alanschu

It will support Mantle, however, which may be of interest.

I had similar symptoms back in 2010. In the end my motherboard capacitors had bulged and my continued use of the computer ended up causing some damage to my video card as well. I had had the computer since about 2006 or 2007. Unfortunately, I don't know if the capacitors were the cause or the consequence, but given that 2007ish timeframe was a less than amazing time for capacitors they may have been of lesser quality.

While reading through the comments, I saw another point that I see come up a lot which simply isn't true: "Sure the money comes from the fans, but when it comes down to the "classical method" the money comes from investors. These investors want to see revenue and thus have a say in whats being made. Even if they themselves aren't well versed in the gaming world. So while a decent portion of the revenue will be "profit" instead of repayment to the investor. There are also other things to consider." For a publicly traded company, the investors typically do not affect the cash flow of the company. In fact, the money usually just trades hands among investors. The only time a company's cash flow will directly interact with the investors is when it issues new stock, buys back existing stock, or issues a dividend (which most game companies that I am aware of do not do).

Part 6-10 is up now

Alternatively if you spend your Praxis point to let yourself hack turrets, you can deactivate the turret too

I had a decent amount of requests to do another lets play. Decided to do one of the Director's Cut of Human Revolution Full playlist (5 parts so far) http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLv1uX4i1Tm5JPFKsFIqE6JOQ2SWadNqQl

You are chastising Obama for hiring someone. Are you doing it because you think that the person he hired is a poor choice, or because you wish to criticize Obama for literally doing what every other politician also does? (which is NOT something I like, to be clear) To elaborate, how capable do you think a former exec from Baine would be in the newly appointed role?

Human Revolution Director's Cut

I take it then that you think that the former exec from Baine is incompetent then.

Pfft, I remember playing this!

I think The Stanley Parable is more just an observation, rather than a judgment. It points out more that the nature of games can predispose people to attempting to exercise choice, but more found it a reflection of how game developers and game players both end up sort of meeting half way. If your attempt in a game is to do exclusively and only what you want to do, you'll probably come away with a degree of unhappiness, just as much as if the designer forces the player to do exclusively what the designer wants to do will lead to play unhappiness. Having said that, it also shows that if the player is willing to buy in and has no issue with a linear playthrough, both will probably be pretty satisfied. One of the endings (which ends ostensibly bad, and is a result of the player's choice) also makes fun of the player for continually bashing their head up against the wall simply because the player WANTS there to be an outcome that allows this choice but isn't negative. To me, The Stanley Parable is more an examination of the tropes and intricacies of story telling within an interactive medium like games. That you felt it was saying linearity was bad is probably more a reflection of you as a gamer (which is fine, and is frankly another interesting thing I find about what the game does).

Hurlshot has been playing it.

After your previous diatribe towards me for failing to answer your question in a different thread, I find this response positively hilarious. I'll take your answer as a "no." Lets go on a journey with this. Is it safe to say that you are a contributor to the "failure of multiculturalism?" What do you want, for me to learn a foreign language while I live in the states? Which one? Ok, I want to learn Japanese. Happy? Let me just be honest here, what I think you actually feel is "People should become more like you, because you like your culture." Am I correct in this assessment? Or perhaps I should just call you lazy for not having learned another language? As I could also interpret it as "People should become more like you, because it means they have to do all the work." The point (which WAS nestled deep) was "Try shifting from your own perspectives and be as open to outside influences as you may want." I'm an agnostic/atheist but you probably see me get more defensive towards those that trash on religion than many religious people because frankly a lot of the ire comes across as outright hypocritical and yes, against my perspectives of which I value (and there's no need to point out that some of my perspectives are incompatible with perspectives of other people - I recognize this but I also evaluate the idea that my perceptions may be the ones that are in the wrong). If multiculturalism is failing though, it's as much on us as it is the other cultures. Lest we think we're above making sweeping generalizations of other cultures that aren't us. But you just picked the one that you happened to like. We can go in circles here. I think that your interpretation is used as a means to undermine the efforts specifically to ensure cultural hegemony because when you're on top, it's easy to have the perception that relatively speaking, the only direction we have is down. Nonsense. As you yourself pointed out, "there are several meanings offered there, you just picked the one you happen to like." I value multiculturalism, in the sense that I think there is value added for different perspectives to intermingle because it is a benefit to all. Until Earth has "one culture" being understanding of different perspectives is a positive thing. It does not mean that I do not have reservations about different cultures (since I have issues with my OWN culture). In the end I think cultural identity is actually a bad thing. There's a reason why when someone asks me what nationality I think a visible minority is in Canada, I usually say "Canadian." I support multiculturalism, but I'm not going to support issues in other cultures that I am not even happy with in my own (i.e. things like racism, sexism, and so forth). If this means I don't actually like multiculturalism, then lets come up with a proper word since semantics is so important to some people. What this means is I don't like it when Quebec passes a law that prohibits displays of religious materials in government centers (and not just by employees), while making concessions for "small things." Status quo symbols, like a cross or star of David are still okay. But a hijab?! Whoa whoa whoa.... our government centers are secular thank you very much! Or when Canadian RCMP states that a Sikh must remove his turban to be an RCMP officer, because their cap is an essential part of the uniform. So basically "If you identify as a Sikh, and identify strongly as being a Canadian, well you're screwed the RCMP isn't for you. Because I'm sure that there'd be no intrinsic advantages to having a Sikh member of the service either! When did I say anything about egalitarianism? But since you brought it up, no I don't think that cultural spread is bad. Cultural differences are used to fuel so much hatred and fear (you seem to fit that bill... hey passive aggression is fun :D ) and you'll have a hard time convincing me that having a cultural hegemony is a good thing. And even without immigration we still have problems with that in spades here in the West. The world is increasingly global. You can hide behind your cultural walls or you can recognize that if you want a melting pot, immigrants aren't the only one that are going to need to redefine their cultural identity. Of course, it's easier to do nothing and let that redefinition be done by other people.

To be fair, I was literally intending to take the conversation in a different direction. My original query was satisfied (through my assumption)

After your previous diatribe towards me for failing to answer your question in a different thread, I find this response positively hilarious. I'll take your answer as a "no." Lets go on a journey with this. Is it safe to say that you are a contributor to the "failure of multiculturalism?"

Just curious, any thoughts on learning the other language?

The events described happened years ago, and it's not why she left BioWare (and she is in fact still a part of the gaming industry).

I have this game on my wishlist.... >.>

The Stanley Parable. And it is amazing. Reminded me a lot of Save the Date and felt it was an interesting examination of games as a medium and some of the challenges and perspectives that come with it.

Is the barometer for successful recovery a return to the pre-bubble-burst values?

Meeting expectations and financial failure are two different things. There's a new Tomb Raider game in development, according to Square-Enix. So, in the "only [opinion] that counts," Tomb Raider is seen as enough of a success to warrant more games.

His point was that there must be a market for it since they keep getting made.

Leaders are INSSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANELY powerful. Especially if you have a poor leader. Doubly so if Bohemia is considered a "lucky" country as they'll almost always have good leaders then. It doesn't look like they are though. Note that you roll a 0-9. If you have no leader (STOP THAT RIGHT NOW) and he has a 6, you're pretty much guaranteeing that you'll get stomped. If you end up rolling a 0 and he rolls a 9, you'll probably lose several thousand men per day while he loses none. Never mind if you have any penalties for attacking. Now if you roll a 9 and he rolls a zero, well, it's still 9 vs 6 and he'll pretty much always be able to incur some good damage into you. The quality of your leaders is affected by your land tradition, and in the early going Shock values will be the most important ones as most units won't have very much for Fire. Another thing to note is that Artillery can shoot at 50% strength on the back line (while providing additional defense to the unit it is in front). IMO the ideal army has a good chunk of infantry with 4 or so cavalry on the flanks of the front, with equal artillery in the back. That can be expensive to maintain. There's also the issue of combat width. After a certain point, extra soldiers are purely in reserve and can't directly contribute to the fight. I don't actually know how they reinforce the front DURING a battle unfortunately, but a very powerful (and well led) army in mountains can hold off significantly larger armies with relative ease.

This might help too: http://eu4wiki.com/Land_warfare I'd need to see a pic of the battle screen to give a more informed response, however.

I would do Claire for A as well as Playthrough B was intense and I wanted that extra firepower.