Wrath of Dagon

Or in the main storyline.

Next time I suggest you invite him for tea and crumpets, old chap.

I think it forces you to go retail, and deal with a third party instead of direct.

Something about them not liking to pay in dollars.

That's not really a publisher, that's digital distribution and it's not exclusive, unlike a publisher. Don't know what their plans are wrt to that, but would make a lot of sense, especially if they could do a promotion at some point.

I don't think publishers would be willing to finance a small indie studio. So for them, the publisher mostly would provide retail and may be some advertisement.

You can in Texas

I think one of the problems was that if you go retail, you have to price downloads the same as retail, which would increase the download price since the cost of retail is a lot more. Another issue is retail is doing fewer and fewer PC games, so the benefits are much smaller than they used to be. There're probably others, but I don't know.

Actually they've had lots of interest from publishers, but the strings attached make it not worthwhile. They might still get a publisher for Eastern Europe, since the distribution model there is different.

I wonder how they fly on airplanes?

You what? Why would anyone donate to a video game company? You show support by buying their game, hell buy it twice if your obsessed, but donate? What? They're asking for donations to help them advertise the game, so that it has a better chance to be successful and thus enable them to make more games. Of course if you're happy with the mainstream crap, there's no reason to be concerned about it.

You mean two cinematic-storyteller franchises, but one has longer dungeons.

An interesting interview about the Lovecraftian game Iron Tower is also working on: http://www.criticalgamer.co.uk/2010/02/08/...udio-interview/

Hey, those Navi are hot, may be I'll have my boyfriend paint himself blue!

You want them to create a new pedestrian universe?

You don't understand the liberal mindset, to the left Christianity is evil and mutliculturalism is good, they see all issues through that lens. As far as genocide in Kosovo, I don't believe there was one, although there were atrocities on both sides. The West really had other options to improve the situation besides going to war, but US basically stumbled into war through the incompetence and arrogance of the Clinton administration, the war never had popular support here, in fact a lot of prominent people were outraged. Other options? Surely if we've learned anything from the '90s - and let's look at Rwanda since we can't agree on the Balkans - it is that other options are just a euphemism for talking while people die. There were European observers in Kosovo, we could've insisted UN or NATO peacekeepers come in to monitor the situation and prevent civilian casualties. Instead Clinton and Albright gave Milosevic an ultimatum they knew he couldn't accept. In fact I've read a couple of reliable sources that they actually insisted NATO troops be allowed anywhere in Serbia, not just Kosovo, but that's so incredible I'm still not sure if I should believe that. And again, Kosovo wasn't Rwanda, there was no genocide, there was a civil war. There was also a civil war in Colombia, with many more thousands of people dying there than in Kosovo, yet we didn't just go and bomb Colombia. Edit: Clinton also militarily intervened to restore an American hating communist in Haiti, with horrible consequences for Haiti. Sometimes our government just acts completely irrationally.

You don't understand the liberal mindset, to the left Christianity is evil and mutliculturalism is good, they see all issues through that lens. As far as genocide in Kosovo, I don't believe there was one, although there were atrocities on both sides. The West really had other options to improve the situation besides going to war, but US basically stumbled into war through the incompetence and arrogance of the Clinton administration, the war never had popular support here, in fact a lot of prominent people were outraged.

Just came across this: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32487.html An interesting inside look at US foreign policy wrt Georgia.

Exactly, and that's only because they're trying to build a nuke. So you're contradicting your own argument that they want nukes to defend against the US, since building nukes is just about the only way they'd get attacked. At the very least they want the nuke to have hegemony in the region, at worst the more fanatical among them would actually use it. Edit: Castro, who is more or less rational I believe, wanted to use the nukes in Cuba against the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but was overruled by the slightly more rational Russians. Nevertheless, the whole thing came awfully close to the Big Bang. We were just lucky Kruschev was running the USSR and not Stalin, I don't think Stalin would've backed down.

Who needs plastics when we have glass: http://www.physorg.com/news184310039.html

You're just being a troll now.

Why compare an RPG to dedicated fighting games? No one is good at everything. Edit: Ninja Gaiden didn't allow camera control to my knowledge, so right there the comparison is unfair.

Khomeini said let Iran burn, we don't care about Iran so long as it benefits Islam. Others of his ilk have said that it would be worth whatever damage the Islamic world would take if Israel were to be destroyed, since Islamic world would still exist. Religious fanatics are not rational, so it's useless to assign rational motives to them. There's no benefit to the US in attacking a nation of 75 million, especially after the Iraq experience.

Well, I'm glad you have a personal connection to the Iranian government, so you know what they want the nukes for. And Iran wouldn't have to worry about any action from the US if they weren't developing nukes and supporting terrorism. Also a couple of nukes wouldn't deter a US attack, they would only make it more likely. Ahmadinejad is known to believe that the Mahdi won't come until he causes an apocalypse.

I don't know about PC, but combat was good on the Xbox. It's a fighting game for people who suck at fighting games, i.e. RPG players. Not as complicated as a real fighting game, but enough meat in it to go with the rest of the gameplay, and give some variety without having to pull off difficult combos. Also deciding on using focus/chi attacking/defending seemed surprisingly tactical, especially against boss characters at high difficulty setting. The small world was obviously due to the game not being really a full game but a cut and hastily finished rump of a game, my first experience with a non-quality Bioware game.