Gizmo

I had a friend who was a shipping supplier for many years, and when he left the job, he had a non-compete for ~several~ years... during which they paid him a small salary.

My impression was that it plays like a shooter; and that it expects you to live the life, instead of interpret how they would live; not RPG-like at all... rather it seemed to be a stream-of-consciousness simulation.

Is this bridge-building, (as opposed to burning bridges?); or is it audience preparation? (...as in, this is their next project as it has to be to sell... so they need the audience to be made open to it.) This is a disappointing view, not only from a designer, but possibly from the team. What they did was an apathetic, debasement of a grand RPG series; and even of their own in-house brand. He is right that systems don't define a genre, and that there can be great improvements done to future RPGs. IMO he is wrong that systems don't define a series. Bethesda's FO3, and its spinoff FO:NV—and FO4 are impressive spin-offs on their own merits, but they do not belong in the Fallout series—because they do not adhere to the Fallout series' systems and tenets. NV isn't a numbered game in the series, but those other two franken-shooters are; and they sit like boils on its face. Wasteland 2 is a better Fallout game than either three of these... and it has none of the fiction and atmosphere.... It wouldn't be a great Fallout sequel, but it's already a better one than FO3. ______ There is nothing wrong with making new games of all types—and new types... It becomes wrong when they begin branding new games with established older names —that have earned their reputations, and where none of it is presented in these new sequels bearing their names. This is the way of it with the new Bard's Tale as it exists, so far.... This was actually the way of it with Wasteland 2 also... Mechanically it could pass for a Fallout spin-off; even a sequel, with some changes... but it's nothing like Wasteland... nothing like it should have been, to have had that name and designation. This is great for the fan looking for anything like Fallout, but not good for the fan looking for another Wasteland. Series' sequels should evolve from their roots—or not be so named. They should be built upon the common strengths of their foundation—not spring from radical mutation, or other origins entirely, (like a cuckoo bird set in the nest... who pushes the parent's real offspring over the side... like FO3 & 4 have done). TES6 should never have to be a Titan Quest clone (and vice versa) —no matter any market changes... Call it something else, not a sequel.

I don't have any links... other than to the Fallout game manual. http://www.nma-fallout.com/resources/fallout-manual.62/ If I understand it... Certain situations can impose a difficulty penalty that subtracts from the character's maximum skill proficiency, such that they make the skill roll at their proficiency —minus the penalty (if any). Fallout's skill levels can be as high as 150%; (as high as 300% in Fallout 2). So if the skill were at 120%, and the situation had a penalty of -40%, then the roll is made at 80% proficiency. Success is capped at 95%; the points above 95% are strictly for negating any penalties. If the penalty was -10%, with 120% skill, that would leave 110%, but the roll would still be done at 95%, —because thats the highest allowed chance for success. Skill penalties can come from unusual difficulty, distance, the level of light (as opposed to darkness) in the area, to even the game settings themselves... Easy mode will add a bonus to skill rolls, and hard mode will add a penalty to them. This is how it appears to work... Of course someone who has examined the innards of the game might have a more precise (or even contrary?) explanation.

Doesn't Fallout already work like this? (...I mean effectively so. Its system uses weighted percentile; complete with skill level and difficulty penalty.)

At E3:2008, when FO3 was showcased, I recall that there were other developers (during their own time on stage) hawking their games, and stating to the audience, "You can succeed in our game!". This was a major selling point to them. I don't remember any of the games; one I think, was about a dependent pair of adventurers, a man and woman, with individual, and combo attacks. But the thought felt so revolting, that they had worked to pre-guarantee success as a gift.

? Arkane did a superb RPG. Arx Fatalis. It's cheap on GoG if you'd like to play it.

I wish that we had gotten the DoW2 that they conceptualized.

I'd like to see an Obsidian made adaptation of RIFTS by Palladium books. (It could even have a PoE bidirectional crossover DLC. ; give Edér Power Armor, and a techno-magical plasma rifle.)

Well nothing beats free and I'm dying for some Dungeon Keeper. Even if it's bad... Have you tried War For The Overworld? (Also on GoG) *I played the original Dungeonkeeper a couple nights ago, and it as good as it ever was... except that the GoG version includes Deeper Dungeons... and I did have that the first time around. DK1—unlike Dk2, has the minion vision effects in software/DOS mode; lost in accelerated Directx mode. **A tip for any who have DK1, and the SereneScreen aquarium screensaver/sim. Select the DK1 map screen audio track as background music for the aquarium.

You can use imgur... https://imgur.com/

I just happened to look up David Ogden Stiers about an hour or two ago, on IMDB... and it says that he passed away—today.

These are sold and shipped directly from Newegg. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832416804&cm_re=windows_7-_-32-416-804-_-Product https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832397771&cm_re=windows_7-_-32-397-771-_-Product In a dozen years, I've rarely had a problem with them, and never a problem that they did not immediately fix.

I'm going to have to buy it... It's a BUILD engine game. https://kotaku.com/duke-nukem-3ds-creators-just-released-a-new-shooter-bui-1823408327 **But it looks like they ripped of the RIFTS RPG... and it pre-dates their engine.

I read an article the other day, written by a staunch DIY advocate... who has finally given up, and says it's cheaper to buy a pre-made system. It's the crypto-currency miners, buying up all the RAM & graphic's cards. The guy couldn't build it close—and even compromised with lesser parts—for better than the retail price... Sometimes costing hundreds more than the off-the-shelf system.

And it either doesn't matter (or doesn't sting as much) if it is their hobby project. It is immediately different once it becomes paid work. The academic system sometimes uses a database to check for copy/pasted work turned in by students... perhaps something similar could catch blatantly copied script code, or art assets. Obviously not rewritten scripts based on understanding the original... but that's not blatant copying, at least they wrote it. I've seen a lot of mods that use commercial assets, and under the naive defense that it's not for profit... but even that won't fly when they are selling it. Too many people have the notion that they need it, so they are entitled to it... Like stripping out Warhammer armor models instead of creating one's own—ignore the fact that even that is an infringement. **You and I have both done a FO3 Enclave armor mod yes? (If you are the same Lexx I am thinking of) But that was for use in FO3, and free.

I am fine with paid mods... in theory, but in practice, a modding community shares insight... until it becomes profitable not to; and this creates the problem of selling insight that was freely shared. People bundled up other people's mods as their own, and tried to sell them. Answering modding questions, becomes training your competition. I write scripts all the time, but I am not sure that I would choose to freely build the parts of a commercial product for someone else. I worked with two dozen others for a year on a mod, and we additionally released the source project, for others to learn from it. I wouldn't mind someone making their own mod with insight learned from that project, but I would not like to find that project (or slight variation of it) offered for sale.

Their website has become crap, compared to how it used to be. It's bizarre. It's them, but under new management... and minus George Broussard. They say the real name of the company is still Apogee Software... except there is another Apogee company that licensed the Apogee logo... and it's not related to them.

Obviously a Beaker and Kermit parody, of course. The very end bit was cool. The ship navigation is very reminiscent of King's Bounty, as is the Deck combat—somewhat; though I don't see how to present any differently than KB did, and still have it do the job as well.

If you legally replace or have backed up software or music that you have legitimately bought it has no relation at all as to whether 100k other people have obtained it illegally. You have zero responsibility for what others do. Legally backing up one's own purchase for one's own safe storage is indeed different from uploading that backup to a public torrent; possibly with a tampered installer; or downloading that torrent because they've convinced themselves they are owed it—when they are not. The issue has always been one of, "but I want it, and there it is—free... I shall have it; where is the harm?"; and it's alternative variant, "where is the harm—if I don't get caught!?". If I have bought a vinyl Pink Floyd album, that does not entitle me to the commercial MP3 of it—not even to replace a scratched album. The MP3 is a separately licensed product; with its own set of agreements, and agreed upon payments. Taking (ie. stealing) the MP3 is bypassing the vendor's cut from the sale. The album seller got theirs for the physical version, but not the MP3 seller... and yet the album purchaser considers themselves entitled to the work in any medium, regardless of who made it available, and regardless of who doesn't get paid for their work. There is a parallel here between buying the standalone disc installer version, and the one from Steam or Gog... It is only the policy of the vendor that entitles the replacement download from them, of what was purchased from them. Having a friend give you a GoG installer to replace the the damaged or lost disc of the exact same game is still breaking the EULA. It is a new player, using GoG's distributed work/ their installer, to play a game that they did not sell to them... That's stealing from GoG—even if you bought it from Steam, or had the disc. Case in point: I own two or more retail disc installers for Planescape:Torment. That does not entitle me to Gog's packaged Planescape installer—which I also bought, for the service of having a turn-key installer for that game. It's the same with their Forgotten Realms D&D sets; I bought them too... but I own several seperate anthology disc sets with the same games included and owning those does not entitle me to —take— an installer for them (from GoG or any other), to replace a disc of mine that got lost or damaged.

It does. There seems to be recent news on Druidstone, they are moving into production. http://druidstone-game.com/

Actually, it kinda does. That's what you pay insurance for. You don't exactly get get another car exactly like the one you had if you total it, instead you a get fair market value pay out. If you also happen to have GAP insurance then you get actual cash value for your car, which could, in theory, be used to buy another car exactly like the one you had. That's how it work is Murica, mind you. I can't speak to how it works in other countries. I mentioned insurance in an earlier post... but I have never been offered the chance to buy media insurance; generally (and gratefully), proof of purchase is often enough for the manufacturer; or in some cases the distributor. Take GoG & Steam for instance, they both know you bought it, and they let you download it again (and again). Yeah, but you cannot produce a new car at zero cost to Ford/ Toyota etc nor a new ice cream at zero cost to Movenpick/ Tip Top etc, it would cost them money to replace them. This appears (I guess to some), to attempt to justify it by claiming no cost to the owner/publisher of the software. It is their choice to duplicate—that's copyright. They don't usually loan that right to others without prior arrangement. If I made an illustration, and sold one copy of it, I would not be pleased to find 100,000 copies of it in circulation; justified by "but it cost you nothing for us to copy it". In fact, this is the plight of all artists who sell to the public... People these days think nothing of walking right up to an artist's easel, or hung pieces, and duplicating the image (in printable quality) onto their phone even as the artist stands their watching them rip them off—and many adopt an offended attitude if the artist objects. This is replicating an object for sale... That is no different than replicating a game or program that is for sale. A particularly rude variation on this, is when a professional photographer photographs an artist's original imagery or sculpture... and then sells it as clip art, or to be used in advertisements. And this is where the only value is the artist's own imagery—for which they get no recompense; and may not have even authorized the photos in the first place. It is rare as hell for the photographer to buy the item first. ______ A nasty (but predictable) side effect of unauthorized duplication, is the dilution of its value and/or novelty as a retail sale item, by the loss of its limited supply; it's like thinning the soup. For example: Why would someone purchase from me (the only distributor), the image I mentioned, if they can print it from their friend's Facebook page? Why would they buy a software product, if they can cheat their way to access, via stolen serial number (from the perspective of the publisher), or from uploads not authorized by the publisher? Why is this considered (by so many) to be an okay thing to do?

Is it really? I think that seems fraudulent to me; but there are cases where software (and the serial number) is transferred by sale. Still... Posted numbers on the web are probably stolen keys to stolen property. *Also: Does using another person's registered serial substitute their information for yours? (In cases where the original registrant was recorded.)

I think the onus always should be on the purchaser to care for the item, and to maintain proof of ownership—if they want that. If a person buys an ice cream cone (or a car), and loses it, or smashes it, or loans it out... That doesn't entitle them to another one for free; why should it apply to media or software? *Still, it's nice when a company agrees to replace a thing through their own process. There are Pizza places here now, that offer pizza insurance; they will replace a pie that gets ruined on the way home; (presumably... provided that the buyer paid the insurance fee.