Gizmo

hmm, not impressed :/ It's day one; live all of a few hours. There is nothing to be impressed with yet. Details will come. These are some of the devs that made Grimrock; and based on that alone I have reasonably good expectations for —whatever it turns out to be. **On the surface, it kind of seems like Gauntlet ~but in TB-tactical.

Druidstone: The Secret of the Menhir Forest Day one reveal, by Ctrl Alt Ninja http://druidstone-game.com/

I had one of those. The problem with using it was getting it to stop rolling; it's like a golf ball. In practice, it was just a faster to use two ten-sided die instead.

Multiple die throws do offer a simple minimum value [the number of dice], with a common maximum value. I've played many that would assign 3 six sided to a damage roll to get a value of 3-18 points damage. Steve Jackson's "Toon" RPG only uses six sided dice, and even uses two six sided for a 11 to 66 value.

That or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8Z14ExYxo

Look at Torment: Tides of Numenera; does anyone even know who owns the license for the Planescape:Torment cRPG? [License hell, last I heard] They could make an Arcanum sequel, by just skirting the line enough. It wouldn't have to be a direct or official sequel, or use anything at all from the original. Arx Fatalis was an unlicensed sequel to Ultima Underworld. A revised and even re-imagined Arcanum could ~by another name, be just as superb, or better.

Read/listen-to 'The Worm Ouroboros' ~if you've not done so before. https://www.amazon.com/Worm-Ouroboros-E-R-Eddison/dp/0345254759/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1478717519&sr=8-3&keywords=worm+ouroboros http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0602051h.html https://librivox.org/the-worm-ouroboros-by-e-r-eddison/ *Pre-dates the Hobbit

It's true that I haven't really [really] played W3 yet, and so I cannot make an informed comment on whether it surpasses Witcher 2. [Here is a word: Ultracrepidarian ] I do have all three installed. In W3 I've not played far past the tutorial region [if I've left it at all**], but the basic mechanics [i presume] are the ones on display, and I could see well enough that the game seems inclined more towards W2 than W1. The problem for me is that nearly everything especially I liked of the series is in Witcher 1, and absent in Witcher 2. **It's not for not wanting to play, it's a time thing. I do plan to play it when I can. Aside:

Have you played IronCrown's M.E.R.P.? (Or do you only mean cRPGs?) The Game I would like to play is a seriously well done LoTR conversion (or re-mastering) of Bungie's Myth:The Fallen Lords; possibly with limited RPG aspects that are not present in Myth. Second choice: A seriously well done LoTR conversion (or re-mastering) of Disciples 2; or possibly Disciples 3.

IMO Witcher series was terminally messed up starting with Witcher 2. Geralt was no longer himself; no longer pragmatic, and no longer an accomplished swordsman. Playing the game meant [essentially] playing out of character. The series lost the ability to jump, lost the tactical sword styles, lost the commonsense use of potions; lost the depth of the alchemy system; lost the multi-camera system, and kept only the useless one. They replaced all the bar-fights with 'Whack-A-Mole' [Quicktime events]. [Not to mention they somehow screwed up the dice game] I think W1 was the best RPG in the last decade; while W2 only looked the part.

The modern Flo that most Americans might think of, is the one selling car insurance for 'Progressive'. *The Flo from the sitcom was from 40 years ago.

Would need different art to pull it off.

There is a text encounter in the Endless Paths of Od Nua level 11, where the party slips through a wall of vines... The problem is not just that they cannot slip back through it [which isn't bad by itself], but that once through it, they can be utterly outmatched what lies past it, and outmatched by what lies in wait along the alternative (and ONLY) path back to the surface. This can mean no escape ~ever; especially if they have used up all camping equipment, and cannot rest.

There is only huge disappointment for long term Fallout fans. The Bethesda influenced games have zero elements in common with the core series. The only hope for the Fallout IP ever becoming the Fallout IP again, is for Obsidian to get it with no strings attached; to be able to develop Fallout 5 ~off the leash... Or better yet, to be able to develop a Fallout 3 that retcons and disavows the past two series games by Bethesda. **And even still... They would have to want to. The devs might no longer be interested in making a proper Fallout title. Barring Obsidian... my vote goes to Hairbrained Schemes; though I am unsure if they have the metal for it.

Same here. The Witcher was fantastic, but Witcher 2 lacked most of what I liked about Witcher; including the multiple cameras, multiple combat styles, detailed alchemy, and pragmatic potion use. I didn't care for the updated dice game, or the Whack-A-Mole [press the letter key QTE] bar fights that replaced the original system. I stopped playing [W2] just after the Kraken fight (I think), and I haven't ever really picked it up in earnest since; (though I plan to). Witcher 3 I won in a contest, but have scarcely explored past the tutorial.

This location was suggested many times on the Bethsoft forums. I suppose that could lend it credence either way. A plausible setting for either a real game or faked announcement.

I would back it simply for it to serve as an ersatz petition... But I don't expect it would be completable, and deliverable; though it would not surprise me if it got fully funded ~before being disqualified and canceled.

It would not surprise me in the least if it came to light that the new versioning was simply done to have an equal number to Apple's OS 10... in the same way that the browsers started leap frogging each other's version number due to consumers assuming that a higher number means it's better ~even across products. I can easily imagine people deciding between OS 10 and Windows 9... I remember that the media player WinAmp skipped their version 4; but they had a really good reason; because their application was known to be user skin-able, and the new skins wouldn't be WinAmp 2 skins.

Well... From what I've read, the future is now: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/x-programs-windows-10-may-remove-device/ Windows 2000 is "Windows Nt 5" rebranded for the millennial name. Windows XP is 'Windows NT 5.1' ~Meaning it's Windows 2000 with a point upgrade and a flashy UI change so they can re-sell it again. Windows 7 is for all intents a re-packaging of Windows Vista, and Windows 10 seems a repack of Windows 8. It should be telling to all that when a new exploit gets found, and they release a patch for it... more often than not this exploit effects all versions of Windows back to Windows 2000 ~~Why is that? It is because they do not so much redesign Windows (more than they must), they redesign the UI to sell it again in a new box; under the hood there is Windows 2000 code in Windows 10 and every version previous all the way back to Win2k. The only reason Win10 doesn't use the Win8 UI, is because Microsoft was rightly shamed [mea culpa] for their UI absurdity, in light of the decades that businesses have spent training employees to use the common Windows UI, and their predictably vehement resistance to being expected to chuck it all and retool. The Windows 8 UI [like the AOL ui], seems shamefully akin to the modern [touch the pretty picture] cash register; which is itself an adaptation of one of these:

Which? The only thing that hasn't happen [afaik] is Linux becoming a viable desktop OS; par with Windows. It's also just plain ugly, and [i think] very telling of the limited esteem & expectation they must hold for their targeted consumer.

Firstly because it's new, and new is generally bad where security is concerned. When Microsoft created Windows Vista, they actually recreated bugs that they had fixed in Windows 95. Windows 10 is surely [positively] filled with bugs; as are all the other versions of Windows; but those have been hammered on and patched up over the years. Also The farther you go back in Windows' history, the more you see Windows being designed and sold as an OS, as opposed to being sold as an entertainment [and advertising] product in its own right. I want an OS to run programs, not to display a light show with multi-layered transparent menus eating up the system performance, and [most egregiously] deciding for me, what software I am allowed to run on my PC, and with the built in option to delete it. Also again... with each version, Microsoft stuffs in more and more onerous and unwanted restrictions, omissions, and surveillance measures.... not to mention dumbing it all down with deliberate menu obfuscation. What one could find even in XP in two clicks, takes 4-6 clicks in later versions, and sometimes requires hotkeys to expose; where they reshuffle, hide, or outright remove the UI interfaces to certain features.... Not to mention making the OS so paranoid that an administrator can delete files, and later versions of Windows will secretly put them back, and/or in some cases even deny an administrator access to them in the first place. I won't even broach the UI hell of Windows 8+ Germany declared Windows 8 to be unfit for government & business use because of data insecurity. Win8-10 is fine if all one uses the PC for is gaming and Internet consumption, and if one doesn't care about being restricted and/or constantly monitored. Win Vista and 7 are almost as bad; but not to worry... Microsoft is addressing this with updates that implement certain unwanted Windows 8 & 10 behaviors into the older versions. I use Windows 7 only ~only because Blender3D dropped support for XP, and that I want to still run my Windows software... else I'd be on Linux or BSD.

They couldn't pay me to switch to Windows 10.

But in the case with Blender, Blender supports CUDA GPU parallel rendering. Blender does have OpenCL support for a limited selection of AMD cards, but it is still early support, and not optimized.

I used to be staunchly in the ATI camp, because of the better DVD playback at the time, but I had to switch to Nvidia because of its performance boost in Blender; and I've never had the incentive to switch back ~yet. So it's always going to be Nvidia for me until the Blender situation changes ~if it ever does.

What awesome initials; it hadn't occurred to me before now.