Bartimaeus

I think employing 1, 2, 4, and 6 as the situation fits is good. Characters that are supposed to be powerful SHOULD be powerful enough to horribly murder you...but in actual combat, not via a cutscene ala PS:T, (4); removing characters' weapons or disabling magic in certain circumstances makes sense, (2); placing letters and stuff that hint about what to do next when appropriate is good, too, (1); and ultimately try to make the rest fall under (6) when possible, though (3) I think can be used sparingly for characters who you really, really probably don't want to murder and are important, but ultimately is something you can attempt anyways. (5) is absolutely awful, though. There's no reason to ever use that method.

Seventeen. Twelve when I initially joined. Four when I first played Baldur's Gate. (Edit - note: I didn't actually get very far through it at that age. I think I probably got through it a little after BG2: SoA was released...by which time I was also playing Age of Empires and Diablo. )

None, and thank God for that. No phones, no e-readers, no handhelds, no .mp3 players, nothing. Actually, I wouldn't mind having an .mp3 playing only device, (that is, without phone functionality), but I've never found earbuds that fit...or that I liked...but nor do I have any wish to go around wearing my Sennheisers.

Stretch goals I have no problems with. What really bothered me was what Obsidian did with Project Eternity: add content based on number of backers instead of total cash. Kinda puts a different spin on the whole "we need funds for content". Turned it more into a "This is market research that gains us cash. Now prove that there is enough of you to make it worth for us to truly dedicate ourselves to the project." Then again I get cynical with things like that. To be fair, inExile has done the same thing - the number of backers increases the size of the Castoff's Labyrinth, (which seems to basically be their "Endless Paths").

Earlier today, the Kickstarter page said it was "over 125k" for PayPal.

If the situation was reversed, (that is, if the populace voted for gay marriage to be legalized and the judges overturned it), I cannot even imagine how large and volatile the outcry would be. I support the voters, regardless of the issue.

As I pointed out earlier however it's Imoen who springs you from Irenicus' prison at the beginning of the game, thus making you the damsel in distress and your later rescue more a matter of payback. I agree with Malcador however this is largely mountain out of molehill piffle. So...what you're saying is...that if you happen to play a female in BG2, it doubly insults women? How degrading! Shame on the developers! :D @Sannom: Yeah, I remember the Wind Waker one. That particular point of the game always bothered me myself, actually. You have Tetra being cool and helping you out a lot of the game...and then she turns into "Zelda" and has to sit locked away in a basement for about a third of the game. Yeah, that's real nice. I know that was her point, but wasn't the implication that it's...y'know, sort of wrong for developers to keep using that sort of plot device over and over?

I thought her problem with the trope was not that, in itself, there's something wrong with it, and not that it's the fault of the players that it occurs, but rather the frequency that developers purposefully make it occur, (in addition to there generally being more male protagonists than female protagonists). ...but then again, I can't think of any games I've played and enjoyed that utilized the DiD trope, besides the Marios. Baldur's Gate II, maybe? ...but it's your sister. Sure, you don't KNOW Imoen is your sister at first, but that's mostly besides the point, given the context the games give. And since you can play either male or female...well, like I said - if there's a problem, it's on the fault of the developers, not us players. In regards to female protagonists...even in a game like Zelda: Twilight Princess, (one of the games she sort-of used as showing the DiD trope), you have both a female and male protagonist - both of who kick butt together. Odd that she didn't mention that.

Portal.

Update on my Winter Bells score: O.K., so now I have 200 sextillion, (and it was actually recording). One digit away from beating my friend, who has 2 septillion! Gaming has never been so intense!

I got 9,008,309,115,994,680,000,000 points on Winter Bells. Then saw afterwards that FRAPS wasn't working correctly and all I have for it is a lousy "previous best" screenshot, (along with a recording of only my mouse movement, without the game), instead of me doing the entire thing. Bah. (edit) Oops! One too many zeros.

I would think the opposite...one pixel is being stretched to beyond its proportions, which probably makes it a bit more blurry, which would increase eye strain, not to mention the increased amount of light hitting your eyes...

I've only done so on Steam with older games, (or games I purchased that were not originally on Steam...such as Neverwinter Nights 2).

It's better for your eyes? Why would it be better? I mean, I see better in that sense that, if you have bad eyes, it should be easy to make out the individual pixels, as they're upscaled to a much larger degree than on a smaller screen, but not in the sense that it'll damage them less over time. Mind explaining that for me? Sorry for off-topicness.

Guns are all abut destruction. They are made to kill. That is their purpose. Cars are made for transport, not killing. I like guns, but I'm well aware exactly what they are and what their purpose is. If you want defense, amor, tasers, pepper spray, alarms and such are there for that reason. Guns being for defense...yeah, I guess you can use them for that, but it's more of an excuse. I can use a nuke for defense too. No one would be crazy enough to touch me it was known I had anuke. Perfect defense! I would love to own this: but I can't. And I don't mind. Note that I did not literally say destruction...but rather, destructive use. The difference being, of course, that constructive use of something could still lead to destruction of something(s) or someone(s), but still for what some would consider a constructive purpose. As I said previously, it depends on what you consider to be destructive use. To some, hunting animals is a destructive use. To others, it's not. I do not know a constructive use for a nuclear bomb. Self-defense, of course, is silly, because you could not actually use it for self-defense beyond intimidation...not without destroying yourself and tens of thousands, (if not hundreds of thousands, or millions), of innocent or otherwise uninvolved people, except perhaps in some extreme circumstances, (if you manage to make a bunker under your house that can withstand a direct nuclear explosion, props to you - still doesn't solve the uninvolved people dying bit, though). One of those miniguns would probably be loads of fun to shoot in a way that does not destroy life.

But to own a car you still need to register it. And to be allowed to use one you must be properly trained in its use and maintain a license and insurance in case of its misuse. And some vehicles of high enough power levels that using them for normal uses is ridiculous are not allowed on the road. Guns should be treated similarly. I do not disagree with the first or second statements, but the third one I am not entirely sure about. Isn't that more about pollution than anything else? What exactly is the analogue there? Actually, most higher end cars have a limiter built in to prevent them from passing a certain top speed. Because beyond that speed things would be way to dangerous and it'd be to easy for them to completely loose control. This is done by the companies because if the car can go faster than where it's limited (around 150 mph) all of a sudden insurance premiums skyrocket due to the fact that beyond that point it's really easy to get into a crash. Now, this isn't direct government legislation, but it's part and parcel to the requirement of insurance to even think about driving a car. Fair enough...but once again, it's not a very apt comparison. You drive a vehicle out in the public, along with other people, potentially endangering them and yourself...Where are you shooting guns? Hopefully not in the same circumstances.

But to own a car you still need to register it. And to be allowed to use one you must be properly trained in its use and maintain a license and insurance in case of its misuse. And some vehicles of high enough power levels that using them for normal uses is ridiculous are not allowed on the road. Guns should be treated similarly. I do not disagree with the first or second statements, but the third one I am not entirely sure about. Isn't that more about pollution than anything else? What exactly is the analogue there?

The difference, of course, being that shooting a rifle in itself is not an abhorrent act, while a murder always is...we legislate laws against murder because we generally believe murder to always be wrong. We legislate laws against stealing, because we generally believe stealing to be always be wrong, (though, at this point, I'm not so sure about this one in our country...at least with less direct forms of stealing...but this is mostly besides the point). We don't legislate laws against driving, however, because we believe that, while cars are generally dangerous, (and can be used to carry out crimes), they are a tool that can be used in a manner we do not consider to be destructive...(or at least wholly destructive). The same goes for guns. If criminals start using cars to run people over and brutally murder them, (or use them to perform some other type(s) of crime in a way that would not otherwise be possible without them), should we start outlawing them as well? No...because they serve another purpose, one that is used by most other people besides criminals that own them - one considered, by most, to be non-destructive. Like I said earlier, look at the source of the problem, not a symptom...shootings, (and [mass]-murders), are a symptom, and guns can be a tool to create that symptom...but they are not the source. People, (and our society in general), are the source. On the other hand, if you disagree with the use of guns entirely, I can see where you're coming from. If the majority agree that guns, or even specific types of guns, are not worth the costs...then, by all means, outlaw them entirely. It may be what I consider to be completely arbitrary, in the case of only specific types of "normal" bullet-based guns, but at that point, it's irrelevant. We are a democracy, (or close enough to one), after all. God forbid we should actually vote on anything... As an aside...some other types of weapons, such as nuclear bombs, cannot be used constructively, (constructive in the sense of something that is not directly harmful to other humans...and perhaps the environment/other species of animals, if you are so inclined) - at least not that I can think of. That's what (I believe to be) the reason why such things are outlawed for most people to own. Perhaps there are other reasons, though.

Treat the source of the problem, not a symptom...

Trying to play through Wind Waker on emulator, (I legally own it). My second least favorite Zelda, (following Skyward Sword), and the fact that it keeps randomly hanging after cutscenes is not endearing me any more to it...had to restart the game after beating the first temple and just getting to the second, as I apparently never saved up until that point and I black screened after a cutscene...now I just got to the end of the second visit of the Forsaken Fortress, and my game is hanging right before fighting the bird. My last save was apparently a temple and a half ago. If I can't get it working without having to go back to that save, I'm done.

I generally don't enjoy playing by "ironmode" rules, but I may indulge in it and a few other self-imposed rules if it's for a game I think is a bit too easy, (i.e. 3 hearts no fairies/potions ironman run of Ocarina of Time). I don't think I could do it on a game like Baldur's Gate - too much is left up to the dice, (literally, in this case), that it would simply be frustrating when I lose. Especially given that Baldur's Gate is a heck of a lot longer than a game like Ocarina of Time.

Before smashing stuff, I'd like to see being able to lock doors/containers if applicable...(obviously, locking the contents of a stash hidden under a rock in the wilderness wouldn't work)...but knocking, I think, would be great. Barging into everyone's homes and most of them being O.K. with it besides the one grumpy old man who tries to kill you who's apparently obviously crazy is a little ridiculous. Smashing doors/chests...don't care too much either way.

I'm confused. Since you said this was doubly functioning as a poll, if I want to just vote, I copy the latest post's list and then just add a tick to the ones I like? -Magical items are very rare, gold for consumables: lll -Loot is "branded/tagged", origin of items affect NPCs differently: l -Crafted magical items are few, unique and true achievements: lll -Temporary abstract armour degradation in combat, repairs are "automagical": ll -Armours and weapons can get "enfeebled"/"fatigued" over time, easy repair: ll -Party-members can have individual (non-party) quests in cities to showcase and challenge their personal strengths and weaknesses. lll -Beast-of-burden teams embodying the deep stash; they are useful and sometimes shady: l These ticks might be a little hard to exactly quantify past a handful. i.e: llllllllllllllllllllll

Ignore all posts beyond the first page: I don't really care for the idea of item deterioration. I can't remember one game where I thought it meaningfully added to the game, (having played Diablo 2, Fallout 3/New Vegas, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Oblivion, etc.). Switching between weapons should probably give the enemies an attack of opportunity or some such. Light armor switching, (gloves, helmet, rings, amulet...probably not boots/belt, and most certainly not anything equipped on the torso), should cost all activity for that round, (or whatever it presumably ends up being), in addition to them being able to attack you during that round with a large attack chance bonus, (and giving them an initial attack of opportunity just in case they've already expended all of their attacks that round). Other item switching, (or perhaps even using at all?)...probably an attack of opportunity, (think items like the Horn of Blasting, potions, etc.). It won't stop item switching between particularly useful items, but it does discourage it without completely removing it, and, (I think, anyhow), provide a reasonable sense of realism.

If I was under the presumption that the supporters designed the stretch goals, what he said would make total sense. Unfortunately, that's not so, and similarly, it does not make sense.