Rostere

This pretty well sums up what happens when you invite the Third World in mass--you de facto become the with all of its crime and social pathologies. My opinion of the this filth and those supportive of them cannot be typed here for risk of a ban. Use your imagination, multiply by 10, and you'll be in the ball park of my disgust for all of those of this ilk, LibProgs and Third Worlders alike. That is a very interesting video you linked to. However, don't get all carried away, things are not half as bad as they seem. It's always fun to see how Sweden is portrayed in other countries. Let me clear a few things up for you all. One of the guys speaking is from "Sverigedemokraterna" a Swedish political party which used to have meetings in Nazi uniforms (they were born out of the Swedish branch of White Aryan Resistance). Shockingly, they are today staunchly "pro-Israel" and one of their representatives in the program is also a Jew. How he can justify for himself to join a movement with such obvious connections I might never understand. This in combination with your last sentence makes me worry a bit about you (Tsuga C). The statement that "Muslims" are a core constituent of the Left is an outright lie. Muslims who are active believers are generally moral conservatives and therefore tend to vote for "Moderaterna" or "Kristdemokraterna" - parties to the right. There was actually a public outcry a while back when it was revealed that Moderaterna had an imam representative in local politics who had said some pretty unsavoury stuff about women's rights (out of the many political errors you could do in Sweden, never EVER mess with the feminists or you might as well end your political career right there). The Swedish Left would seem unconcievably irreligious and LGBTQ- friendly for an American, so I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could ever believe that orthodox Muslims would vote for them. On the other hand it might very well be true that Arabs vote for parties to the Left consistently. That is because a lot of the refugees who come from the Middle East has historically been irreligious, socialist or even communist, persecuted in the countries they've fled from. For example, there have been demonstrations in the centre of Stockholm for the overthrowing of the Iranian government - both from supporters of the Shah and from anti-religious leftists (YES, I know Iranians aren't really Arabs BUT...)! A large part of the Arabs are also Assyriac Christians. So when you read about in the news how Christians are persecuted in Iraq and now Syria, many of them end up in Sweden. For example, out of the Iraqis who live in Sweden, a majority are Christians (unexpected, huh?). So, in Sweden, Arab does not at all equal Muslim. Which brings us to another part of the video. About the only thing that is true in the video is that there are some pretty violent "pro- Palestinian" tendencies in Malmö. First, southern Sweden is pretty much the center for all forms of racism in Sweden, and in southern Sweden, Malmö is the capital of the leftists. But the guys you see in the video throwing stuff are obviously not neo- Nazis. There are also probably not many believing Muslims in that demonstration. My very qualified guess is that most of them are from AFA ("Anti- fascist front") and leftist Arabs, who still believes it's the seventies and they're members of the PFLP. In Sweden, if you're far- Left, you look at the RAF with really rosy glasses and the at PFLP too, by extension. To be honest I was surprised at the accounts of how lenient the police was on these far- left demonstrators, they've been quite tough on other occasions. Really, an ironic explanation of what happens would be that we've got pro- Palestinian communists throwing rocks on pro- Israel fascists while policemen with neo- Nazi sympathies are looking at the whole mess, wondering what to do.

There are lots of similar ongoing conflicts I'm also very interested in, such as Tibet, Chechnya, Sinkiang, West Sahara, Kurdistan, and so on, which all can be adequately explained by knee-jerk nationalism and/or oil politics. There are several unique aspects to the Israeli/Palestinian one which exists in none of the above mentioned conflicts. The unlikely illegal mass immigration of one people to a completely foreign land (on the basis of religion!). If you would have asked me about establishing a Jewish state in Palestine around 1900 when the Jewish population was about 1%, I would have laughed and called you insane The lack of consensus on the conflict in media The absence of "heroes" or movements which I personally would give my support without many objections The pretty extreme one-sided support of Israel in the US The schizophrenic nature of Israeli society, which is ever-changing and contains many different groups with completely different goals All of these points make the conflict unique and if not interesting to discuss, interesting to follow. Well, that's an interesting perspective. But I have to query why you are interested at all in conflict? I don't pay any attention to this issue because I don't believe it's going to change. You should infer that I need to know when things are going to change. I have a practical interest. I'm not clear what yours is, though? Is it simply like watching an ant farm? Come to that I'd be interested in hearing why everyone on this thread bothers to follow this issue. Why does anyone read the news? There's a lot of things happening all around the world which are either amazing or horrific, and sometimes they also have an actual impact on your life. I don't think anything I read about Israel/Palestine will change my life in a significant way, but I take it you also have a curiosity towards happenings in the world and don't always skip past the news which does not have a direct impact on yourself? I would actually rather compare my personal interest in this conflict to an interest in history. Can I say with some certainty that you've read some WW2 history books? I consider the most interesting parts the ones where you were not sure who would win, the events which changed the war - the Battle of Britain, the arrival of Montgomery in North Africa, and Mussolini's catastrophic invasion of Greece which might have ended up costing Hitler a victory against the Soviets. When I read about these events I think for myself about how things could have played out differently, and exactly why things happened the way they did. I enjoy discussing these things with other people who are interested in history, and we can talk at length about differences in military equipment, strategy, politics and so on. In very much the same way, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a war about human rights, a war with an outcome that is hard to predict. Instead of military equipment, there are human rights and UN agreements, instead of military strategy there are demographic changes, instead of battles there are elections. So you could say I'm observing a historical conflict in real-time. Sure. But let's not discuss black and white when we are really discussing a continuous scale between black and white. You're right in that naming a country after a certain people which happen to live there is rather harmless. But after that there is a slope towards nationalism, ethnocentricity and even outright racism. Suppose I live in a country with 75% Swedish and 25% Norwegians. I then go on to write to the constitution of my country, which I start off by stating "myCountry is a Swedish country..." while making no mention of any Norwegians at all. Still pretty innocent, right? But this means for example that I can prevent politicians from running for office if they claim that myCountry is also a Norwegian country. The next step is to address Norwegians specifically in the law, in order to deny them rights offered to everyone else. For example, I could write that Norwegians from outside of myCountry who marry a Swede should be denied citizenship while this is normally offered for people of other nationalities, in order to keep all those filthy Norwegians from messing up the demographics of my country which I'd like to be 100% Swedish. So while small traces of 19th- and 20th- century nationalism still exists in some European countries, I still consider these universally bad, even if they're only 1% bad and 99% harmless. To move further towards racial special treatment under the law is always a bad thing, no matter how harmless every small step might seem. You're joking right? Tell me you're joking. Racial purity ideals have a rather sordid history. They are the cause of countless genocides across the planet. Not just in places where they were "in other people's territory" No, I ain't kidding. Every idea or desire can be a cause for evil deeds. There is nothing evil about wanting to preserve something - evil comes from what you do to achive it. If someone said to me that they like to preserve their cultural traditions under democratic law, I'd say go for it. If someone said they like to live segregated and/or preserve racial purity under democratic law I'd just think they were very corny. On the other hand, if you start to mess with the law to treat different cultures or races differently, you've crossed the line to "evil deeds" - see above. Well, they are changing the country even as we speak. In fact that is the Democrat plan for taking over, which I believe will be disastrous. I wonder how the Swedes would feel if they became a minority in their own country. Democrat plan for taking over? Do I detect the Global Left at it again? If you're interested in how the Swedes would feel, why aren't you interested in how the Palestinians felt when they became a minority? Especially considering they aren't really a minority if the millions of refugees who were driven from their homes were allowed to return home. Also, IIRC Sweden has the second highest percentage of foreign-born citizens in the EU. Also, we didn't have an official language until the current government pushed it recently. Besides ideas of freedom of speech and other democratic rights, if those can be called Swedish, I'd say there's nothing "Swedish" to keep, so...

I liked Snatcher, which was a Japanese point-and-click adventure with shooting sections, so I think you could safely say that gameplay takes a back seat to story.

Instant karma. That's what I say.

Here's one point which Netanyahu is likely to address when Obama makes his trip to Israel. Previous Israeli governments have demanded Pollard's (an Israeli spy) release from prison from both the Clinton and Bush Jr., demands which have been rejected. This has led to accusations of anti-semitism in these administrations, accusations which are also echoed by some American politicians in Congress. What do you think, will Netanyahu demand Pollard's release again, and will this stall the talks for peace?

Then I say pledge. But I'd be surprised if that's what classic Ultima fans want.

My original comparison was between the PLO and the ANC. On the subject of Hamas, you should read this: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4353480,00.html Hamas is the offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood operating in the Palestinian Territories. When they first came to power in Egypt, many people were worried that they might destabilize the region by initiating a conflict with Israel. The fringe right "pro-Israel" crowd went crazy and talked abut how USA should totally bomb Egypt. It was not at all an entirely unfounded fear, though. I also had (have?) lots of doubts about the Muslim Brotherhood. Eventually they proved to be pragmatists though - who would have known? In hindsight, considering Egypt's economical ties with Israel and a comparison of their armies, this was pretty obvious. Now they are putting pressure on Hamas to "get clean" in order to become a viable partner for peace. Peace gives prosperity. With power comes responsibility. And once the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (previously labelled terrorists just like the ANC, PLO and so on...) achieved power, they chose the only sensible path. This is rather contradictory, so I don't really know where to start. If there are indeed racial preference laws in the US, are we in agreement that these are unjust? You have a very strange definition of "destroying Israel". If I wanted to abolish slavery in the United States in 1780, would that constitute "destroying the US" lessening the power of the White voting majority? I think it's also very strange how you think Jewish racial identity of Israel is so important. If anything, you as an American would know that a state based on a certain race is a bad idea. The absence of an American race does not mean that the US is worse off than other countries, I'd rather say the opposite. Do you think Hispanic migration to the US is "destroying" the US? When/if Hispanics achieve a voting majority, is the US "destroyed"? If Catholics become a voting majority? That's what a lot of Americans with rhetoric similar to yours claimed during the last part of the 19th century. With your definition of words, of course I want the destruction of any state on the Earth which is built on the principle of favouring one race over others. It is my duty as a moral being to want that. I care about the well-being and democratic rights of individuals, not the right of a race to take over someone else's land in order to have a country controlled by them. The racial policies of Israel start here. Are you Jewish? Great, you're a citizen now. Palestinian? Sorry, don't want your kind around here. Wait, did you say you're a refugee who used to live in Israel? No, you can't come back, you're of the wrong race and we've already gotten rid of you once! (My apologies for the blatantly partial website - but the collection of quotes I've linked to is fairly good) Most of the discrimination of Arabs in Israel are centered on homogeneous Arab communities, which systematically receive community services of lower quality (if at all - this situation is worst in the Negev) and from which land is confiscated by the state in order to be used by Jewish communities. Schools in Arab communities also receive less funding. As an Arab living in a modern, mixed Arab-Israel community I don't think you're subject to a lot of discrimination at all. Arab women have lots of rights in Israel they don't have in the non-secular Arab states. On the other hand, mixing with Arabs is frowned upon by the right-wing elements of Israeli society. Like I've linked to before, over 50% of Israeli Jews believe that interracial marriage is equal to national treason. One example of the systemic discrimination in courts is the famous case of the State of Israel vs. Ashgoyev in which a Jewish settler had shot a Palestinian boy protesting when his land was taken over by a Jewish settlement. The settler got a surprisingly low sentence of six months in prison, which the judge motivated with the nationalities of the involved. Of course I think it's good that he went to court at all, which is not to be taken for granted, but the precedent set there is sickening.

It's a hack'n'slash MMO, nothing like the original Ultima games. People who give money to these kinds of projects are the reason Van Buren was scrapped instead of FO:PoS, the reason why Black Hound was scrapped for Dark Alliance series, and well, you get it. Don't allow the dumbing-down to happen, pledge for Torment: Tides of Numenera instead, which actually looks like it will try to be true to it's predecessor.

There are lots of similar ongoing conflicts I'm also very interested in, such as Tibet, Chechnya, Sinkiang, West Sahara, Kurdistan, and so on, which all can be adequately explained by knee-jerk nationalism and/or oil politics. There are several unique aspects to the Israeli/Palestinian one which exists in none of the above mentioned conflicts. The unlikely illegal mass immigration of one people to a completely foreign land (on the basis of religion!). If you would have asked me about establishing a Jewish state in Palestine around 1900 when the Jewish population was about 1%, I would have laughed and called you insane The lack of consensus on the conflict in media The absence of "heroes" or movements which I personally would give my support without many objections The pretty extreme one-sided support of Israel in the US The schizophrenic nature of Israeli society, which is ever-changing and contains many different groups with completely different goals All of these points make the conflict unique and if not interesting to discuss, interesting to follow.

How large was it presumed to be? It's a myth that big publishers assume there's no market for games like these. I suppose it also helps to define "niche." 80 thousand people is niche to me, and none of the RPG kickstarters have even broached that number. It's also important to consider that people that contribute to one may also contribute to another (I'd consider the level of overlap to actually be very high, but have no data to support that position). Another fact about kickstarter is that, like free to play games, big fish carry the little fish. The average for Torment 2 right now is $55 per person. The median contribution is $25 (the median for Project Eternity is also $25). In order to ramp up to exponential values, you're going to need to ramp up the number of contributors exponentially too. I'm skeptical that that will happen. I feel most consumers for these games will continue to be traditional consumers (paying for a product once it's released). Those pledging on Kickstarter is always going to be a smaller, activist crowd. When these Kickstarted games start showing up on Steam, GamersGate, et.c., that's when we will see the real sales.

Apparently an MMO. Not interested.

Arabs living in Israel do have the right to vote, although they are subject to discrimination in many parts of Israel. The Arabs living in the occupied West Bank do not have the right to vote however, unlike the Jewish settlers who live there.

That's completely insane. Why doesn't the US just copy/paste the system of some country with lower medical costs?

I'm in a great mood. Two, three years back I would never have imagined so many great CRPGs coming out The last ten years, great CRPGs, or even great games in general, have been very scarce. I've just had eggs and sausage for breakfast and in addition to my morning cup of coffee I am having a small glass of Marsala wine to celebrate. Cheers, everyone! I wish the best of luck to Obsidian and InXile for developing their own franchises and providing quality games for the rest of the world until the end of time

There's a lot of things which are very important to keep in mind regarding Chavez. One, the coup which would have replaced his democratic rule by a right-wing dictatorship. This has already been discussed in this thread. Two, remember this? Obviously, he was no dictator or even like a dictator. Three, he actually tried, but failed, to depose the democratically elected government and arguably legitimate president Andrés Pérez in 1992. Among other stuff he's also offered Muammar Khadaffi asylum. To sum things up, I think he's been a fairly good president for advancing Venezuela socially, but let's not forget that he was also behind some very awful foreign policy. Instead of using his close ties to put pressure on Cuba, which is quite obviously not a legitimate democracy, he gave Cuba his unconditional support, rather like the US treats Israel today. He's also fostered close ties with other known non-democratic countries such as Zimbabwe, North Korea and Iran, historically also with pre-revolution Libya (something various EU countries did as well, so...) and Uganda under Idi Amin. Considering the harmful influence the US has had on Latin America during the 20th century, it's clear to see where his anti- Americanism came from. I consider it a condemning stain on Chavez' record that he offered his support to blatant dictatorships, just because these shared his antagonism towards the US. And who knows, if his first coup had succeeded, maybe he would actually have become a dictator. For now, let's hope his successor keeps Venezuela democratic and discards Chavez' harmful foreign policy.

Yes, that's basically what the extremist movements among Palestinian refugees say. Still, as I noted earlier, no genocide took place in Algeria or (more relevant) SA even though those governments were formed by former "terrorists". Do you also question the Irish independence? If Hamas was elected to rule Israel today, we would see a catastrophe. I am fully convinced that if Palestinians are gradually allowed to return to their homes and allowed to vote, we won't see that outcome. I wasn't aware that any French settlers staid in Algeria. In any case you're comparing different situations. It's like predicting the nazis wouldn't exterminate Jews because the communists hadn't. Also you don't have any evidence to back up your prediction. In any case, under your scenario, even if Jews somehow avoided the massacre the state of Israel would certainly cease to exist. Israel isn't going to commit national suicide, no matter how much the global left wants them to. About one fifth of the French settlers stayed in Algeria after the civil war, but today they're only about 1% of the population. Of course the situations are different, but if you want to take that argument to the extreme then every situation is different and no two situations can be compared. I'm talking about comparing how foreign settler populations are treated by natives when natives achieve voting rights - would you kindly use some kind of argument if you claim that the situation in SA is that different from my hypothetical scenario? The state of Israel would certainly cease to exist in it's current form, but where's the harm in that? I'm sure you're aware (right?) that you live in a country whose law does not treat people differently on a racial/religious basis. Does that harm you in any way? And on a side note, who are the "global left"? Is that some kind of conspiracy that I've missed?

That's very funny, I was just thinking about how the only segment of Israeli political parties who really seem to have no issue at all with the other part (Israeli or Palestinian) are the communists. I guess that they compensate with the issues they have with other parts of the society. To be honest I like the utopia of no distinct nation-states and no religions. But why should the communists have a monopoly on that really? Aren't there any libertarians or anarcho-capitalists willing to take up that banner as well?

I don't get this. What is so bad about this? Is it something I would use? No, but it doesn't effect me in any way. Obviously it's completely game-changing in multiplayer. What if Starcraft 2 players could pay to start with 100 additional minerals? The online scene would turn to **** immidiately. In singleplayer, it's more of a psychological thing. Depending on how the game is balanced it might also affect gameplay.

I definitely think there are. We don't get to hear their voice that often though. With the strong voice of right-wing Zionist lobbies in the US misrepresenting Israel, and with the elections of pro-settlement (that is, implicitly anti-peace) right-wing governments in Israel with increasing support for racial policies, you get the impression that those are the only people there are in Israel. In reality, Israel has a fairly large cosmopolitan community centered around Tel Aviv where Arabs and Jews live together in relative harmony. Those areas are also where Jews first settled (peacefully) during the dawn of Zionism. In the more rural inland areas, Jewish villages are often located on top of old Palestinian ones which were emptied when people fled or were ethnically cleansed during the civil war in 1948, when Jewish mass immigration from post-Nazism Europe triggered an explosion of violence. Not surprisingly, the prevention of the return of Palestinian refugees has been a top issue of disagreement when peace discussions are held, and Arabs from within Israel are prevented to move to some of these places because they're "racially unfitting" even today, which is kind of a testament to the history of those places. Apologies, but I don't follow your Algerian analogy. I follow the concept of settlers etc. but I doubt the French had spent the last millenium saying "next year in Algiers". I guess that must be why you brought up South Africa, which - for the Afrikaaners - was an emotional issue. Prognostications that an end to apartheid meant an end to their national identity have proven sadly all too true. But the RSA [checks Wikipedia] [...a long time later...] OK, I needed setting straight there. I had been going to say that it gave a stronger position to Mandela on assuming power. But in fact it looks like the capability to enact change came about through the very rare situation of F.W. de Klerk and Mandela and Mangosuthu Buthelezi agreeing on the way forward. I can't see an analogous situation emerging in Israel/Palestine. Not entirely sure why. Ideas? I'd say Algeria was an "emotional issue" for France as well if you look at history, hard as it might be to imagine today. It's hard to see a similar situation happening today in Israel but there's actually a very good explanation for that. In SA, it was clear who would get voting rights and what that would entail. Mandela must have felt a responsibility and De Klerk must have felt a pressure. Today in Israel, many Palestinians live in the occupied West Bank - where only Jews get to vote for the Israeli Knesset, and yet many more (about five million - a number rather close to ENTIRE CURRENT POPULATION of Israel) live in squalid refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. It must have been pretty clear for De Klerk and Mandela that if they stuck to their democratic ideals, the result would be a black voting majority. That put a moral pressure on De Klerk (would he go down in history as a racist oppressor or a paragon of democracy?) and also Mandela (if he was voted into power, would he massacre the white population triggering a war, or would he be choose a peaceful path?). On the other hand in Israel, if the status quo is maintained, there is a Jewish voting majority inside Israel. As long as the West Bank is treated as occupied territory meaning that the Palestinians living there have no right to vote (as opposed to the Jewish settlers) and as long as the Palestinian refugees are not allowed to return to their homeland, this will remain so. This is also part of the reason why Israel withdrew settlers from the Gaza Strip earlier. Gaza is very tightly packed with Palestinian refugees from other parts of Israel, and a formal annexation of Gaza would mean a massive influx of Palestinians who would vote, and would find their home villages in Israel razed to the ground and replaced with Jewish "kibbutzim", quite possibly igniting violence. From right-wing Israeli politicians you often hear that you have to take into consideration the "facts on the ground", those being that refugees who fled their land a certain time ago has no right to return, that people who stole land a certain time ago has the right to remain on it, and so on. In the West Bank, "facts on the ground" are slowly changing against the Palestinians under the Israeli occupation. Thus nationalist Israeli politicians want to keep the status quo and do as little as possible, while the Palestinian institutions are powerless, but inclined to rock the boat and do whatever. Another aspect of the this situation is of course the rise of extremist groups such as Hamas. It's always easy to talk about killing other people when they are just faceless enemies and the party you are voting for (Hamas) has zero ability to actually make reality of their threats. When Hamas threatens Israel with their worst threats (sometimes rather poetically formulated, I wonder where they get all these formulations from... Or do they spend all their time making up the next threat?) of copious, ridiculous amounts of violence, they barely manage to make a scratch on Israel. Why do you think Hamas has a solid following among refugees, but no following among Palestinians living in Israel? Unlike the black population of SA who must have felt the inevitability of democracy, the Palestinian refugees don't have the burden of responsibility. Whatever political movements they support are likely to be entirely powerless and completely dependent on aid from other parts of the world, diplomatic or monetary, in order to do anything at all. They are likely to live the rest of their lives in a camp without ever seeing their homeland. You would be a liar if you said you wouldn't take to desperate measures if you were in the same situation. Yes, that's basically what the extremist movements among Palestinian refugees say. Still, as I noted earlier, no genocide took place in Algeria or (more relevant) SA even though those governments were formed by former "terrorists". Do you also question the Irish independence? If Hamas was elected to rule Israel today, we would see a catastrophe. I am fully convinced that if Palestinians are gradually allowed to return to their homes and allowed to vote, we won't see that outcome.

I love paying for DLC for products I support. A prime example of this is the array of DLC/ digital expansions for CK2 and other Paradox games (I find myself immensely enjoying small, banal things like additional game music, for example). If PE is the old-school RPG I hope it is, I will look forward to pay for heaps of additional content for it as well. In games such as SC2, I fully support the practice of releasing customization stuff like skins to buy if it's financially sound for Blizzard. D3's auction house however is a travesty. Now this system of paying to get an in-game advantage in singleplayer (or even worse, in multiplayer) is ****. I won't pay a single penny for a game employing that principle. EA and the other "usual suspects" mentioned in this thread only produce **** nowadays anyway, so I don't care a lot about what they do. Actually, I also haven't bought any Bioware game since the disappointment that was NWN. I'm pretty strict about not buying from companies I don't like. On the other hand, ironically, I buy all Bioware's new games on console as christmas presents for my younger brother, in the vain hope that he will one day become a CRPG fan and get into the older, classy games.

So did Wasteland 2, or even Project Eternity - games that also "allegedly [have] a small chance of financial success" that still had no trouble at all making their goals via Kickstarter. In fact, your statement is misleading because even Feargus notes that Torment eventually made money, even using the publisher model. The problem bigger publishers have is usually one of opportunity cost. EA or Activision could easily make these more niche games, and probably still turn a profit doing so. The problem is whether or not it maximizes their profit. Making a Torment presents an opportunity cost (that I feel is overstated, but alas... only so much I can change at any given time even from the inside). So if Project Eternity takes $4 million and ends up bringing in $8 million in revenues, you get pretty good return on investment. But if you take the Obsidian team, through $40 million at them, and they bring in $70 million in revenues, while the ROI is not as high, the absolute revenue is much, much, much higher. Unfortunately it's not as simple as just creating 10 different projects for $4 million a piece. What you do illustrate, however, is that the cries of "too many sequels" is pretty disingenuous by gamers. They have no problems with sequels, as long as they are sequels of games that they like. It's could be hard to relate to the issue when you're a very active gamer who hangs out on forums and so on. What I'm trying to say is first that I support the idea of a spiritual sequel to Torment. Too many times have I heard in interviews that such games attract a "niche audience" and are not very profitable. For the record, I believe that is true in the context of modern gaming, including all genres. Suppose then a guy like Brian Fargo says that he wants to produce a spiritual sequel to Torment. Of course I trust him and support the project, Brian has been behind Wasteland and he's also the guy who greenlighted (besides all the classic Bioware and BI games) Sacrifice, Messiah and Giants. Clearly, he's been very lucky or he has a sense for genuine quality. So if he want to use the "Torment" name for this sequel, regardless of the fact that it takes place in another setting and is not connected to the original Torment game is perfectly fine by me, because all the other people out there who don't stalk 1000 forums for information daily will hear "oh, a new Torment" and give all their monies I simply want Fargo to use every possible tool at his disposal to get as much money as possible for the game, and I believe using the "Torment" name will catch the attention of those who DO want a sequel but aren't as actively seeking out information themselves. If I was the only person paying for the game, I would be indifferent, but that's not the case.

You know what? Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple as that. Just do the right thing.

I wish they'd just be done with Thief 4.

The biggest problem I have for it is is that, for all of Fargo's bluster about how it's great to be free of publishers, he's just doing the same thing that publishers do (leverage a sequel to get additional money). It's one thing to do Wasteland 2 since it's a game he's wanted to make since Fallout was released (it's also a true sequel), but this one just rubs me the wrong way. His actions come across more as former CEO of a big Publisher rather than former game developer. Just my opinion on the matter. As for if the game turns out to be good, IMO there's already a level of expectation that would be otherwise more difficult to achieve then had it not been titled Torment. In other words, I think it will be more challenging for the game to be considered "good" simply because of its title. Unfortunately, whether or not games are considered good is not done in a purely objective sense. You forget how a game like Torment allegedly has a small chance of financial success. By securing the name "Torment" he effectively raises the chances of Kickstarter success, it makes perfect sense to me.

Those are great ideas. What I like most about the update is how this creates opportunities for the different classes to have different uses with respect to engagement. I like the idea of a rogue being useful for avoiding penalties when snucking past fighters' "rings of engagement" On the other hand, I don't think mages should have the "grimoire slam" ability from a balance point of view. Mages are meant to be shafted from being engaged (and protected from being so by other characters), not have own non-spell protections from it.