, or merely the generic overheard dialogue of bandits at rest. Bandits in Skyrim are not good people; I literally cannot think of any exceptions to this. As for bandits appropriating previously public spaces for their private use, I would not imagine that many here would defend the rights of a group of transients to lay claim to a public area and then violently run off any other citizens that ventured into the area. For a concrete example of this, in the north of California there are scads of illegal cannabis growing operations located in the Regional and State Parks. Said growers are often armed with automatic weapons and have slain hikers audacious enough to have trespassed into "their" territory. These folks are essentially the modern analogues of the bandits of Skyrim. In any case, the only bandits that I avoid killing are those protecting one of the shards of Mehrune's Razor. Those bandits are okay in my book.

Anybody will get bored with a game after a certain period of time, no matter how imaginative or whatever else they are. I played vanilla Skyrim for about a month and a half when it came out, giving the game a "grace period" before I really went nuts with mods (plus, there really weren't that many available at the time). For about another month I added heaps of mods to correct things that I wanted corrected and to enhance what was already great about the game. After that, I realized that there weren't mods out that really did what I wanted (better itemization/difficulty/lore-friendliness), so I decided to learn the CK and Papyrus and make these mods for myself. I stopped playing and modding about two months ago simply because I had done just about everything there was to do even in a heavily modded game. I was happy with my own mods, but realized that improving and expanding them would simply require too much of a time commitment for it to really be enticing. So I bought D3 and the Civ5 expansion pack and have been playing those ever since. When making my mods, I returned to Morrowind and Oblivion for ideas and inspiration. I've no doubt that I'll return to Skyrim at some point (still haven't acquired Dawnguard), but now is not the time. Beth games just have really nice replay value, so I would advise you to try out something else for a bit until you really begin to feel a pang for Skyrim nostalgia. If you upgrade your computer, I'll bet you can halve the amount of time it takes for this to happen, dreaming of all the awesome ENBs, HD packs, and +enemy mods that were impossible to run before. Whatever you do though, just make sure that you are having fun and enjoying yourself!

I run with a timescale of 25 as well, but frequently wish that I could set it higher to better simulate the passage of time when traveling. All things being equal, I'd prefer running at like 40 so that it would take multiple days to travel from, say, Riften to Whiterun, as it is clearly meant to from in-game sources. I believe that there is a book (Watcher of Stones IIRC) that states that White River Watch (where Amren's sword is held by bandits) is supposed to be "a half day's journey" from Whiterun proper. Obviously, this takes about, um, thirty seconds in game and is visible from the gates of the city. So really, there is no possible way to conform to the travel times given in lore. Off topic, but this makes me pine for procedurally generated terrain to fill in the gaps in Skyrim's geography and add length and danger to journeys. If I had to sort of "make up" other values, I would say that it should take the better portion of a week to travel from Riften --> Windhelm, a little bit less for Windhelm --> Whiterun, and about a week more to travel from Whiterun --> Markarth or Solitude, making for a total travel time of about two weeks for Riften to Solitude. At timescale 25, making this journey and role-playing (i.e. sleeping when dark) takes about three-to-four in-game days, depending on random encounters with enemies. The problem with higher timescale values is that it doesn't really leave you much time to do anything during the daytime, making for rather dismal gameplay. So anyway, here's to hoping that Beth utilizes randomized terrain again in future TES installments. It really does cut down on the "epic" feeling of the game when you can jog from Solitude to Riften in under one in-game day using vanilla timescale.

Both those books, The Madmen of the Reach and The Bear of Markarth, are so dubious and obviously biased, it is a wonder that they are even being discussed. May as well begin conversation about the merits or historical accuracy of books like The Nords of Skyrim, The Scourge of the Grey Quater, and The Talos Mistake. Get real. Plus, the Forsworn are mad lame to begin with. They're like a cross between the Shining Path of Peru and the Taliban, religious fanatics on a permanent search and destroy crusade against the outside world. Have fun hiding in the cave with all your goat heads and hagravenz. Please stay there while the rest of the world carries on without you. They'll be missed, I'm sure *rolls eyes* In any case, I recently read (and watched) the Shakespeare play Coriolanus. TLDR version is that a great war here (Ulfric) returns home to be made proclaimed consul. Sniveling enemies then stab him in the back (Markarth Incident), label him a traitor, and exile him. He then returns to his old enemies and joins their cause (creates Stormcloaks), turning his martial brilliance against those that had wronged him. In the end, he is betrayed by his own faction, as they too fear his growing power within their ranks. I couldn't help but think of Ulfric when I was reading it. The protagonist is concretely wronged by his homeland and he then expends all of his energies working toward its destruction. This increases the power of his old enemies as he is fighting for their side. But what else is he supposed to do? Turn the other cheek when cowardly plotters have ousted the only real hero among them? Gone off to die in the wilderness like they had hoped? No way. Rome decided to reap the whirlwind so to speak when they turned against him. I was hoping that he would have razed the city in the end (despite history) as just desserts, but alas he stopped short. Anyway, not 100% analogous, but similar enough to share. Maybe.

I would hope it would be the Dragonborn. Moot or no Moot, I'd say that they have the best claim to leading Skyrim, no matter their provenance or past. It's also highly convenient that the Dragonborn would be in a position to press his/her claim, since they have already essentially won the Civil War for one side or another. Whenever I complete the CW questline for the Stormcloaks, I RP that Ulfric will eventually challenge the Dragonborn as a threat to his power, and that, when that time comes, the Dragonborn will oust him and take his place as the de facto monarch. I'm not really that down with monarchy, however. The Dragonborn (and any ruler) should be declared fit to rule based on their deeds and actions rather than their "birthright." As such, the Dragonborn has the greatest claim to leadership, but after the time of the Dragonborn, leadership should be another jump ball between qualified candidates, likely between the Dragonborn's closest friends and companions.

For real. I've been back to Morrowind and Oblivion since Skyrim has come out and absolutely could not stand the clunky (Obliv) and nonsensical (Morrow) combat systems of the older games. Swinging my dagger and "missing" nine times in a row before I finally hit? No way--that is beyond stupid. That said, dang, actually having to query NPCs for information and directions to complete quest objectives and explore... whatever happened to that in Skyrim? Having a meaningful disposition system and bartering? Attribute and governing skills? Actually unique weapons and armor? Sigh. In any case, your point is proved, in my experience, beyond any doubt. Console gamers might not like Skyrim as much because they have really been shafted by bugs the most (especially Playstation users) and do not have access to the mods that we PC users do. That vastly limits their ability to correct perceived failings in the game and to extend endgame content and replayability beyond initially beating the game. There is also probably something to be said about the generally younger age of console gamers and how, in general, teenagers do not like RPGs or at least would not prefer to play them when given the choice between an FPSs or sports game and an RPG. If such metrics were compiled, I would be interested to see the breakdown between gamers that continue to play Skyrim vis-a-vis their gaming platform. I would imagine that it would be HEAVILY weighted in favor of PC users for the reasons mentioned above.

I'm with Blackraptor. Thief/assassin is an imbalanced playstyle, especially when compared to the life of a mage. Having to roast a wolf for twenty seconds before it dies isn't that enjoyable, but then again, neither is one-shotting Dragonpriests with a dagger. I've only ever successfully played a sneak archer, but I felt haxx by level 35 and don't really play on that character anymore. I prefer the warrior style because it feels more "noble" and its mechanics are the most entertaining to play. It also gives enemies the best chance to actually kill you because you're not just kiting around like a sissy plinking them with arrows or spells. Akatosh would facepalm if he saw his Dragonborn resorting to such cowardly tactics. Mages also miss out on 90% of loot, weapons and armor, and have an extremely sparse collection of clothing and robes to wear on their character. You could combine playstyles and make a battlemage or spellsword, however. Fight with a spell in one hand and a mace in the other. But I would tell you that a 2-handed heavy metal warrior is the way to go. Great fun to play and the lack of effective blocking or healing makes it far more challenging than abusing restoration magic and/or sneaking.