The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
"Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" out tomorrow!
Well, I find HP much quicker reading than most books, but that could be because I can sit down and read it straight through, while with other books I'm often distracted and take multiple sittings.
Originally posted by Guynemer
Hey Wombat, correct me if I'm wrong, but...
Spoiler:
They did, yes. It isn't made clear what happens to it, so it might still be knocking around. Perhaps Mundungus or Kreacher managed to sneak it away
Concrete, Abstract, or Squoingy? "I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, Firaxis
So, I think someone mentioned already that they thought that Snape had told Dumbledore about taking the Unbreakable Vow, and the plot involving Draco, etc, thus explaining that Snape's look of anguish was really because he was, in effect, being forced to kill Dumbledore against his own will. If this is the case, do you expect Dumbledore's Headmaster portrait to reveal this? I'm not sure if Rowling would have gone down the route of "Snape looks like he betrayed Dumbledore but he's actually on our side still" again, if she was just going to reveal it at the beginning of the next book. Unless she thinks the year-plus wait is long enough for us to torment ourselves over it.
EDIT:
Spoiler:
In fact, you would have thought that Harry would have tried already to speak to Dumbledore's portrait.
Reason why I ask is because I read the first one this weekend, and while it was a nice, kind of charming book, I just don't see what the fuss is about. However, it really seems more of an introduction into the world of HP rather than the beginning of an apparently long, fairly convoluted plot (if what I'm reading in these spoiler boxes is any measure.) Perhaps the really good stuff begins in book 2?
Book 1 spends a lot of time introducing you to the characters, storyline, etc. Each book becomes progressively more complicated, providing more depth to the story; characters, people, events from previous books that you thought inconsequential turn out to be part of a much larger plot.
That being said, I was hooked immediately with Book 1, the Sorceror's Stone. Book 2 was better, and by Book 3 everything was put full throttle, culminating in the orgasmic glory that is Book 4-6
Indeed. I think Harry will have his own six months of trying to figure that one out for himself. Perhaps the portrait only had memories up to the time when it was painted. The portrait was painted (and magicked) some time previously (at the start of the war, possibly), and the office merely mounts the portrait on the wall at the headmaster's death. This would fit neatly into the story while maintaining magic-theoretic consistancy.
Concrete, Abstract, or Squoingy? "I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, Firaxis
I "got it" in Book One where Harry crept into the Forbidden Section of the library, opened up a book, and the book screamed. IMHO, the book version was almost Keystone Cops; the movie version of that scene was kinda scary.
Allthough I really like the Harry Potter series, there's a lot better stuff out there. Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe series and his Warlord Chronicles trilogy; Walter Mosely's Easy Rawlings series, his two Socrates Fortlow books and now the Fearless Jones series. Charles Frazier's Cold Mountain, which is far better than the movie. For the high brow, anything by C. Annie Prolx.
IMHO, the Harry Potter books are popular with kids: (1) 'cause they're kinda scary, but in a safe kind of way and (2) because of the tongue-in-cheek humor...the transformation of a mouse into a teacup that isn't complete, so the mouse's take is still lashing about; the phony-baloney divination professor, Gilderoy Lockhart's inept meglomania. Inept adults in positions of power can be really funny to kids.
Reason why I ask is because I read the first one this weekend, and while it was a nice, kind of charming book, I just don't see what the fuss is about. However, it really seems more of an introduction into the world of HP rather than the beginning of an apparently long, fairly convoluted plot (if what I'm reading in these spoiler boxes is any measure.) Perhaps the really good stuff begins in book 2?
I´m also at a loss, trying to see what´s so great about this Harry Potter. I´ve read the first two books and frankly, I don´t have the slightest urge to read more. They just don´t do it for me I guess...
Tweet
Comment