alanschu

Michael Biehn!

Just finished Nar Shadda, and have unlocked HK 47 too.

I agree. I am noticing weird and weirder issues lately. Usually when quotes get involved, but I have had "Delete" (not Backspace) remove whole lines and paragraphs too.

What exactly was the hubbub over the Omerta DLC? Were people mad that it seemed out of spirit with what GOG delivers?

This does give the inclination that the decision is primarily a commercial one. Having said that, I am still curious what the difference is. Yes it's the one promised, which obviously provides some impetus for making sure that they deliver it. If they have the technical ability to do so, then there appears to be more to it. That's the difference that I am curious about.

You could warp the future like I did. It's pretty cool yo. B-)

I'm curious if there's some significant advantage to utilizing Steam as the delivery system (I have no visibility on this), in terms of saving on man hours and so forth. It does seem strange that there is evidently one DLC that can be done not through Steam. Curious what the difference is.

I haven't really followed. Will this block patches as well?

I suppose that's an issue with using the title "Worst Company in America" then.

That article is more about the entire Auction House, not just the Real Money Auction house. I think PA was a bit misleading in how it was presented. There were aspects of how the RMAH hurt things as well, but upon reading the article he talks more about the auction house holistically.

My assumption is that part of the advantage that Haunts has is that it's also very small scale (I think if Obsidian or inXile got into that situation, you'd have a lot of sympathy but you'd also have a lot more rage grandstanding). Still, I do agree that the support from the community was refreshing. I agree that HBS could have been more open about the whole process. Though at the same time I think there's still some level of adjustment to the process, so I don't know if I would say there was malicious intent to deceive, but rather the joys of adjusting to the new funding model.

Ditto here!

X2 grabbed me more than X3 did, for some reason. Couldn't quite put my finger on it.

Word on the street is we successfully defended! Too soon for this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFfCKy0nKr0

While not mathematically eliminated, things certainly don't look super awesome for the Oilers. Bandwagon is hilarious though! #GoOilers

Well played sir.

The only parts that come across as "obvious" are the voiced lines. It sounds like they are the same voice, but they lack some level of post processing (or something) to them, as they sounds juuuuuuuuuuuuuust a wee bit different. Unless it's a heck of an impersonation. I just got Visas and am eagerly awaiting my final lightsaber piece too. Currently on Nar Shadda.

Eh, I think these people are being a bit overly sensitive if they feel that John is "insisting that the community that has stuck with them since the very beginning is an enemy for not wholeheartedly agreeing with that post." John is very specific about the types of people that he was refusing to grant a stage to. It should be pretty easy for someone to discern whether or not he or she is one of those types of people. If they aren't, then John isn't specifically targeting them. It's similar to the when Cliff Bleszinski wrote up his article giving **** to all the people that went out and got viciously belligerent towards Anita's Kickstarter and mocked them with a "THIS is why you went and acted the way that you did?" The incorrect assumption that many people made was that Cliff was targeting anyone that disagreed with Anita's perspective. He wasn't doing that. He was specifically calling out the boneheads that got up into a frenzy and starting spewing forth hate across the internet and engaged in a few fallacious smear campaigns to boot.

<snip>

Let me know if you struggle with traction on that. And yeah, in my experience simply because people act like 14 year olds, doesn't mean that they are.

I should give that game a looksee at some point. THough KOTOR 2 appears to have satiated my gamer ADD.

I have divided feelings. I get the impression John felt a need to soapbox himself because he was finding the issue frustrating. I'm not really a fan of comments at the best of times (I read them to fulfill my desires to laugh at people and to be judgmental!), and on the one hand if you know that there's an angry mob waiting outside of your talk, is it productive to actually let them in? This reminds me a bit about how people were upset about EA having an "invite only" seminar about approaching LGBT representation in games, which people jumped on (IMO more because it's cool to hate on EA than about the subject matter, but I digress), when to me it seems like allowing anyone to come in and talk is going to lead to a greater chance that some Westboro fundies come in and completely derail the entire conversation, effectively undermining the entire initiative.

If we win I'm so going to Disneyland!

It's not obvious. Not when you specifically mention an alternative. Once you mention an alternative, if it starts to fall closely with what is often interpreted as dismissive commentary, you end up obfuscating your own point. As such, from my perspective, her interpretation seems more "obvious" to me than yours did (which required further explanation and the inclusion that you were speaking from your own experience, information that didn't even exist in your original post. I know how popular they are.

I think the reaction that Anita received to her video is another attempt to do something like this, and is also what Walker touches on when he feels that a bulk of the criticism towards his views is more about an attempt to intimidate him to stop him from discussing it further. You can argue that he's a hypocrite by not allowing anyone to use his blog as a stage for their remarks, but I would disagree with that notion as he has still openly encouraged people to point out their faults, and has even retweeted blogs linked to him that call him out. So I don't know if I would equate this to homosexual groups or fundamentalist Muslims from trying to intimidate people to not talking. Though if you're going to classify censorship as any decision to not do something, the word starts to become pretty all encompassing. Interesting crossroads though, if you feel strongly about something and feel that allowing people to obfuscate the issue through intimidation tactics. Is it productive to allow the KKK to have a voice at a black minority rally in the 1960s?