alanschu

I would guess it's more there to prevent junk/crap/spam than anything else.

Why can't you post on the forum? EDIT: Also, this doesn't work? http://www.swtor.com/support/form Let me know tomorrow if you're still having issues ( just reply to this thread)

Wasteland 2 was the first one I pledged for, once I heard Avellone was involved. The only other one I have pledged for is PE.

Sure there is. There's no need to qualify the statement in the slightest. The poster explicitly called out the colour of her skin, when all that needed to do be said was "What a high quality cosplayer." But nope, it was pretty good for a black person. I wonder how the person would have felt if it wasn't a black person, since apparently there is SOME sort of distinction (lest the qualification never would have been made). Saying "You did pretty good for a black person" is not the same as noticing "It's a black person dressing up as sailor moon." So your analogues aren't actually analogues. Now if you say "That's pretty good for a man" or "That's pretty good for a fat person" then your analogue is becoming a bit closer. What you're saying when you say "You did pretty good for a black person" is state that an important part about dressing like Sailor Moon is the colour of her skin, and because you aren't white you have a handicap in trying to look good while cosplaying as a white person." Which means the focus is on the race of the person, when it doesn't have to be. I have never seen a clip of Sailor Moon, and I knew exactly who the person was cosplaying as, and she has done a spot on much better job than a lot of the white people I've seen make attempts as well. She's not "good for a black person" she's just straight up good. Her skin color is irrelevant.

The only "meh" moment for me with that WL2 video was the dialogue. I'm not the biggest fan of keyword dialogue. Aside from that it seems to be coming along nicely.

Ultima VI

Errr, that's just a typo on my part. The example I stated in my last line is in line with what I meant (and what you said)

That is a stupid comment and deserves to be chided. It literally qualifies that the race of the individual has affected the assessment of how quality the job is. In an ideal world, the idea that she was a "black cosplayer" would never come up. But it did. What exactly does it mean to say "For a black cosplayer?" It's no different than saying "For a white person, this was pretty impressive." It implicitly states that the colour of one's skin influenced the decision, and the implicit assumption is always going to be that had the skin colour been different, the result wouldn't have been impressive. No one says "For a black cosplayer, she is pretty impressive" meaning "but had she been asian/white/whatever, it was HOLY CRAP AMAZING."

I'm referring to comments long before the release of the game. Those that saw it as "we're getting SWTOR instead of KOTOR 3" and that the mere existence of SWTOR meant that the chances of there ever being a KOTOR 3 were somehow compromised. That's the irony. It doesn't take a genius to see how big publishers work in this regard. If the game epically tanks, it's going to scare investment away. You're right that it's a double edged sword, but one side is significantly less sharp. Especially when it concerns big budget AAA types of titles. Yes there's people that disliked TOR simply because they didn't enjoy the game. I'm not referring to those people. Anyone that thinks that the abject failure of TOR improves the chances of a KOTOR 3 moreso than TOR being successful aren't really seeing the big picture. It wasn't like KOTOR was a super hot commodity and really hasn't been for upwards of 8 years now. There's a much greater chance of spinoff type projects when a property is seen as successful and lucrative, and if you get a Feargus Urquhart pitching "I have a great idea for a KOTOR 3 that will help bridge the gap from KOTOR 2 into TOR" and TOR is a screaming success, the big suits start seeing $$$$$ in their eyes. No, BioWare wouldn't be the one making it, but I doubt BioWare would have ever made a KOTOR 3 regardless.

The only bad thing I see about the time frame is that it could be restrictive (unless they are perfectly okay with you creating alternate universe endings). The complete and utter irony of all those fans that would have loved to see a KOTOR 3 but were hoping for TOR to fail for no other reason than spite.

Any chance I can escalate my grievances? It's one of those things that I didn't realize just how much I missed them until I no longer had access to them....

I actually found this to be the weakest aspect of The Witcher 1. After hearing about how dark, edgy, and mature the game world was, my jaw dropped (not in a good way) at how excruciating a lot of it was. When I finally realized that the game's writing was actually intended to be full on campy (when the dude literally said "et cetera et cetera" in a spoken line) I was able to enjoy it a lot more. At least I felt like when I was laughing, I was laughing with the game rather than at it. The first game I felt I had interesting ideas, but struggled mightily with the execution. It actually reminded me of some of my (failed) attempts to create a dark and mature setting as a module in NWN. The best part of the first game, in my opinion, was the creative skill tree. The second was an immense joy of fresh air because I could literally see the vast improvements across the board in almost all aspects of the game. The writing in that one was very good (even if I found the principal motivation/reactions of the characters involved in "the big choice" to be a bit stilted and forced - the idea of creating a narrative story lets me forgive all that, however), and did a lot of things that I felt a lot of companies should take note of when going forward with storytelling and presentation in an RPG.

Eh... Unless he's explicitly admitted it, suggesting that someone suffers from Asperger's Syndrome (a form of autism) is probably one of the lesser cool things one can do. I have written walls of text as well, but am reasonably confident I am not autistic.

The problem is that I'm skeptical either of those issues would be resolved had a different president (especially a Republican one) been in power. Given the economy is still recovering, they aren't going to be the big pressing issues that people care about (except maybe the Patriot Act).

What about DiPietro!?

Why is that? (The argument about size, not the one about the US being composed of several smaller states?) Japanese culture in general is a lot more homogeneous.

At this point the problem is more that people associate the term marriage as a declaration of lifelong partnership and dedication to the other individual. They want to be able to expressly state that, and I think in some cases people don't even care about many of the overt legal benefits of doing so.

Just how big is it and what percentage of total users of a game mod their games? It depends on the game, but for some games, like the Elder Scrolls games and NWN/NWN2, Modding has helped drive sales and keep games alive for much longer than their original campaigns would. And then there's the ones like Black Mesa, mods that turn into games in their own right. I'm aware of those. It's not what I asked.

Just how big is it and what percentage of total users of a game mod their games?

Well, I would tie this to a fact, that PC is: 1) More mod friendly 2) More Multiplayer and Social medium friendly In the past, the main driver towards the consoles was the fact that it's a single machine, with a single configuration, meaning that risks of game breaking bugs is minimal, and there is no need to constantly upgrade your machine for a next 4-5 years. With platforms like Steam (DRM excluded) PC is becoming very user friendly medium. We can have everything what consoles have and more. The trend might reverse though, if the new consoles will be truly NEXT-GEN I think mods are overstated personally, but it could just be personal bias since I use them so infrequently. Ironically I think what has helped PC gaming has been the consoles being similar enough to PC that multiplatform titles are more common. I get much more mileage out of my PC now than I did thirteen years ago (I'm on my third year with this one, and it still plays games well. My previous one lasted for 4 years). I think there's also been a maturation of the industry to find ways to still present that higher quality content. I think the biggest culprit is that console games very much rely on large volume of sales, yet the economic situation just has people being more frugal in general.

As I understand, the problem is not that people are doing it, it's that the system is now designed to get everyone to do it, instead of it being merely a limited number of people who chose to do it on their own. With the added "benefit" of the game's infrastructure revolving around it, such as being always online. This spoken as someone who has not played the game, so if I've been given the wrong impression, let me know. I can see this. But it could just as well be an unexpected consequence. Though in general it still greatly simplified trading (something which was still done on battle.net). It still strikes me as a "If you think it hurts your fun, don't do it?" type of scenario.

Diablo 3 "struggled" because it wasn't as good of a game as Diablo II. Besides, rhe RMAH is just a way of allowing people to actually do what they were already doing with the first game (selling items on ebay and whatnot) but with the increased convenience and security of doing it officially (less chances of being ripped off). As for what people do in their game, why do you even given two ****s what someone else does in their single player game? Do you have stern talking tos for people that use cheat codes, or mod the game files, or use external trainers? Furthermore, if someone is buying it, doesn't that give the indication that there is some sort of consumer demand?

How do you determine whether or not content would have existed had the DLC not been created, versus the content existing explicitly because the plan was to put it in as DLC? If you think the game is not fun and doesn't deliver without the DLC, then yeah buyer beware and take that into consideration the next time you purchase their games. If you think that the total game is worth $50, wait for the game's price to drop and pick it up with the DLCs that you want and get the value with the dollar. Or pick up some of the other plethora of PC games that are out instead. As for the justification? Risk mitigation. With the increased revenues the chances of the game as a whole making a profit (and keeping people employed). I agree that there's a negative perception about it, but is it because it's new and the inertia of the status quo makes us drag our feet? Steam once had a negative perception about it, but with time people got used to it and eventually even liked it.

Hope everything is all right. If you still enjoy the topic itself, keep playing around and feel free to ask for some advice/perspective.

I don't entirely understand his concerns. He mentions that the atmosphere and whatnot is very vital to the game (I haven't played the Dead Space games), yet these things undermine that. Isn't this a case of "don't buy them then?" (If you're against Day One DLC, I encourage you to not buy them anyways) Looking at his comments, he seems to feel that the option of these easier modes will make the game easier and reduce the tensions. Isn't this a bit disrespectful to the gaming population? I have no problems if someone DOES find the game too scary (or whatever) but otherwise enjoys it paying for stuff. It's his money (seems like a waste of money to me, but I rarely buy DLC at all) and if that makes him enjoy the game more, should we care?