alanschu

Sure.

Coupled with some less than fantastic goaltending to boot.

Oh?

Morale is high at the moment, I would say. Time extension was much appreciated and the response from things like PAX was pretty contagious.

I also was quoted once by them sharing the secret of DA3's success (make a good game) as well. I didn't realize that I was quoted again, though I try to avoid clicking on those links because I'm not really a fan of that sort of stuff. Stating that DAI's release date is not affected by when a PAX show will be isn't really newsworthy, in my opinion.

I enjoyed it too. Popcorn flick type stuff with some "Ra ra" but it's about what I expected. Very pretty game though haha.

Curious how well turn based would be received (I am indifferent).

You are crazy, she is sporting a solid C cup in the game. Lets put it into another perspective: Pretend that i am a woman that says that the bigger a **** is, the better, and you're saying: "whoa! hold on there girl, 7 inches is quite enough!" All while Alan wants to add that the curvature is more aesthetically pleasing than the size. Lets put it in a different perspective and point out that aesthetics is a broadly applied term. I made zero comments regarding Lara's curvature however. I did make a comment that I appreciated that she resembled a human being. And even pointed out, implicitly, that much of that is due to graphical fidelity being improved so much since Lara's early days.

I'm not sure I said anything otherwise. But hey, if you think this is more attractive, then more power to you. I don't.

It's not really about fantasizing though. New Lara looks more aesthetically pleasing, however, because she actually resembles a human being as opposed to the absurdity that was the first few games (never mind that graphical fidelity has skyrocketed since then too).

Concur. The new Lara is far more aesthetically pleasing IMO as well. That she was made with more grounded proportions doesn't really take away from it at all (it adds to it IMO).

I haven't played the game and can't really quantify whether or not there is or is not any good reason for the memory requirement. I was just responding to the comment regarding memory allocation. 6 GB does seem like a very, very large buffer. The only reasoning I could think of is if the game is very particular on the memory being grouped together in large chunks, but it's really beyond my expertise at this point. I don't know if there's a good reason for that number.

Games can have their own built in memory management systems actually. It can really help with things like memory fragmentation and the like (more of a concern on the consoles than on the PC, however. On Eclipse we had a memory manager called the Small Block Allocator that dealt with the requests for very small amounts of memory and the like. So while the OS goes "Oh you want a 4 MB memory block? Okay." Internally, we work with that 4 MB memory block in a way that the OS is oblivious to because as far as the OS is concerned, it handed us a chunk of memory and it's ours to do with what we want. For DAO and DA2, it was pretty much required to prevent excessive memory fragmentation (if you have 100MB of memory but your largest block is 5 MB, you'll fail a memory request for 6MB which typically results in a crash). Whether or not this is genuinely the issue with Ghosts I'm pretty oblivious to (for obvious reasons), but games definitely do handle their own memory allocations from time to time (there may also be potential performance optimizations depending on the level of control the software may exert on how it structures its memory).

Yeah. Here's another perspective: http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/11/01/the-badbios-virus-that-jumps-airgaps-and-takes-over-your-firmware-whats-the-story/

A lot of BF4. Should return to DXHR and finish off the lets play, however.

Yeah, though I hesitated to use the term MMO since I don't know if other people not in your squad are present or not.

I think the world is more open though. A game like Borderlands might be a better comparison.

This game has my interest as well

Yeah I remember hearing about that too. And I suppose the argument could be made that with a more finite schedule, they'd have been less inclined to make those engine jumps. But yeah, it's a game that certainly had a less than typical development process.

That's a game made with different things in mind. I'm saying if we had taken the development project for Duke Nukem, and could go back in time and simply release precisely what they had in 2005, would it have been a better game than what people got? When someone uses DNF or Daikatana as a counterpoint to "more time can never hurt" they are implicitly stating that the time spent on the project is the reason why the game was poor, rather than the time spent on the project being another symptom of other aspects that were the actual cause.

I had written a more thorough reply to various points, but ultimately since you missed it: It should be noted that the post of yours that I responded to came before you saying "I'm okay with it in random encounters" as well as "I'm okay with non-equipped loot." Which was another way of me saying "I had an inaccurate view of your perspective when I wrote my first response." As such I had assumed (incorrectly) you were completely against it in any capacity and for any item when I wrote my first response. Though you seem to be itching for a fight at this point.

Signed, Duke Nukem Forever, Daikatana, Uru: Ages Beyond Myst While those titles are certainly examples of how "long development time doesn't mean good game," step back for a moment and ask yourself if any of the games listed would've been better with less time spent on them (and not the presumed complete overhaul of planning and assorted other organizational changes that were probably necessary)?

Splitting between some BF4 and DXHR. Will look to finish up my DXHR playthrough this weekend most likely.

I concur with that. Very different type of playthrough though.

I'm not sure how a Consumerist poll is relevant to the discussion. Do you think people voted for EA because of the way employees are treated?