Brad Wardell's site for talking about the customization of Windows.
Published on June 18, 2009 By Frogboy In Elemental Dev Journals

Elemental_WorkerInAction

Our friends in the Demigod community seem to like having journal entries that answer a lot of questions in one swoop so we've decided to do the same in Elemental.

Q: What is Elemental?

A: Elemental is a fantasy strategy game (turn-based) developed and published by Stardock Entertainment. In it, players take on the role of a powerful sorcerer known as a "Channeler" whose goal is to build a kingdom and restore the devastated world of Elemental back to its former glory.

Opposing you are up to 11 other kingdoms and empires who have a similar objective except with the world under their control.

Players can win the game in a variety of ways including achieving the spell of making, completing the quest of mastery, diplomatic victory as well as the traditional military conquest means of victory.

The game puts most of its development focus on the single-player experience but there will be multiplayer as well with clans support (kingdoms and empires) and a series of multiplayer modes (and single player modes) that let people play the game in some unusual ways.

Q: Are the screen shots we see indicative of the final quality?

A: NO! The engine we've developed is still being enhanced. For instance, in the screen shot above, the shadows aren't in yet. There are still a lot of features left to be put in visually.  That said, one of our primary objectives with Elemental is to have a game that has unprecedented flexibility in terms of the systems it can play on: Netbooks all the way up to 64-bit Core I7s with monster video cards.

Q: What about modding?

A: Elemental will support in-game modding where users can create their stuff and submit it in game. It then gets moderated and becomes part of the game world. Players can decide which mods they want to use (ones just from Stardock, favorite ones, categories of them, etc.).

Elemental_TileEditor_1

Q: How many factions are there?

A: There are 12 pre-made factions made up of 2 official races (Men and The Fallen). Each faction will play substantially differently. Players will also be able to create their own factions and modders will be able to add more races.

SnowYetiQ: What kinds of other creatures are in the world?

A: Elemental has a large set of species that inhabit the world. They are, however, individually rare and much of the strategy of the game is to recruit some of these creatures onto your side.  You will not be able to, for instance, simply "build" dragons.  The only units you can build are those of your race.  Other races (Dragons, Demons, Ogres, Yetis, etc.) are ones that you have to actively recruit to join you.

Q: When will the "beta" be?

A: We expect to have an alpha out in the next 30 days that will be available on a very limited basis. However, we anticipate launching the beta officially at the Penny-Arcade Expo on September 4th. This beta will be available to anyone who has pre-ordered the game.  Be warned though, our betas are not fun. They're real betas which means they're incomplete and unbalanced. But through these betas, users can help mold the game by working with us online.

Elemental_1244581868 Q: I've heard this game referred to as "Master of Magic 2"

A: While Master of Magic is definitely a major source of inspiration for Elemental. A lot has changed technologically since then that we (game developers) couldn't do back then. In an age of multithreaded supporting OSes, we can have much better computer AI for enemy players and game mechanics that benefit from what is possible today (3D engines for doing very very nasty things to the game world when you have enough magic -- think Populous).

Another example is how cities can be handled now. There isn't a separate interface for managing cities. Cities grow on the main map itself. When players click on any part of the city they get the options for the entire city right away on the same main UI. The idea is to keep the user interface out of the player's face and let them concentrate on playing the game.

That said, there's a lot of influence here. Tactical battles, for instance, will have some inspiration from XCOM (though much shorter in length).

I would describe the games as being in the same family of the same genre. But someone looking for a Master of Magic 2 would not likely find Elemental to be similar enough to be considered a genuine sequel.

Q: What are some of the game modes you have in mind?

A: We are looking at having a lot of different ways of playing the game other than simply the classic "start a kingdom, conquer the world".

For example, we are looking at game modes where players can just play an extended tactical battle.  Another example is "duel" where 2 humans play against each other with the AI players as pawns in their struggle. 

The idea being that we want to let players play games that are very short in length if they want or can potentially take months to play.

Q: Will there be native 64-bit support?

A: That is our intention. Right now we are relying on Intel's Havok for the physics of Elemental and so it will largely depend on where its support of 64-bit is.

Our engine, however, will natively support 64-bit thus we want to provide (with the game) both a 32-bit and 64-bit version. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Comments (Page 9)
9 PagesFirst 7 8 9 
on Jun 25, 2009

pigeonpigeon
... In my book, LotR is about as pure a good vs. evil story you'll find. ...

I admit I was sorta baiting folks with that--but only sorta. Sure, the main protagonists are, for the most part, 'good' or 'evil.' But for the LotR itself (do you think even a near-majority of LotR readers have read the Tolkien apocrypha?), there are plenty of details (Tom Bombadil, Ents) that smack of capital-n Neutrality. Then there's the end of the story being the beginning of the Age of Men, who are most definitely not 'purely good' or 'purely evil.'

on Jun 25, 2009

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="9" id="2274929"]
Quoting the Gorgon, reply 8Of course it could happen, you just say "this vampire is good". But it does not make it a good idea. And quite frankly, you just wrote a paragraph about this character from the Coldfire trilogy that I haven't read, and I'm sorry but I don't get turned on. So, for me it doesn't work. This is a strategy PC game, and you won't have the time, nor the inclination to hear a backstory about each and every unit you randomly meet on the map.
RE the "this vampire is good" bit - you completely missed the point. That's hardly a convincing story or description, and thus utterly fails. Secondly, I didn't write a paragraph about the character from the Coldfire Trilogy, I told you almost nothing other than that you had vaguely described a character like him in very general terms, and that with a little bit of expansion could become a convincing and believable character.

Ok, maybe I missed your point. But my point is that this is a PC strategy game and not a trilogy of novels. If you meet a vampire on the map and you play a good faction with shining knights and life magic healers I don't think you should just get a message saying that it's ok to recruit the undead because they are fed up with their lich master or whatever Stardock cuold come up with as explanation. It would be ok to recruit them e.g. through forceful magic, magical items, in some cases maybe even with ridiculously high sums of gold. But not because "every creature has a choice" or "anyone can be either good or evil" or some postmodern, realistic crap like that which is the very antithesis of fantasy (yes that was a personal opinion ).  

Quoting the Gorgon, reply 8Sorry, but I don' agree with most of this reasoning. About the maidens: just skipping a key part of a creature is hardly a good argument to why it would work as well as evil. It's just diminishing the power of the archetype.
I would hardly call maidens a key part of unicorns considering they are almost always ignored across the board.

Just to get to the bottom of it I just checked Unicon in "The Encyclopedia of Fantasy" (could be called The Bible in this case): Virginity is, together with the healing horn, taking up most of the paragraph and featured in most examples of unicorns in literature. I can add as a more modern reference the classic film Legend by Ridley Scott where Mia Sarah plays the maiden (Tom Cruise has the other lead role ...). Mayby maidens have no place in D&D4, but I certainly haven't and won't forget.


Quoting the Gorgon, reply 8About "white is good": why do you think Darth Vader is completely black while Princess Leia is dressed all in white? Do I need to say more? It's not a coincidence. Even if you don't like it, most people love Star Wars, and this aspect is one key reason. Even when I heard the "evil unicorn" idea launched, involuntarily I immediately saw a black unicorn with a blood red horn in my mind' s eye. These are the reactions you have to work with when doing good fantasy.
I'm a fan of the [original] star wars trilogy, but Leia dressed in white and Darth Vader dressed in black is not what make it good.

No - a lot of its attraction lies in the fact that it skillfully uses classical archetypes from human myths, many of them related to good versus evil. And it is a fact that white is more linked with good in Western culture than black.

 

White can symbolize good, and black can symbolize evil (and it often does in fantasy - LoTR is another example). But Star War and LoTR are two classic cases of Good vs. Evil - you're one or the other without shades of gray and without different perspectives. One side is right, the other is wrong. This can be a very powerful storytelling tool, but it also gets boring (to me) when it's used over and over. And white can be convincingly evil - the White Witch in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe is a prominent example of evil dressed in white.

Yes, the White Witch is a wonderful example of how you can make a unique character like that work, but why: I would say because the white in her clearly symbolises her cold heart and soul: she is the classical Snow Witch, turning people to stone, she has no heart ... Then it makes sense.


Quoting the Gorgon, reply 8About healing being neutral: taking a "scientific" view (any power can be used for any purpose) doesn't help us in a discussion on what fantasies work best. It is the ACT of healing which is important. It implies that you help people, care for them. The act of destroying and killing could of course be used for good or evil, but the ACT of killing is more linked to evil creatures. Of course it's not an absolute rule, but it IS an important guideline. And it doesn't make the evil unicorn one inch cooler.
I don't understand the bit about a scientific view. Healing can very easily be used for cruelty and evil. It allows you to torture someone to the brink of death, heal them, torture them to the brink of death, heal them, etc. There was even a Stargate episode where Ba'al did just that to Jack. On the topic of Stargate, the sarcophagi can heal any wound and even bring back the dead but they strip away part of the soul every time they're used.

You are of course right that healing can be used for good or evil like I also already tried to mention. But the point here is that applying a REALISTIC view is the opposite of what fantasy is deepest about.  The whole point with a fairy tale is that you learn something about the human condition that goes beoynd and is not dependent on  a logical, scientific,  realistic thinking and world view. If it's just a WW2 war movie with fireballs I don't think it's the strongest form of fantasy. If it's just a realistic societal drama but with dressed-up Kings and queens, that's just selling a product through the popularity of fantasy. People today are so immersed in modern thinking that some of them seem to miss the point that it's not about what is true in the real world, it's about storytelling and fantasy.


Quoting the Gorgon, reply 8Guardian of nature: yes there are evil forests in literature, but that's not the point. The act of caring for and protecting nature/the environment I would say is more linked to good than evil in our society. Especially today with Climate change coming!
Bah. I want to play Elemental: War of Magic, not Elemental: Climate Change!! I don't care about modern problems or concerns, I want to play a fantasy game in a fantasy world. And I don't think nature is inherently good, I don't think forests and trees and flowers are inherently good, and I don't think beings and creatures who care for and protect nature are inherently good.

I think what you are saying is that you don't think so in real life. But why not Imagine it for a moment and live in a fantasy world, which is much more thrilling and has more meaning than the somewhat sad world you just described. Also, I must say that in many classical fantasy books, nature is indeed good: LOTR and Thomas Covenant even has it as elemental points! And I think it's the same in mythology and religion: it is seen as good to care about mother Earth. Your atheist and logical view is hardly inspiring for  a  fantasy tale. After all, if there is a Higher Power, protecting the beauty of creation might very probably be a GOOD act.  In fantasy at least we can pretend even if we might not believe it in  our grey everyday lives. ...

on Jun 25, 2009

sorry about the quotes all messed up above, I'm going to sleep now!

on Jun 25, 2009

Wintersong
You contradict yourself there. Angels and demos are equally intelligent fantastical beings as Unicorns, trolls, elves or dragons. 

No I didn't. I said the majority of intelligent beings shouldn't be inherently good or evil. Majority ≠ all. My point was that in the common archetype of angels, they are the servants of a purely good god and their actions are the will of said god. So unless the god is fallible, then the actions of his angels must also therefore be good. If the cease to carry out the will of their god, then they cease to be angels and become something else. Again I was just using the common archetype, and saying that if Stardock wanted into implement angels in such a fashion they should be good with no equivocation. Stardock could, however, choose to implement angels in a totally different way (like the method you mentioned in your next paragraph). And that is exactly my other point - angels are one of the most common archetypal being, and yet look at how many different takes on them people have mentioned just in this thread! Standard archetypes should not be gospel - altering some of the characteristics of the standard fantastical being is very doable, and IMHO often preferable.

Also, I'm just going to express my hope again that Stardock doesn't make all evil ugly and scary, brimming with spikes and claws and fangs. It makes evil so much less interesting than you get by giving evil the same breadth as other alignments usually get.

Wintersong

And Unicorns in Stardock's fantasy world? They could be purely horses with one horn (because of weird evolution or a bored channeler). A plain simple horse with a horn. Or maybe just horses imbued with essence and mutated by some channelers to create a better war mount. The Beasts are mostly old times bioweapons after all.

See, I like your train of thought. Breaking an archetypal mold to make it fit better within the world of Elemental is the way to go.

the Gorgon
Ok, maybe I missed your point. But my point is that this is a PC strategy game and not a trilogy of novels. If you meet a vampire on the map and you play a good faction with shining knights and life magic healers I don't think you should just get a message saying that it's ok to recruit the undead because they are fed up with their lich master or whatever Stardock cuold come up with as explanation. It would be ok to recruit them e.g. through forceful magic, magical items, in some cases maybe even with ridiculously high sums of gold. But not because "every creature has a choice" or "anyone can be either good or evil" or some postmodern, realistic crap like that which is the very antithesis of fantasy (yes that was a personal opinion ).

See, in my opinion that totally depends on what vampires are in the world of Elemental. If they are your standard, evil shape-shifting light-fearing murdering vampires, then I agree. But if Stardock decides to make them something else? Then it's not so clear. What if in the world Elemental, people retain their entire mentality when they're transformed into vampires, and just gain the physical traits of vampirism. What if they don't actually suck blood but drain life through other means. And what if they can drain life from any living thing, and not just people (by whatever means, biting or magical or whatever)? That doesn't make them much different from people - people have to kill and eat living things, too. Personally I would still probably call such a thing a vampire, but in this case a good person would became a good vampire, just with different physical needs than humans. They could thus be very willing to help out the side of good, and the side of good could be very happy to have their help. And the same goes for an evil person turned vampire.

If you take the standard vampire, however, then having any vampire willing to join the forces of good would be much rarer, if it'd happen at all - it'd essentially have to be a special event. But that's not what I'm talking about.

the Gorgon
Just to get to the bottom of it I just checked Unicon in "The Encyclopedia of Fantasy" (could be called The Bible in this case): Virginity is, together with the healing horn, taking up most of the paragraph and featured in most examples of unicorns in literature. I can add as a more modern reference the classic film Legend by Ridley Scott where Mia Sarah plays the maiden (Tom Cruise has the other lead role ...). Mayby maidens have no place in D&D4, but I certainly haven't and won't forget.

In the original mythology unicorns are extraordinarily solitary, and maiden or no is completely unlikely to join any army, good or evil, whatsoever. And yet unicorns are seen in all sorts of roles in all sorts of stories and games that are completely unbefitting to this original mythology. All conceptions, including archetypes, change over time. Frankly I think this is a good thing or we'd still be in the middle ages; but for conceptions to change someone has to come along and change them. Sticking with the original myth gets old and boring, because there are no surprised and nothing new.

the Gorgon
No - a lot of its attraction lies in the fact that it skillfully uses classical archetypes from human myths, many of them related to good versus evil. And it is a fact that white is more linked with good in Western culture than black.

If Leia were dressed in green and Darth Vader's outfit were maroon, I'd have enjoyed the movie as much. The attraction lies in the uses of classical archetypes, an interesting story, interesting characters and interesting mechanics (the Force, pretty much). The movie didn't do well because Darth Vader wore black. Yes, white is more linked with good in Western culture than black, but that's beside the point. You're the one saying you want to get away from realistic views and conceptions from the real world - well this is one of them. White does not always mean good, nor should it always; and same with black. Elemental is a fantasy game, and fantasy worlds don't have to conform to popular preconceptions - if they always did they'd get repetitive and boring.

the Gorgon
Yes, the White Witch is a wonderful example of how you can make a unique character like that work, but why: I would say because the white in her clearly symbolises her cold heart and soul: she is the classical Snow Witch, turning people to stone, she has no heart ... Then it makes sense.

So except in special cases where the color "makes sense" to you, everything white has to be good and everything good has to be white? That's so boring, and so one-dimensional.

the Gorgon
You are of course right that healing can be used for good or evil like I also already tried to mention. But the point here is that applying a REALISTIC view is the opposite of what fantasy is deepest about.  The whole point with a fairy tale is that you learn something about the human condition that goes beoynd and is not dependent on  a logical, scientific,  realistic thinking and world view. If it's just a WW2 war movie with fireballs I don't think it's the strongest form of fantasy. If it's just a realistic societal drama but with dressed-up Kings and queens, that's just selling a product through the popularity of fantasy. People today are so immersed in modern thinking that some of them seem to miss the point that it's not about what is true in the real world, it's about storytelling and fantasy.

I have no problems with a being connected to healing being inherently good. I have problems with every being connected to healing in any way being inherently good. I don't really feel a need to convince you of this, because it's really just a personal preference and I'm very happy to let you prefer different things than I do, but it bothers me that you seem to think that a being with healing powers needs to be good or it ain't fantasy. You're the one talking about how you don't care about the realistic view, but then you go and talk about things that do and don't make sense - which boils down to applying a realistic view to something.

the Gorgon
I think what you are saying is that you don't think so in real life.

No. I'm saying that I don't think it needs to be so in a fantasy world. Fantasy is all about imagination. It's not about conceiving a world by applying a strict set of rules and limitations. Fantasy does not need to be good vs. evil, white vs. black, pure vs. corrupt. And even if it is, it doesn't need to be absolute. This is done all the time, and it works very well and can create a fantasy world as rich and as interesting as your standard good vs. evil high fantasy fare. I am a big fan of High Fantasy, don't get me wrong - but I enjoy other forms of fantasy just as much.

the Gorgon
But why not Imagine it for a moment and live in a fantasy world, which is much more thrilling and has more meaning than the somewhat sad world you just described. Also, I must say that in many classical fantasy books, nature is indeed good: LOTR and Thomas Covenant even has it as elemental points! And I think it's the same in mythology and religion: it is seen as good to care about mother Earth. Your atheist and logical view is hardly inspiring for  a  fantasy tale. After all, if there is a Higher Power, protecting the beauty of creation might very probably be a GOOD act.  In fantasy at least we can pretend even if we might not believe it in  our grey everyday lives. ...

I don't see how the existence of an evil being that cares for nature is going to make a fantasy world less thrilling (as an example). Honestly I think it'd achieve the opposite. Yes, if there is a Higher Power that is inherently good and loves and protects nature, then loving and protecting nature would very probably be a good act. But there could be no higher power, there could be many conflicting higher powers (very common in fantasy worlds). Hell, there could be two Higher Powers that each care very much for nature (could be for different reasons or the same reasons, or just because it's their nature to love nature) - but one could be evil and one could be good. Or there could be a fickle Higher Power that couldn't really be called good or evil, or even neutral, that is the lover of all things natural.

If the devs say, "Oh, well any creature that loves and protects nature must be good, because nature is good, and nature is good because that's just the way it usually is" I'll be extraordinarily disappointed. However, if they say, "In our world, nature is an expression of goodness and beauty, loved by the good and pure and reviled by evil, and so beings that protect nature must be good and those that defile it must be evil" I will be satisfied. I will also be satisfied if they take an unconventional approach, as long as it' well-thought out and well implemented.

My point is not that we should turn everything upside-down and give the finger to traditional archetypes. My point is that Stardock shouldn't limit themselves by being afraid to be unconventional, as the greatest successes often begin as being very unconventional.

on Jun 27, 2009

If Leia were dressed in green and Darth Vader's outfit were maroon, I'd have enjoyed the movie as much. The attraction lies in the uses of classical archetypes, an interesting story, interesting characters and interesting mechanics (the Force, pretty much). The movie didn't do well because Darth Vader wore black. Yes, white is more linked with good in Western culture than black, but that's beside the point. You're the one saying you want to get away from realistic views and conceptions from the real world - well this is one of them. White does not always mean good, nor should it always; and same with black. Elemental is a fantasy game, and fantasy worlds don't have to conform to popular preconceptions - if they always did they'd get repetitive and boring.

I don't think Star Wars would have been such a big hit if Darth had been dressed in white. Or pink. Maybe as a comedy ... But since we agree on thinking the movie draws so sucessfully on archetypes I don't see why you find it difficult to accept that the colours are indeed a part of the archetypes. I don't think that argument is even controversial. I have read it in several books about movies and scriptwriting ( I can recommend e.g. The Writer's Journey). But you are of course entitled to another opinion.

When I say we should get away from a realistic thinking in fantasy (and accept e.g. that magic or divine powers exist, or e.g. that absolute good or evil exist in the fantasy world) this naturally doesn't mean that you shouldn't draw on (real) mythological history and archetypes when you create the world/the game. Of course not. I don't really see why you mix these two up, they are two completely diferent things.

Quoting the Gorgon,
reply 22
I think what you are saying is that you don't think so in real life.

No. I'm saying that I don't think it needs to be so in a fantasy world. Fantasy is all about imagination. It's not about conceiving a world by applying a strict set of rules and limitations. Fantasy does not need to be good vs. evil, white vs. black, pure vs. corrupt. And even if it is, it doesn't need to be absolute. This is done all the time, and it works very well and can create a fantasy world as rich and as interesting as your standard good vs. evil high fantasy fare. I am a big fan of High Fantasy, don't get me wrong - but I enjoy other forms of fantasy just as much.

Yes, like we both have said fantasy can be done like that. And it could work well or less well. But I think it should be noted that fantasy, especially the most popular and well-liked fantasy, are about good vs evil, and often portrayed in an archetypal, if not absolute, way. E.g. LOTR. After all, that is perhaps the key point of a fairy-tale: giving a strong message about good and evil through a story, where such attributes are clearly represented through characters and creatures.

Anyway, for the discussion on Elemental it would be better to get down to what creature alignment would actually mean in the game. I gave an example of it: the vampire on the map. Another I gave was on the unicorn. For me, the game would certainly not risk feeling "old and boring" just because you have evil vampires and good unicorns in it. If Stardock works well on the Factions the game will feel new and fresh. If they also throw in some new and fresh creatures and things we've never seen before, perfect! Heck, if the game (graphic and gameplay) is well done the game could feel new even if it only reused the most worn-out archetypes (which I don't recommend, but just to get the point across).

it bothers me that you seem to think that a being with healing powers needs to be good or it ain't fantasy. You're the one talking about how you don't care about the realistic view, but then you go and talk about things that do and don't make sense - which boils down to applying a realistic view to something.

I have never said a being with healing powers must be good - only that you might need to come up with a better explanation for an evil tree hugger than for a good one. The discussion was about the unicorn: yes it would be possible to create an evil unicorn, but if it keeps it's powers and look (traditionally more linked to good) you would need to explain the creature to the reader/player. Who might or might not like it.

An archetype/creature making sense or not is not dependent on a reality check (= realistic approach). I was just saying that the White Witch, which is a character I really like, makes sense to me as a white, evil mythological creature. Not because I have a realistic explanation for it, but because it feels right: the parts fit well together. Why it feels right could be linked to how the author thought when he invented his creature, as well as to my own culture etc, but that's another story I won't go into.

Just to try on my side and close the debate , getting somewhat lengthy ... , I agree that new takes on old stuff CAN be good and make a book / game more exciting. But changing the archetypes should in my view be done only for a good reason. And it's not necessary to apply a realistic approach to good/evil, creation, evolution etc in a fantasy game.

on Jun 27, 2009

the Gorgon

But since we agree on thinking the movie draws so sucessfully on archetypes I don't see why you find it difficult to accept that the colours are indeed a part of the archetypes. I don't think that argument is even controversial. I have read it in several books about movies and scriptwriting ( I can recommend e.g. The Writer's Journey). But you are of course entitled to another opinion.

I've never said that colors aren't often part of archetypes - I'm saying that white doesn't always have to mean good, good doesn't always have to mean white, and the same for black. You basically said, referring to unicorns, "unicorns are white, so they can't be evil, they must be good!" That is what I was arguing against.

the Gorgon
I have never said a being with healing powers must be good - only that you might need to come up with a better explanation for an evil tree hugger than for a good one. The discussion was about the unicorn: yes it would be possible to create an evil unicorn, but if it keeps it's powers and look (traditionally more linked to good) you would need to explain the creature to the reader/player. Who might or might not like it.

An archetype/creature making sense or not is not dependent on a reality check (= realistic approach). I was just saying that the White Witch, which is a character I really like, makes sense to me as a white, evil mythological creature. Not because I have a realistic explanation for it, but because it feels right: the parts fit well together. Why it feels right could be linked to how the author thought when he invented his creature, as well as to my own culture etc, but that's another story I won't go into.

Just to try on my side and close the debate , getting somewhat lengthy ... , I agree that new takes on old stuff CAN be good and make a book / game more exciting. But changing the archetypes should in my view be done only for a good reason. And it's not necessary to apply a realistic approach to good/evil, creation, evolution etc in a fantasy game.

Then we largely agree on the meat of the issue - archetypes can and should be changed or ignored if there is a good reason to do so. We may disagree on what some of those good reasons might be, but that's a different debate. And I'm not saying it's necessary to apply a realistic approach to good/evil, etc - I'm just saying that in my opinion breaking the mold here and there and giving other races besides humans the ability to fill the entire alignment spectrum (or at least swaths of it) would be a wonderful change for the sake of immersion, freshness and gameplay. Feel free to disagree, I'm just stating my personal preferences.

on Jun 30, 2009

Weeble is a happy, happy weeble.

on Jul 07, 2009

Sooo any news on the Elemental LOTTO ?

on Jul 07, 2009

lordkosc
Sooo any news on the Elemental LOTTO ?

You just won eleventy bajillion elemental dollars!

on Jul 21, 2009

Yeek.  I tried to read through everything on here and failed.

 

May the zombies attack you all for hijacking.

on Jul 21, 2009

When is the July FAQ scheduled to come out?

on Jul 21, 2009

CapnWinky
When is the July FAQ scheduled to come out?

Hopefully in July. The question is, IS there going to be a July FAQ?

9 PagesFirst 7 8 9