Rostere

I think one of the best things in games like Torment and Arcanum compared to BG and BG2 is that you do not get to see the main villain immidiately. This is great and helps to create the feeling of an open world, instead of a rollercoaster to the final battle.

I DON'T WANT ANY VILLAIN! I want to be able to join or fight every faction like in AP. If we must have a villain (like in the good old IE games) I would go for the really strange and alien type, such as Pinhead from Hellraiser, or The Strangers from Dark City.

For news on the Middle East, I primarily read Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/, an Israeli newspaper, sadly you must pay if you want to read their articles without limits) and Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/, a set of Qatari- owned TV channels with a large amount of online content). I can see how people would be sceptical about the credibility of Al Jazeera since the channel is based in Qatar, but they're very keen on democracy and human rights issues - although I bet they are not likely to write about the living conditions of guest workers in Qatar . We are often quick to give social media the credit for the Arab Spring, but over there Al Jazeera is seen as equally important. It's worth noting that they have a entirely separate Arab channel, though - apparently famous for being the first Arab channel to feature Israelis speaking Hebrew in live comments and debates in programmes about Israel. Al Jazeera has lots of diverse news from around the globe, often focusing on lesser- known armed conflicts, human rights, and developing countries. They often have their own people in place "where the action is" which got them into trouble during the Iraq war, and I would dare say it's THE news source for the above mentioned focus issues. Some examples of journalism from Al Jazeera: Teacher fighting to get young girls to go to school in Pakistan Is Ukraine becoming democratic or is it in the grip of corrupt Russian oligarchs? Mongolian rappers combine Mongolian tradition and rap music Exactly. The US nationwide Jewish population is about 2%, but it is insignificant in several states and more in important (for an election) in others. To be honest, I don't think the so called "pro-Israel" lobby is THAT powerful economically, when you compare to various industry lobbies. On the other hand, they have no counterpart in the US. If a newspaper publishes an article which deals too much about Palestinians or too much about Israeli settlers or any of the issues Israel is facing, they would get 1000 angry phone calls and letters from the "pro-Israel" lobby, telling them to take down the article, telling them they are quitting their subscriptions, and so on. The same is true about politicians. Campaign money might also play in there, but I think the "vocality" (help me out here) is the main factor. Politicians have something to win from making wild promises about how many weapons they will send to Israel, but nothing to lose. It's only human to give in to (perceived) peer pressure. I think we're about to see a change here. Like I've said earlier, Israeli politics are getting more and more tilted towards the extreme (nationalist and religious) right. What will, if things continue, soon (sadly) be mainstream Israeli opinion does not at all reflect what secular diaspora Jews think. These people, who are supporting the "pro-Israeli" lobbies, are treated by extremists like "race traitors" for not living in Israel, or like heretics for religious reasons by some Ultra-Orthodox Israeli Jews when they travel there (see my earlier link to a woman who got arrested for praying in the wrong way). I was very surprised at the antipathy Americans and American Jews could get on comments on right-wing Israeli newspaper sites. Eventually there will be a divide, and American Jews will realize that supporting Israel and supporting an ultra-nationalist Israeli leadership is not the same thing. http://jstreet.org/ is a lobby group which supports Israel but takes distance from recent Israeli political developments. What's funny is that the criticized quotes from Hagel are "I'm not an Israeli senator" and "The pro-Israel lobby is powerful". Apparently, for this he's been called an anti-Semite. "I'm not an Israeli senator". Come on. I reserve the word anti-Semite for serious accusations against people who sympathize with hate speech about Semites, not people who serve their own country before Israel. Even IF Hagel had been anti-Israel, he wouldn't necessarily have been an anti-Semite. He would only be an anti-Semite if he was a closet Nazi or something like that, which I find highly unlikely.

Wasteland 2, South Park: The Stick of Truth, Shadowrun Returns, Dead State, Eschalon: Book 3, Chaos Chronicles, Divinity: Original Sin, Cult: Awakening Of The Old Ones, Europa Universalis 4, Eador: Masters Of The Broken World, The Banner Saga: Factions, and many others... Kickstarter has proven to kickstart also my interest in new games Next year will be a good one, to make up for both 2012 and 2011.

It's the beginning of a problem, radical politics leads to radical ideas, propaganda and eventually violent action. I'm just hoping this doesn't end up like Rwanda in Gaza. Exactly. We're not there yet but the current developments are worrisome. Who knows what the situation will look like in two years? Remember, when Hitler was elected, people didn't all immediately realize what he would do. If people would have, history would not have been the same. I'm not suggesting Hitler is currently being elected in Israel, I'm only worried what could happen in the future. It's only easy in hindsight to see who was worth people's trust and who wasn't. If we don't want to mention Hitler, we could talk about how gullible Roosevelt was about Stalin, and so on and so forth... I also find it strange that they have lasted this long as an ally considering that there isn't any particular reason to maintain good relations with Israel, aside from securing votes from Jewish communities. As long a a small, very vocal group wants it to be so, and the rest don't care, I guess nothing will change...

I get the feeling that will only remain as long as Israel keeps winning, were the tables to be turned and they asked for help we'd probably enter the conflict. After all the West has much to gain from securing an ally in the area, even if that ally bombs our ships and tries to pretend it was by "accident". Well, I don't really think the tables are going to turn. What I meant is that I don't think the shift to the extreme- right in Israeli politics is a temporary fluke. Having Israel surrounded by democracies will only serve to build up pressure from outside, which will only further radicalise Israeli politics again. Really, Israel is of no use as an ally to any Western country (note: I'm not suggesting that the US should make any other allies in the region). On the other hand, it is hardly really an ally in any practical sense either. It benefits from American research programmes and the US have a radar station there, and that's it. The prime allies of the US in the region are Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Israel is more like a black hole sucking in billions of taxpayer money in military aid. To me this is entirely inexplicable. American politicians talk about cutting the budget and are keen to cut domestic healthcare, education and infrastructure spending, but recklessly pour billions of dollars so that a tiny, insignificant (for the common American) state in the Middle East can have a "military edge" over rebels from the native peoples. EDIT: I was just going to add that Israel would have been a very valuable ally during the Cold War days, but the allegations of how the intelligence one of their spies Jonathan Pollard (still in prison in the US) stole was sold to the Soviet Union, maybe they were more of a liability... Gee, I wonder how much of the technology that the US shares with Israel today they sell to China.

I think much of the opinion in Sweden and Norway is centered around pragmatism and sympathy for the weak, and since Palestinians have taken the overwhelming majority of the casualties in the recent conflict (the last 20 something years), the numbers speak for themselves. There used to be a strong actual pro-Palestine movement (which as you might guess was as ridiculous as any "pro-Israeli" group) in connection with the Swedish Left in the 70s, 80s and 90s, but they don't seem to be up to much lately. These days, you don't read a lot of in-depth news about settlements, or about Israeli and Palestinian politics, which is what the conflict is really about. Maybe it's connected somehow to the (legal) barriers that have been put in place for journalists entering the West Bank, but I don't know. So, here's the latest from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/preserving-the-two-state-solution/2013/01/04/c155b58e-569c-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html We're seeing dramatic changes in this conflict which I don't feel are getting enough coverage. We're looking towards a future self-described ultra-nationalist government in Israel, meanwhile the latest settlement plans look to make the two-state solution impossible. The Arab spring has tilted many nations in the Middle East towards democracy and therefore indirectly a more hostile attitude towards Israel. What will Obama do? These are interesting times indeed Just kidding, Obama will likely do nothing. But the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rapidly drawing closer towards a climax, which I must honestly say I would never have thought even one year ago.

Well, that would kind of explain how Hamas got into power in the first place. Like we've already stated, a peace seems farther away than ever. In many ways, it's a vicious circle. Israel builds settlements on Palestinian land, Hamas (or really, Islamic Jihad) responds with rocket attacks, Israel counter-attacks with rockets again. The winners are only the extremist parties on both sides, who will have an easier time agitating the masses to violent action towards the other side. In many ways, it's similar to how you train fighting dogs. I don't think global opinion is unfavourable against Middle Eastern nations. American opinion, on the other hand... Still, the entire issue is about human rights. I don't think you would suggest the police not to investigate crimes against people below a yearly income of $100000 because they're unimportant? EDIT: To continue to sow the seeds for a debate about the future of Israel, here's a quote from one of the prominent members of the new Israeli extreme- right explaining the racial problems of a "Jewish state" in Israel/Palestine: "Why should non-Jews have a say in the policy of a Jewish state?" Feiglin said to me. "For two thousand years, Jews dreamed of a Jewish state, not a democratic state. Democracy should serve the values of the state, not destroy them." In any case, Feiglin said, "You can't teach a monkey to speak and you can't teach an Arab to be democratic. You're dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers... The Arab destroys everything he touches."

In other media (speaking of best of 2012): http://kotaku.com/5972744/why-crusader-kings-ii-should-be-game-of-the-year

It seems I can't edit the above post, but I found another article in the Guardian dealing with the precise same issue: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/04/israel-shift-right-alienate-need-most

If there is one thing I hate about Arcanum, it's critical misses. Shouldnt they be trying to improve on the old formulas, rather than try to copy them exactly, flaws and all? Oh, come on. Critical misses were hilarious. Also, it gives depth and character to the game. I want my high-level mage who lacks combat skills to accidentally fall, drop his hat and maim himself if he charges into combat with a broadsword.

Meanwhile in Israel: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/02/israeli-right-chooses-between-ultra-nationalists.html The upcoming elections look to favour several extreme-right parties (of which the supporters of one apparently shockingly favour ethnic cleansing of the West Bank). Don't get me wrong, a proper Israeli annexation of the West Bank would be great, because Israel would finally be forced to give the Palestinians equal rights and the right to vote. Currently they live walled-up in ghettoes in miserable poverty, where the most stable source of income is working with construction at the Israeli settlements, the very same settlements whose walls cut them off from their own old farmlands and travel to other regions. The apartheid is only made worse by the Israeli- only roads and the frequent arbitrary destruction of Palestinian houses. I would think that a country which treats it's own citizens in such an unequal way would be subject to international condemnation and isolation as long as these atrocities occur. Unfortunately, the notion of giving all Palestinians equal rights to the Israeli settlers is unacceptable to these extreme- right wing parties (just as the right of return of Palestinian refugees who were evicted from their homes by ultra-nationalist Jewish militias in 1948) because it would challenge Israel's Jewish "ethnic identity". Really, with the current radicalization of Israeli politics we can only brace ourselves for the worst before the axis of religious fundamentalist and ultra-nationalist parties eventually take power, and then we are going to ask ourselves why we, the international community, did nothing. As before with the racist regime in South Africa, the US is the only roadblock in the international arena - some things never change, do they?

I see no reason why any element of fighting that could occur in real life should not be in the game. Dodge/miss, parry, deflection, damage reduction, critical miss/hit and so on. Frankly I don't see any reason at all why the game should not include these. Don't fix that which is not broken (IE games lacked critical miss, I know, but Arcanum had that feature). The game is for fans of the old-school games, right?

I like this part. I don't want the strongholds (if they are different) to be similar in size and function. BG2's strongholds certainly are not. Basing them on class seems to me like a poor solution though. I'd rather have them based on how you roleplay your character - if you are the "mysterious saviour", "kung fu hobo" or something similar you would perhaps have just an ordinary hut. If you are a bloodthirsty mercenary, evil wizard, paragon of virtue or cleric-philosopher you would have different kinds of strongholds. Preferably, different strongholds would be tied to fundamentally different ways of playing - for example a specific stronghold if you are soloing, another if you are always carrying around dead cats in your inventory, and so on. Granted, this would require a lot of work and since I don't think the Stronghold feature is very important I'd rather see Obsidian focus on other aspects of the game

So, I was playing the AoD demo/ open beta recently. Horrible music (and complete lack of ambience sounds!). I bet I could do that part better myself. Other than that, it looks very promising

Limits on pause = **** nonsense.

Forgot about Rock of Ages... It's a rather small indie title, but I think I'd like to add it to my list as well

Ha! My best-of-2012 list is twice as long as yours: Crusader Kings 2 Legend of Grimrock (I also played Torchlight 2 and had some fun, but absent co-op partners whose company I enjoy, it doesn't really hold my interest for more than a couple hours. Pure ARPGs have never really been my thing.) I am not nearly a dedicated or genre-omnivorous enough gamer to do this kind of thing. Also, I built a new PC in late 2011 and bought a load of games in 2011 holiday sales (Skyrim, DE:HR, Witcher 2, Dungeons of Dredmor, and Shogun2, among others). So I spent much of my 2012 gaming time playing 2011 games, which means that I haven't been in any particular rush to pick up 2012 new releases. (For example, I'm interested in XCOM, Dishonored, Stacking, and Mass Effect 3, but I haven't bought them yet.) I've yet to play Legend of Grimrock, so I can't put it on my list Maybe I haven't been playing enough lately...

My current wish list of pets: 1. Cow (more specifically, the soul of a mighty warrior reincarnated in the form of a cow) 2. Rock 3. Potted plant on wheels

The realization that the TWO YEARS it took Black Isle to make Planescape: Torment, Herve & Eric at Titus spent making that steaming pile of ****: How could Herve Caen then go on to buy Interplay and crash it to the ground? Truly, the world is not a fair place...

My top ten list (not in any particular order): Crusader Kings 2 ... seriously, Diablo 3 might have had potential, but I don't think it would fit in a proper top 10- list, which leaves me with only one title... Feels like I'm getting old :/

It would be in any decent person's interest to warn his friends against the villain responsible for BG:AA and FO:BoS, when he makes use of the classic Black Isle trademark in order to trick fans of their original games into donating money towards similar dumbed down, banal, ****, boring games. That is without going into the scam- like nature of the project in general. A lot of people will be tricked into donating money simply because of the Black Isle brand, not knowing they are throwing their money on someone opposed to the development of games similar to the classic Black Isle games they played in the 1990s.

I've yet to play a RPG where you do not wound up with a lot of money you don't use for anything.

I'm not trying to say that people's reasons for wanting to have a gun are evil or something like that. I'm just completely thrown off by the starting premises of the discussion. Where I live people would start this debate by asking "Why should all guns not be against the law?". A gun is a tool for harming people, I see no reason why guns should not be treated by society the same way as nukes and nerve gas are treated by the international community. I don't look upon the government as a friend or as a parental figure. I see it as a professional organization, where many people work including people who are my personal acquaintances. I've a bit hard to see in which circumstance you would use guns against the government. Are you referring to John Wilkes Booth? Lee Harvey Oswald? In my personal opinion, political differences should be handled by the machinery of democracy. A country is only composed of it's citizens. Unless you have a very divided society, democracy won't cease to exist. You seem to have a fear that some unknown other will usurp power in your country and take away your right to vote. Could you be more specific here? Are you afraid that a foreign country might have undemocratic influence over your government? A popular revolution? A huge conspiracy? Personally, I think all of the above sound extremely unlikely. My country is composed of me, and of people like me. The notion that someone would somehow end democracy is therefore ridiculous. I find it interesting that you do not feel the same way about your country.

This all sounds so alien to me. I cannot possibly comprehend why people would WANT to have guns. From my perspective the debate starts from the other end - it would be rational to ban all weapons, however the military and some policemen would still reasonably need guns. I mean, what is it that you do with your guns that is so important?