Undecaf

There does not need to be an inherent drawback. If [a] game has its experience intended to be evenly thick and servile regarding this matter (like NV, where the practical difference between choosing guns or EW is cosmetic for the most part - in my experience), then so be it. But the opposite, relative inequality of the skills (still provided that they earn their existence by having enough use throughout their respective ranges) is not such a boogeyman, regardless of whether Fallout had it right or wrong. It simply delinearizes the experience and requires a different approach in comparison to the balanced to serve [equally in all respects] way of doing things.

I meant in the context of everything being balanced so evenly thick that there is no contrast between the choices you make, that which ever way you go, you get the same lukewarm and servile experience that does not dare to require anything short of thinking related from the player, and due to everything being equal in impact and usage you might as well have nothing to choose from. That's the hyperbole included. I don't ever knowingly create gimp builds. They all (need to) serve a purpose in the game other than being inept at things; systems allowing of course. So obviously I am not proponent of dead end skills, but there is the balancing act of how much does the investment serve, where and when - if it is sparse, the impact is optimally large when it happens, if it is plentiful, the impact need not be as large as you get to use it all the time. It certainly does not need to be so that everything is useful from the beginning to the end in equal measure (that feels artificial to me already thinking about it). Of course the player needs some information on how to play, but a healthy dose of common sense should also be a serving agent in how the game flows. If after a couple of levels, there's still no energy weapons in sight (being able to trust that the skill is not there just for the show, that it will have it's use eventually) and combat is lagging due to that, that could just be a sign that perhaps another combat skill is hungry for a few points to compensate, or that combat should probably be avoided until the proper tools for the chosen trade are found (provided the game has plenty of other gameplay opportunities outside of combat - if not, then it is bad design). You build the character you wish, and you play according to it - some builds pose more challenge than others, some are less even than others, some are less fun than others (subjective). It shouldn't matter as long as the builds serve their purpose in the game. The systems needn't strive for equality between the top and the bottom, but just serving the gameplay in a way that makes a difference which ever way that is done. But yeah, it's 3.30am and I might've started rambling. Take it as you will, I wasn't attempting to start an argument to begin with.

""and bad decision(s) are impossible to make." that is a criticism?" However you wish to understand it; obviously in the context of the rest of the sentence (and keeping the small print in mind).

I suppose it's the opposite of Sawyerist where everything is so overbalanced you can't tell the difference between 1 and 2, and bad decision are impossible to make. (of course that's hyperbole just as much as the cainist or church of cain stuff) Unless of course I mean that as a reference to Huckleberry Finn, what ever the symbolism there would be.

Good interview. Hats off to Grayson for not asking anything about women.

Ah, okay. I had missed Feargus saying that.

Haven't listened to it yet, but is the context in the "3 original IP's" Armored Warfare, PoE and... either the new KS game or the possible 3A game? And wouldn't that mean that either the new KS or the 3A is not an original IP?

In case someone missed this: The CDPR&GOG "summer conference" is about to air in 20 minutes: http://www.gog.com/news/cd_projekt_red_gogcom_summer_conference Promises new Witcher 3 footage among other things.

Good news. I wasn't keen on jumping the early access boat because.... "early access".

Context in mind, someone will always get offended about something. Lots of challenging to do, lots of windmills.

Serious business.... The "moral high grounders" are let loose once again over things nobody gave a **** about a few years ago when the world was still just as it is now but with one less subject to be butthurt about. So the world changes...

Please don't.

All I see in Watch Dogs, once again, is an initially flashy game that I kind of would like to try out, but know I'll get bored in a couple of hours because all the busywork it is filled with gets repetive and pointless very, very fast and the story doesn't seem like anything to write home about; and would've then wasted my money. This happens with 95+% of the games out there. I wish I was 14 again...

I understood that. I just don't see the practical sense in it. If one is going to play the games on TV, what is the computer running the game doing away from the TV?

So, instead of cable between the PC and the TV, this now suggests getting two rigs so you can stream the game from one PC to another so you can play the games on a TV screen. I didn't see the sense in this when it was first announced, and I still don't. I must've missed something... the little print somewhere that says "This is why that's is a good idea!" I wonder how the Steam Machines will eventually kick off, though. Some of the rigs look crazy powerful, but also crazy expensive (estimations up to 6000$).

Oh dear. Did this series really need a sequel anymore? Two lackluster sequels (to a good movie) already... meh, Hollywood.

I'm kinda hoping that since through South Park, they're now (probably) in closer talks with Ubi, that they'd have a chance to make a sequel or a spiritual successor to B.A.T. 2. Not a triple A game, but in a similiar vein to how Ubi published M&MX:L. In any case, something with a bit different take on gameplay and narrative than what seems to be the norm right now (respectively in niche or mainstream RPG markets). I'm kinda tired of the tried and true "know what to expect" games and sequels.

I actually liked the mechanics better than what was in the later games. There was a lack of visual response, but the underlying mechanic about failing and succeeding felt good to me because the the action was more about the character and his strengths and shortcomings (in a more meaningful manner than simple damage multipliers) than about how well I was able to control him. It felt more of an RPG and less of an action game. True enough, but a system like that works way better on a top down view game than on a first person. I haven't personally seen more boring melee combat system than Morrowind's, even NWN's horrible combat felt more engaging. It does work better top down, but I had no problems with it in first person either. I felt it much more intriguing than the later iterations despite its obvious flaws (that are - imo - more about visual feedback than the actual mechanics). The presentation was, in my experience, trumped by the mechanics. I never got into NWN because it was indeed horrible; but I did have some fun with Morrowind (even lately with a new replay going on).

I actually liked the mechanics better than what was in the later games. There was a lack of visual response, but the underlying mechanic about failing and succeeding felt good to me because the the action was more about the character and his strengths and shortcomings (in a more meaningful manner than simple damage multipliers) than about how well I was able to control him. It felt more of an RPG and less of an action game. Indeed; though they could've allowed for longer developement time and more free hands designwise so as to not just have the game just a refurbished version of theirs.

Pseudogamer.net

An excellent piece of ****. Von Trier's movies tend to divide people pretty starkly.

Just watched the 4 hour "censored" version of Lars Von Trier's Nymphomaniac. And it was excellent (if one likes the way Von Trier makes movies like I do). Thoughtful, provocative, depraved, interesting.... Now waiting for the 90 minutes longer directors own version (he didn't take part on the cutting of this "international" version).

Heh, these discussions... There's a music video from Alice In Chains that's pretty analoguous to what happens every time Bruce or anyone opens up this particular jar of flies of a "topic":

I wonder what mutated Kangaroos and Koalas will be like. Only mutated?

Having my fingers crossed for something a bit more unconventional rather than familiar (both mechanically and narratively)...