WorstUsernameEver

...I hope you didn't learn that by hiding next to the offices and checking who was leaving and who was entering.

A recent magazine preview mentioned the main quest was 20 hours long.

"I didn't care about my bugcount, I'm just an obnoxious nerd!"

Due to budget concerns I'd cut every bulletpoint except "Jaesun 4 time wrong".

I see nothing in your quote that says Twitter acted on it, Wals.

Gamers that issue death threats should have their forum account permanently suspended and should have their game account banned for about a month. Gamers that personally insult developers (suggesting you should have been aborted) should get a month long ban from the forums. As this happened on twitter, I would suggest they pass it onto twitter and hope they do something about it. Twitter doesn't care about rape threats. I doubt they care about angry teenagers ranting against Call of Duty developers.

I actually thought this would be a QA employee writing an angry rant after reading another "sack the QA department" complaint post on some gaming forum.

Happy birthday!

Prosper?

With what money would they fund 2 extra years of development? I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if they delay it compared to the estimated release date, in fact I'm expecting it, because it was an estimate made when they still didn't have a prototype running in Unity, didn't have the pipelines all set, and weren't expecting to get that much more compared to the $1.1 million target goal. A delay of *that* magnitude however is quite improbable.

Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon has a training montage. Best shooter of the generation. Possibly best game.

Obsidian's titles and Troika's titles made a fairly good use of attributes, in gameplay and in dialogue, so IMO it would be a shame to see that tradition ignored. Besides, while in D&D, and especially the AD&D 2 videogames, attributes weren't the core of the experience, there was a clear effort in later editions to make them more meaningful, so I was hoping Josh would pursue that while avoiding some of the early designs' pitfalls. Simulation isn't a huge concern of mine, because D&D's attributes were barely simulationist anyway (plenty of systems that strive to be more simulationist than D&D use completely different attribute systems). Seeing attributes that tie to the setting in some way would be nice, but if they won't, eh, okay, no big deal. To conclude this assortment of random thoughts, IMO choosing between a marginal bonus to damage or accuracy isn't an interesting choice, and certainly not enough to deserve its own system. Hoping my points are proven wrong obviously, and yeah, I'm not privy to the full design of the ability system.

I really don't think we have enough information to make such a judgement call. Wait until we get an update or something showing us the attribute system in full. I think it might surprise us. I'm going to wait until the game is out before I give definitive judgments, and that's implicit to everything I say even when I don't state that specifically. Still, I am disappointed with what I'm understanding (and I could be wrong, and should have noted it) is the proposed system, and I don't think it will hurt to provide this little piece of feedback. If it's noticed by the team but they ultimately don't agree or just feel I'm speaking prematurely it will be ignored (Josh has never been shy about the fact that the development team is the one that ultimately makes the call and that he won't let the forums/internet feedback get to him too much, especially early feedback based on incomplete info), if it's not noticed then, eh, wasted space on an internet forum. And if the dev team agrees and changes something based on user feedback coming from some people including me here, then good for us, as, to paraphrase Sawyer, I believe it will produce better gameplay.

To be honest, considering how long it took Josh to design the attribute system, I was expecting something a bit more imaginative than Torchlight 2's system. I mean, it's not a dealbreaker for me, but I'm not persuaded it's a good fit for this type of game.

As far as I know the Let's Play videos are all based on mods anyway, so you should be.

Those are all concepts. There's a whole gallery of them, just as there's a screenshot gallery: http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/project-eternity/bilder/themengalerie/project_eternity,48834,95728.html

Yeah, the open world is really fun, even though the activities could have been designed to be more involved and lead to each other more naturally. Then you get the story missions and ugh. For a bevy of design and writing reasons just UGH. Still enjoyed my time with it, and right now I'm enjoying Blood Dragon. HELL YEAH.

Everything in the article makes sense to me, but keep in mind that she was a tech hire, and that Valve is still largely a software company with a different culture from a company that does hardware. They probably didn't calculate that when hiring Ellsworth, which honestly strikes me as shortsighted. Didn't they realize that eventually someone hired to make cool tech would want to actually produce the cool tech? EDIT: It takes a lot of time, but I'd recommend to just check out the original podcast. Starts here.

Well, it is true that it includes that and that Skyrim vanilla didn't, but every copy of Skyrim now includes those features as long as it's properly patched. It's basically a fancy way to say that Skyrim LE includes Skryim with the latest patches and DLC.

Ehr, no, those are available to every Skyrim player given they were put in the game via the various patches.

That's not inherent to random chance though, BG used some specific formula and values that make early level gameplay incredibly slow and tedious.

Truth be told, I think they should up the ante and introduce a talking codpiece.

Somehow I'm not surprised in the least. (Though I have been vocal about the art design, especially at the beginning, so perhaps I should just shut up.)

You still have specializations that will arguably fit the role of weapon focus talents in 3.5, though they will cover a broader range of weapons than simply one type. Besides, I don't think there's ever been a reason to believe we'd get weapon *skills*? That wasn't really something that's ever been present in the IE games, unless I misunderstand what you're talking about.

At the very least they'd need to rethink how combat works for a pen and paper implementation, given combat isn't turn-based nor round-based and that the math behind it is, according to J.E. Sawyer at least, more complicated than your typical PnP math and mostly kept behind the scenes.