Hangs for me just after I enter my profile name -- audio nitpicks, I think. Like lots of WINE software.

Will it not work under WINE?

Desktop dungeon is Windows-only!

D'oh! That's me oppressed too, then. It sounds fun :-(

Desktop dungeon is Windows-only! I am oppressed by the Microsofterarchy. :(

I just missed a doctor's appointment thanks to Desktop Dungeon ... it's awesome!

Just saw an advert for Robot Unicorn Attack on TV! It features the line "Is your masculinity challenged? Then you're not man enough to play this game!" -- love it!

It's sadly devoid of sparkly robot unicorns but I have a raging addiction to Desktop Dungeons.

Ooh, that's been one of my recent favourites too, although I haven't played the newest version. Took me absolutely forever to beat the Factory...

But the setting is so delightfully exotic and foreign and magical, how can you have any problems with it?

It's sadly devoid of sparkly robot unicorns but I have a raging addiction to Desktop Dungeons.

Oh God, sounds like the Guardian books blog never heard about RaceFail

Dear God, what is wrong with the Smart Bitches?!! Did they read the same book as me?! "It’s also about a terribly smart, horrifically brilliant woman, who is both the predator and the victim." This is the wankfantasy with the childlike breasts?! PLEASE.

OMG Kyra, that's a spoiler for anyone who hasn't looked at the Playpen yet!!!

@Andy: The standoff I'll give you. The Daleks not destroying the Earth makes sense because they're planning on coming back in the 1960s and invading once they've built up their forces (bear in mind that there are only three of them left in the Universe at this point). As you'll know if you played the downloadable game. ;)

Can I just point out that the playpen is nothing but grey blurs now... :P

@ Arthur: The thing is, the Daleks have no reason NOT to destroy the earth. They're Daleks! And I don't see why the spitfires would need the Doctor's help to destroy the ship, rather than just a specific part of it. I just think the standoff was poorly constructed: essentially, it amounted to "If you destroy us, we'll activate a bomb to blow up the earth, and if you don't destroy us, we'll activate a bomb to blow up the earth."

Actually, are these even spoilers given that they're about past episodes?

Who spoilers: OK, I'll give you the Dalek one. The one thing I'd point out is that I don't know whether or not they know that their robot has been identified as a robot when they use the energy beam - if they didn't realise that, then they might have been hoping that they wouldn't have had to use the bomb and kept their agent on the ground.

I think the Spitfire raid isn't viable without the Doctor onboard the Dalek ship because the Doctor was helping guide the Spitfires in. But again, a single line of dialogue would have cleared that up.

I'm pretty sure there was an explanatory line of dialogue in the Venice episode though... and I remain adamant that the angels thing may have something to do with the ending.

Doctor Who spoilers

Well, the angels and Venice things were more just niggles (which I don't think the ending will clear up but which could have been cleared up with a single line of dialogue in each case). The Dalek thing, OTOH, just didn't make sense.

The Daleks fire an energy beam at London to make it vulnerable to German bombers. The spitfires destroy the energy beam transmitter but then, before they can destroy the Dalek ship, the Daleks activate the oblivion bomb to destroy the earth. The doctor has to choose - allow the spitfires to destroy the ship, or go and deactivate the oblivion bomb.

It just makes no sense - why didn't the Daleks activate the oblivion bomb earlier instead of the energy beam? Why doesn't the Doctor return to the planet to deactivate the bomb AND allow the spitfires to destroy the Daleks?

Again, I am not making any calls until we see the last episode. That said:

There's definitely something going on in the Weeping Angels episode - there's a fan theory, which I think might well be true, that there's a future Doctor running around in there meddling with stuff. Remember when he loses his jacket, then turns up and talks to Amy and he's wearing his jacket again and he's behaving odd? The theory is that Jacket-Doctor is visiting from his subjective future.

I'll give you the Lodger one, the episode was probably the weakest this season. I don't see the problem with the Daleks one. And I thought the Vampires thing was obvious - either the Deep Ones' plans involved expansion and conquest, or the Sink Venice button was a scorched-earth plan to wipe away all evidence of their meddling in the event that the scheme looked like being rumbled.

Well the kind of story logic fails I mean are this kind of thing:

The Lodger - bullshit explanation for why the Doctor hangs round pretending to be human while the lodger keeps murdering people
Daleks - the mutually assured destruction standoff between Daleks and the Doctor makes no sense
Vampires - why the fuck do they want/need to sink Venice??
Angels - why do they stop chasing the Doctor? Why do they start again?

I find these plotholes problematic because in each case, to enjoy the story we're forced just to accept/ignore the nonsensical character motivation, which is quite crucial to plot logic. Things happen because the story demands it, rather than because it arises out of the established motivations. I think it bothers me more here than in previous series because the episodes are all pretty good.

To be fair, I think a lot of the story logic problems got lampshaded in the most recent episode when the Doctor pointed out to Amy that her life story doesn't make any sense. Given that the final episode is likely to include a metric ton of time wibbliness I'd be loath to declare something a plot hole until we're sure it's not a planned paradox.

Either way, I think a certain amount of illogic is inherently a part of Who, I just feel that Moffat is in general better at judging how much to throw in than RTD. It helps that Moffat's take on the series as a cosmic fairy tale seems to fit that a bit better than RTD's emotionally realistic drama with time warps and Daleks.

Basically I am a raving Moffat partisan at this point. Which makes this cliffhanger all the more tense - will Moffat pull the finale off, or will he fumble it horribly and shit the bed?

No spoilers, it's from the end of the RTD era.

TBH I think it neatly describes why, for me, RTD's Who may have been necessary to revive the show but I'm bloody glad he's moved on. This bit:

Yes exactly, which is why I say 'nuanced'. It clearly articulates all the problems I have with the RTD era, but also offers an intelligent defence of its strengths.

But it’s not pedantry, pettifoggery or even the mark of a sphincter-squeezing forum fanatic to expect those things to come packaged in a watertight (or at least seaworthy) story – especially from someone who, we are often reminded, is a genius.

I think there have also been problems with story logic in the new series though, which several of the blogs have picked up on. In some ways, the higher quality of many episodes makes these lapses more annoying.

This nuanced defence of RTD's Doctor Who seems to be exactly on the mark, to my mind.

TBH I think it neatly describes why, for me, RTD's Who may have been necessary to revive the show but I'm bloody glad he's moved on. This bit:

But it’s arrogant folly for Davies to assume the rest of his audience – the other nine-and-a-half million or so – don’t care about this stuff as well. Any viewer buying into a fictional concept, even one this bonkers, has a right to expect it to make sense. (And who worries more about the logic of things than children? Try wriggling out of a satisfying answer with them and they’ll ask you “Why? Why? Why?” from now until the year 5.5/apple/26.) No-one appreciates those patented RTD “moments” – a dash of gothic verse here, a lyrical paean to the possibilities of humanity there – more than me. But it’s not pedantry, pettifoggery or even the mark of a sphincter-squeezing forum fanatic to expect those things to come packaged in a watertight (or at least seaworthy) story – especially from someone who, we are often reminded, is a genius.

pretty much nails it for me, and for what it's worth those super special moments that the article writer gushes about fall flat for me with more or less 100% consistency. But that's all in the past now.