alanschu

The ars article more addresses that people create poor passwords.

Consoles have typically always been technologically stomped by the PC in a year or two. Console advantage here is consistent platform. This particularly helps developers. That they are the same technology as the PC will make development less cumbersome too. Eh, I just bought a new computer (yesterday) and it still cost me $1400 (Canadian). i5-3550, Radeon HD 7950 3GB, 16 GB of DDR3-1600 memory, 128GB SSD, 2 TB HDD. Now some of that stuff is beyond spec for the console (the SSD in particular). Now if I was ridiculously diligent and shopping around, I might get a better price, but I went to the local Memory Express because they also build it for me cheaply and it's super convenient. Which is how most people do their shopping. I agree that the PC architecture will make games more likely to come to the PC. I like this, as I'm a PC gamer. It's still not a costless endeavour, however, and you will still get games that are console exclusive. It'd still require me to hook my computer up to the TV. I'm a gaming enthusiast, and have virtually no interest in doing this because moving my box is not something that interests me. I don't know how unique I am in my perspective. Hmmm, I don't know if this is necessarily the case. There's still a multitude of hardware configurations, and by the sounds of it they still want console games to be able to run off the disc (not necessarily an advantage, IMO) however. This could go either way. Not all equipment is built equally, and if Sony/MS cut corners (or definitely do not) then rates of failure will not be consistent. Spoken from someone that had a motherboard with poor capacitors that died horribly on me in 2010 (although I did get 4 years out of that computer). Steam sales and whatnot could be an issue. Though at release PC gaming for the big titles is pretty much the same $60 at this point in time. PC gaming is more affordable in the long run if people are willing to be patient, but I think that that is an uncommon trait among a large chunk of the gaming population. There's also perspective and simply habit. People need to see the gaming PC as an equivalent alternative. I'd be skeptical if they will en masse. And I still think that they'll have improved reliability, simplicity, and comfort for the majority of people that will use them. I certainly think that they'll still have the perception that those traits are true, however, even if they aren't.

As long as I can still twink out an Attrazione and some Kenshen and Kanedas, it's all good ^_^

Fair enough. I was curious if there was going to be some level of "We can't screw up!" conservatism. Although to be honest, the DFA seems to be a relatively serious one. I do agree that the Massive Chalice Kickstarter comes across as a bit shady.

Hmmm, please convince me that I'm wrong in assuming that there wasn't any sort of inference because it was done by a "clean power generator."

Don't count out the Oilers!

I was expecting something like this to happen with Kickstarter, though I'll admit I'm a bit surprised that it happened with the first. It's why I'd rather stretch goals be a nebulous "We'll make the game better" rather than a checkbox list. There's an implicit commitment to deliver on those things. Frankly I'd be okay if they just kept all the extra money and just made their $400k game.

??? Are you referring to Atari's legal issues? Maybe the rest of EA is licking their chops (skeptical) though the only thing you'll hear from BioWare staffers is "Man that sucks." If you're implying that EA is somehow responsible, however, you'd be incorrect.

You mean the guy that was doing one of the early, almost tutorial fights? Yeah, he sure did pretty well. I actually made a comment on it! He didn't seem to like it, though it took him 6 months to think of his response. I don't care if the combat is "easy," because it's *absurdly fun.* Yes, I can "win" by pressing X and Y and doing nothing else, or I can look totally badass and get a flawless victory while pulling of a 38 hit combo with 9x variation bonus. And when you get farther than 10 minutes into the game, you start meeting badguys that you can't just press X or Y, because the game does a pretty stand up job of slowly building up your skills and introducing you to new combat types. You're right that the auto target does help a lot, but that may be because at any given time it's not impossible for you to be fighting against 10+ guys. Though when you're fighting the mooks, it's not about "am I going to die?"

I did not get this impression at all. Mostly because I found Batman's combat to omgbbq fun, while The Witcher it was not so much. Batman is about chaining a multitude of hits and neither he nor his enemies really have any sense of "preventing" opposition attacks, with the exception of Batman's counter. The whole combat system is literally designed around multiple hostiles and it flows so well. The Witcher's was a lot of tumbling trying to get an attack on the flanks and Geralt becomes exceedingly vulnerable with multiple hostiles. Due to the multiple hostiles, Batman's combat has a plethora of autoaiming to assist the player, while it's not uncommon for me to forget that Geralt attacks the direction he's facing, so I sweet tumble into... attacking the air...

Ah yes, the killer crossover :D He still had the handles (and reactions) though it's too bad he injured himself through all of '93-'94. Some Pistol Pete ( I love the one at 3:49) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z2HyiNk0SE

It's also possible that Spider has mad skills

Huh, well that I actually kinda do know the answer to! >.>

Could be. Though that sort of research is also the shaming kind. I'd be curious to see the results of a study like that across the board.

I suppose JR's departure may open the doors for Steam reconciliation (Though I wouldn't get my hopes up).

I recognize that DAO had examples like Sten (and Leliana, Zevran, and Morrigan). My statement wasn't that games must have forced companions or anything like that, and even said that our games "frequently suffer from that."

Extending from Zoraptor's point, I'd say that "reasonable character choices" are most likely the ones that a dev will "think the players will want to make." Forced companions is always a point of contention, and BioWare's games (as well as Obsidian's) are certainly games that frequently suffer from that.

This is a strong argument for removing submitter names from the peer review. Interesting, however, that your article would have passed it's own peer review! I wonder if the fail rate would be the same now, or if papers like that made an impact (it was written in 1982).

Is this actually true? (I haven't really done much analysis on what the hobbies are of gay people - my assumption was that the distribution would be not a whole lot different)

Is it that you don't know any gay people, or that you don't know that they are gay? (I literally just learned that some people I have known for a long time are gay).

Hopefully the kickstarter games don't suck!

Isn't it a remake of Lounge Lizards?

I was more referring to the "Well, I would prefer to do something else, so I'll just shut the game down and delete the save." I consider that unsatisfactory, although you seem to indicate that it allows a game like Planescape: Torment to then fit under your criteria. Why can't this work for every game?

Probably doesn't help that I don't really have much interest in D&D. My first exposure to it was Eye of the Beholder, and later FRUA. In both cases, I think I enjoyed the games despite AD&D rules. I almost gave up entirely on the first Baldur's Gate due to its punitive adaptation of the rules.

I don't think that Romance is essential to a good RPG. In some cases I feel it can hurt. My favourite RPG of all time does have a "romance" in it, but in both the females (Annah and Fall-From-Grace) they only begin to skirt the layers of genuine romance. And FFG ultimately refuses the player (which I thought was amazingly well done).