Tale

That was a marketing message of TOR. That TOR is KOTOR 3. If people got that impression, it seemed to be the intended one. We'll have to disagree there. I've never seen the less sharp side you claim. I mean, what, if TOR had succeeded, maybe we would have seen KOTOR Mobile, sure. But not a full-on KOTOR 3. Resident Evil 5's success is what caused Resident Evil 6. And it's only with the drop off in RE6 sales (though it was a success overall) that are causing them to step back. They made Revelations in the classic style, but it was made for handhelds. And it seems as if the lowered expectations for 6 are the reason Revelations will be hitting consoles. I don't think there's many people at all that think TOR's failure improves the chances of KOTOR 3. I think it's more that TOR has hurt the chances of a KOTOR 3 they would like. I have not heard any interest from anyone in a KOTOR that bridges 2 and TOR. The only clamor for a KOTOR 3 I've heard of is one that strikes TOR from the record. They would prefer a re-evaluation. And successes won't cause that.

They wanted it to fail because they didn't like it. They were spiteful in presentation, but the underlying behind it shouldn't be simply dismissed. If you wish to imply that the possibility of a KOTOR 3 rested on TOR being a success, that's not something that the audience ever had reason to believe in. Lengths were gone to in order to express that TOR would be KOTOR 3, from direct statements to that effect to trying to resolve the plotlines of KOTOR 1 and 2. Resolutions that were also poorly received. It's a double edged sword. If a game that takes a franchise in a direction fans do not like is successful, then future games will follow continue to follow the new direction. If it is unsuccessful, then the property may be shelved. But at least there's a chance the property may re-evaluate the new direction, as is happening with Resident Evil.

Dragonborn. Have only had enough time to listen to the townsfolk blather about stuff and get a little bit into the dungeon inside the starting town. They could probably stand to work on their dialogue writing skills, though. The first guy you meet in Dragonborn goes on to explain the Dunmer people or something. I don't remember the exact quote, but he explains that they don't like outsiders. Alright, wouldn't that have been better with just a "@#$@% outsiders!" It's just weird having characters explain themselves instead of simply being themselves.

Pass/fail systems like those are problematic. There's no problem with a rogues lying, but I definitely have a problem with only rogues, or those who have dedicated to increasing those particular skills, being the only ones able to lie successfully. One can use a system like 4E's where the unskilled lag behind a set value so all players can make reasonable attempts, but that doesn't resolve the save/reload problem. The ability to lie is not dependent upon a tag or skill check. I think it's just a silly scenario that has no reason to ever come up except to justify a lie tag. It could just as easily be "I can get us through this forest," no mention of the past. That line still does everything it needs to do. KIS. Keep It Simple. All statements the player makes should serve a purpose. And the statements should be designed to fill that purpose. Is the player trying to get another character's trust? Is the character trying to get a character to do something? What do you see being fulfilled by the lie that isn't equally fulfilled by just leaving it open? Let's look at the scenario. Characters are stuck in the woods. You want to let the player characterize themselves before leading people out. What kind of characterizations are good? Confident? "Let's get out of here!" Experienced? "I know how to get us out." Uncertain? "I don't know, but let us try." Reluctant "Maybe we should wait? What does the group think?" What does the lie about mine collapses serve? To boost morale? "I know how to get us out" does the same thing, true or not. And it doesn't matter if it's true if you never try to call in the lie. The player gets to formulate his own justification behind the statement that may differ from the author's intent. Maybe you're thinking you'd like to call the lie out. To which I have to ask, why? The vast majority of lies should let the player get away with because it makes them feel they are successful at what they want their character to do, lying. And thus you can treat the lies and truth with the same outcome.

Marking dialogue options only makes sense to me if you're making some sort of check. If there's a bluff skill, sure, mark it bluff. But if there isn't, why bother? All dialogues should assume the player is telling the truth. Lies should be conclusions drawn by comparing the dialogue with the actions of the player. Lies should never be wholly determined by the one dialogue alone. Whenever the player states something, assume he is being honest until contrary evidence exists. And then the player can be given a possible chance to explain. As for disseminating information, I don't see the point there. Lying serves a purpose and there should be greater focus on why the player wants to lie than on whether or not they are lying. If the player wants to protect someone, it should be clear in the dialogue that's what's going on. If they're wanting to distract someone, that too should be clear. Those are far more important.

I would probably be getting 3 if the freeze issue I had with 2 hadn't made me terrified to play it again. Seriously, it made me think my PS3 was dying. I deleted all my install and save info to try to fix it. But I've never been able to pick it back up to actually see if it's fixed.

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.

Devil May Cry 3. The thing I'm loving about this game is that almost every boss fight ends up with me and the boss only at a sliver of each other's health (except Doppelganger, who I completely thrashed) at the end. And then when I hit boss rush I do much better. It's probably one of the best balanced games I've ever played, with lots of room for player ability. I can't wait to finish it so I can do Devil May Cry 4 again. And I'll have played all the DMC games worth playing in a weeklong marathon. Then maybe some Bayonetta.

Had jury duty. They ran out of cases before it got to me, so I only had to waste the 3 hours for 6 dollars.

I'm not clear why people call it any kind of RPG over just a strategy game. Characters don't even have their own levels.

Well, I just ran through it because I never played it before. I think I died twice.

Finished Devil May Cry 1. Have not played that since it originally released. Time to decide if I'll move on to 2, play a Metal Gear game, or do more Demon's Souls.

Finished Chains of Satinav. I really liked it. I still think the Deponia games are their best.

I actually think I'd like a sort of build-a-game model. Where if I don't want romance options, I can buy everything else and only spend $45. It's nice because I get to save money for not being too interested and it's immediate feedback for developers and publishers.

Used this day to run through A New Beginning. Decent adventure game. Probably a bit better than decent, actually, but not so good as to have me excited.

Trying out Demon's Souls. Wow, they really moved up when they made Dark Souls. My Royal is just murdering everything with soul arrows.

Yes, grounded Kalameet gave me trouble. He would dodge my spears, then start chaining me with his breath. And by "trouble" I mean I only tried once.

I beat Dark Souls. Good game. I skipped over doing Kalameet and Manus though. Tried Kalameet and got crushed. So I just went for Gwyn, and that was a pretty unfair fight for him.

Made it through Lost Izalith and the Demon Ruins. I decided I was too scared to fight Manus or Kalameet. Maybe I should do that now.

If you're playing with Steam, check the Steam guides section of the overlay. I got 20 keys from what they listed there. It's probably the same as the IGN list with an expired.

Dark Souls! Beat Artorias with 1 hp last night. Then made it through to the next shortcut. Died a few times, lost 2 humanity, then was able to grind it back and an extra humanity in an hour. Oolacile Township gives humanity like nobody's business. White Dragon Breath is very disappointing. For 50 int, I was hoping for more than that. But I guess the number of charges explains it.

Starring dah Orkz! It'll never happen, but I can dream. Sad to hear about Vigil. They did good work on the two Darksiders games.

I guess that's going to completely kill Dark Millenium. If it was even still being worked on at all. I'm fairly okay with the idea of Ubisoft picking up South Park, if that's how it ends up being sorted out. Who knows, they might request "changes" that amount to a longer production time and more work for Obsidian.

Company of Heroes doesn't strike me as a valuable IP without Relic, so I don't know why anyone would buy it. It's World War II, the RTS, but made by a popular developer. Take the developer out, what do you have? So I'm just going to be skeptical of that. Homeworld, on the other hand, that's something people can get hyped for on the name and promise of sequels even from someone else.

Oh geeze.