Elerond

Avellone interacts with people in twitter, conventions and other events where he has been promoting and displaying PoE. He also has given lots of interviews to bloggers and fan communities. So from his perspective he has much more interaction with fans than what he has had in previous games that he has worked with, even though he don't interact with them in these forums.

Those bait goals can often become burden during actual realization of project and in some cases can become cost more money than they bring, as many kickstarter projects have realized. So it can be much better for project and people running the project get bit less money than promise something that seem small but at end will make project much more complex and harder to realize. Same thing goes for the reward tiers.

I think that MS want more lessen number of users of old Windows versions so that they don't replicate XP syndrome again and same time they get larger customer base for their new software platform and shop and also lessen how much effort they need to put in to support those old versions. As anyway they get most of their money from OS sold with new machines, so I would guess that it is better for them if they can get large part of current computers to move their newest OS withing year instead of needing to wait multiple years like with previous Windows versions, especially when they try marketing this time how all windows devices work together.

I don't mind ligatures in PoE, but I found decision to use them bit hilarious considering that in world of PoE printing press has not yet be invented (if it ever will) and this was one of the description points that Obsidian gave us during kickstarter.

So you think there are no terrorists? Some definitions for Terrorism: "Wikipedia: Terrorism is commonly defined as violent acts (or threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror); to perpetrate for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and to deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians). Another common definition is political, ideological or religious violence by non-state actors. Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. Usage of the term has also been criticized for its frequent undue equating with Islamism or jihadism, while ignoring non-Islamic organizations or individuals. In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition. Dictionary.com Terrorism noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. British dictionary (dictionary.com) Terrorism noun 1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal 2. the act of terrorizing 3. the state of being terrorized These are from terrorism-research.com The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims. The FBI uses this definition: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience". The United Nations produced the following definition of terrorism in 1992; "An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets." The most commonly accepted academic definition starts with the U.N. definition quoted above, and adds two sentences totalling another 77 words on the end; containing such verbose concepts as "message generators" and "violence based communication processes". Less specific and considerably less verbose, the British Government definition of terrorism from 1974 is "...the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear." Terrorism is a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim. The strategy of terrorists is to commit acts of violence that draws the attention of the local populace, the government, and the world to their cause. The terrorists plan their attack to obtain the greatest publicity, choosing targets that symbolize what they oppose. The effectiveness of the terrorist act lies not in the act itself, but in the public’s or government’s reaction to the act. For example, in 1972 at the Munich Olympics, the Black September Organization killed 11 Israelis. The Israelis were the immediate victims. But the true target was the estimated 1 billion people watching the televised event. Those billion people watching were to be introduced to fear - which is terrorism's ultimate goal. The introduction of this fear can be from the threat of physical harm/a grizzly death, financial terrorism from the fear of losing money or negative effects on the economy, cyber terrorism harming the critical technological infrastructures of society and psychological terrorism designed to influence people's behaviour. Terrorism is designed to produce an overreaction and anecdotally, it succeeds at that almost all the time." So there is terrorists, but depending on what definition one uses it varies lot who fall under that term. As in some definitions countries, governments and people that act lawfully can't be counted as terrorists, but in some definitions some people even in this forum could be counted to be terrorists, as they use intimidation (by telling us how we will suffer if we don't change our politics/behavior/etc.) to support their ideological or political goals.

2.5 million stretch goal - Scrap the game and make a linear first person shooter with massive setpieces and an overabundance of QTEs instead. Nah. Action FPS-RPG with TWO branches. Dating simulator with qte sex scenes and plenty of SJ issues. so new game from David Cage I think you got your Davids mixed up Trololol [take all what is said seriously mode on] David Cage's games are heavily based on QTEs including sex scenes that are controlled with them and their stories have lots of stuff that is classified as Social Justice (woman as central role with high advocacy, talking about problems that minorities face in their lives, rising issues in governmental and corporal control over people and assets, rising environmental issues and spiritualism, etc.), even though issues and representation of sexual minorities don't usually play any role in them, which is probably thing that you have in mistake reduced SJ only to mean. I would guess that your mistake is based on how EA/Bioware has decided to represent sexual minorities in some of their games, basing on that fact that you suggests that I have mixed David Cage to David Garner, who is EA/Bioware's lead writer in their Dragon Age franchise, but who has quite little responsibility in that fact that there are sexual minorities and homosexual romances in DA games, although I guess that people think that he has lot more to do with that because he identifies himself gay and don't hide that fact. [take all what is said seriously mode off]

2.5 million stretch goal - Scrap the game and make a linear first person shooter with massive setpieces and an overabundance of QTEs instead. Nah. Action FPS-RPG with TWO branches. Dating simulator with qte sex scenes and plenty of SJ issues. so new game from David Cage

Language that is used depends lots on platform/s and goals that you have for the game. C/C++ are popular in engine programming because they are efficient languages and have good access to hardware Java is sometimes used because of its cross-platform abilities, although one can't make as efficient programs and platform specific things are much harder if not impossible to use, which of course don't prevent one to make popular games like Minecraft with it. Java is reliant to Java Virtual Machine or some other virtual machine which can interpret Java bytecode for the computer. In web platforms JavaScript and other ECMAScript variants like ActionScript for Adove/Apache Flex (flash) are popular for both engine programming and scripting. Many commercial engines use their own languages for scripting, but they are often influenced heavily by C++/Java/Python/Lua/(Visual/Quick)Basic But overall imperative programming languages are most popular with very large margin in game coding, and in most cases when you learn one imperative programming language you can learn another with relative fast. C++ is very good language to learn, although it isn't easiest especially if you want to make some other than command line programs. C# and Java are easier to learn and with them it is much easier to produce flashier programs (including games) at first, although low end programming may be painful learn after you have used to their easiness (that is what is told to me by people who started their coding with these languages, I myself can't comment as I started coding with C and QuickBasic) Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale use Infinity Engine which is in my understanding programmed mainly with C/C++ and it uses its own scripting language. Pillars of Eternity use as said previously Unity as it's engine, which is coded mainly by my understanding C/C++ and its default scripting is done by using as said previously C#, JavaScript and Boo using Mono (open source variant of MS .Net framework) framework. League of Legends uses at least these languages C++ (the core game is written in this), Lua (core game), C# (game tools), ActionScript (game hud and pvp.net), Java (platform servers), Erlang (platform servers), Php/sql (web team / platform). Information is based on what one of their developers said in their forums. But if you want learn game programming I would say don't get hung with any one language, but instead learn paradigms and ideologies behind programming then you have easier time to jump from language to another with little work which gives you ability to use most efficient language for any given task instead of trying to bent one language to task which it was not designed. Also understanding computer graphics is very important thing in game programming and also understanding network programming (at least what problems and limitations it brings) is probably in these days quite useful to know.

That is something that one should never do. Because there is reason why Unity's developers call their product beta, instead of released version. In commercial products it is always wiser use stable versions than those under testing and fixing. Beta versions are good if you want test new features and get familiar with them, but they are always too unpredictable to use as platform for big commercial products especially when there is stable version on hand that offers most of the features and capacities that said beta version offers.

Yup there is high probably for that to be the case and even if it comes out before PoE we still speak very short interval that it would be somewhat impossible to port PoE to new engine in all three platforms, without speaking problems that there will be because Unity 5 does somethings differently than Unity 4, they already had problems with Unity 4 as its Linux version didn't have all the same things as Windows and Mac versions.

They probably use auto blurring software to hide license plates and software has got false positive from that POL-syllable

Well, that sucks. I guess France24 was initially correct According to BBC there was reports that terrorist shoot people when they took over the super market in first place

Original Dune game was not so great combination of adventure and strategy game, where Dune 2 was cult classic RTS game pioneer and it was one of the best games during it time.

When you carry a handgun in a purse (or similar) there is possibility that the gun's safety gets switched off by hitting some other object in the purse, which is why I would always recommend one to carry gun in holster if they must carry one with you even when you carry them in purse, bag, back-bag, suite-case, etc.. And from my observations people that are most relaxed on how they handle guns belong those who perfectly well know how guns should be handled, but are blinded by their experience which causes them act carelessly, which is when accidents are bound to happen. I would say that this is also true to any dangerous object that people use, people (at least some) are just bound to become more relaxed in handling things when handling them becomes routine, rising possibility of accident at least some degree. But when we speak objects that have ability to kill people we never will be able to prevent all fatal accidents with them as long they exists because there will always be (chain of) unseen circumstances that will lead such tragedy.

Product achieved and exceeded all the goals that it's buyer and developers put for it so it was not by any sensible waste especially tremendous waste of development time, as those who put their time and money in it were more than pleased for the result. I would claim that any claim to claim that Skyrim was (most) definitely a waste of development time has born from childish notion that other people must use their time to please claimer and/or people like the claimer.

Game is good, but PC port is far from to be what one could call decent. So game didn't restore my faith that Bioware would make games which are targeted to audience which I belong. I haven't never doubted their ability to produce games that offer enjoyable experiences, but with audiences that they currently focus on I don't see them to produce in near future games that get to my favorite game list or list of great games that I have played. This probably don't mean that I will not play their future games, but they have lost their special place in my heart.

People that murder random people always find excuse for their actions (because they are mentally unstable which causes them to want to harm and kill other people), although police and other authorities have higher change become their target when respect towards police and other authorities, which is indoctrinate in citizens from young age, starts to fall off for one reason or another (like for example authorities failing to explain why their actions were justified or people undermining president's or other political leaders' authority for some reason).

Regardless on what price game will be sold when it is finished and distributed in stores, the main advantage that KS backers get from being backer is to get game made in first place, as otherwise it wouldn't have been made. Of course cheaper price and earlier access could have given additional enticement to back for somebodies, but I would say for most of the backers those play quite small if any part in their decision to become backers. And I am quite sure that people will pay much less, for example, than me (about $400) when game finally comes out. This is what people that gave more than minimum think. The 95% of backers want a cheaper game first (the 95% are those that gave as little as possible to get the game). On average people gave $54 for the game, which of course comes from simple math where you divide end sum with number of backers, which don't tell how the sum is actually divided between backers, but it gives you number that tells you how much game would have cost for you if all the backers had paid same amount for it. Of course I can't say why people backed game, but I would say it is bit unrealistic to expect to get it cheaper than anybody can ever get the game if you take part to fundraiser to make it possible to make the game in first place. Average means nothing in this case and has nothing to do with my statement. My 95% is not an accurate number, but I am sure I would be far from it if I went to count it.The point still stands that most people wanted to get a game they would like to play cheap. EDIT: OK did some math (this only includes KS backers). 62.07% people backed the game at base levels that give you a digital copy of the game. 11.35% people backed the game at the 35$ level that also gives you a manuals and soundtracks. This is a cheaper version of digital Deluxe versions of games on Steam. 7.74% people backed it at 50$ level which is an expanded digital Deluxe level (and probably costs the same as digital deluxe will). Lot of people also opted to take add-ons, meaning that they gave more money than their tier indicates.) But any way I would say it is bit silly to complain that people that didn't back the game should not get game as cheap as most low level backers (if Paradox would had decided to do so) when those backers got game as cheap as they got only because other people were willing to invest more money in the game (people in $20-$50 tiers only put about $1.6 million towards game if we don't take account add-ons, which is less than half of the money pledged towards the game).

Regardless on what price game will be sold when it is finished and distributed in stores, the main advantage that KS backers get from being backer is to get game made in first place, as otherwise it wouldn't have been made. Of course cheaper price and earlier access could have given additional enticement to back for somebodies, but I would say for most of the backers those play quite small if any part in their decision to become backers. And I am quite sure that people will pay much less, for example, than me (about $400) when game finally comes out. This is what people that gave more than minimum think. The 95% of backers want a cheaper game first (the 95% are those that gave as little as possible to get the game). On average people gave $54 for the game, which of course comes from simple math where you divide end sum with number of backers, which don't tell how the sum is actually divided between backers, but it gives you number that tells you how much game would have cost for you if all the backers had paid same amount for it. Of course I can't say why people backed game, but I would say it is bit unrealistic to expect to get it cheaper than anybody can ever get the game if you take part to fundraiser to make it possible to make the game in first place.

But if enemy don't act certain way and rule system don't put in certain restrictions it would not work in first place. In Bethesda's games (TES and Fallout 3) you can use kitting as tactic. I would say more like "something exist because of artificial things copy it for infinity as it is so cool!!!!!!!" If game (rule set) don't need it to be good it don't necessary need to be added say I.

Cavalry archers didn't use kitting but tactics which they ride as close to enemy as possible before they can attack you and shoot them and then ride away, which is said to be effective tactic although it has it's own disadvantages as Seljuk's cavalry found out in Battle of Dorylaeum.

I strongly disagree, because kiting is silly tactic that works only because AI programming is poor. Which of course don't mean that players should not use it in their tactics repertory if it works in the game, but if it works it is mostly because developers didn't do perfect job. Well, you are wrong then. Kiting does not work because AI is bad. Kiting works because it is a good tactic. What AI fails at is to respond to it. In fact, I would ENCOURAGE kiting by adding special talents and skills (tumble). By default, Kiting should have penalties i.e. moving and hitting gives you a penalty to attack roll etc. , Kitting is good tactic only because of how AI works and how games rule restrict things, which in my opinion make it silly tactic and often too effective tactic. I would just make kitting awkward to use (by adding more enemies in encounters, making them faster and lowering speed, damage and accuracy of moving ranged characters) and not offer any or few special talents or skills to make it less awkward.

I strongly disagree, because kiting is silly tactic that works only because AI programming is poor. Which of course don't mean that players should not use it in their tactics repertory if it works in the game, but if it works it is mostly because developers didn't do perfect job. The thing that's called "kiting" in (not only) IE games is one of the core elements of playing RTS games. It is a fact that IE games combat felt pretty similar to RTS games, one of the main reasons is the possibility to kite (and the general feel of moving units around during combat). Kiting isn't wrong, it is a logitimate tactic. As Shrek mentioned, it is the goal of AI to be potent enough to respond to kiting so it's harder to kite properly. If you dislike kiting, it means you dislike one of the core elements that constituted the feel of combat in IE games. Kitting may be core element of rts games (I disagree with this notion, but there is no reason to debate this in this thread), because of silly artificial rule sets that they use and how AI works when its kitted in those games. Kitting is wrong because it is silly tactic that usually works because of artificial constraints and how AI works in said games. Who said I dislike kiting, I said that it is silly tactic, which as itself is reason to disagree with notion that there is nothing wrong in kitting. And I think that kitting should not work as effectively as it works in IE games. Also I would say that I am absolute fine if rts game or IE style game (for example PoE) uses artificial constraints to block people using kitting and forcing them to use different tactics.

I strongly disagree, because kiting is silly tactic that works only because AI programming is poor. Which of course don't mean that players should not use it in their tactics repertory if it works in the game, but if it works it is mostly because developers didn't do perfect job. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Kiting has been in many many games over the years and it is considered one of the more interesting things. In Starcraft 2 zerg banelings owned groups of marines until one of the players started kiting with marines very well. It wasn't stupid, it made the game much more interesting. OK, this was a MP example but still kiting is not stupid. Also it is not needed, even in RTS games kiting is considered an advanced tactic and it is not needed to beat the novice or newbie enemy (it certainly is not needed to beat singleplayer campaigns). Also in BG games, not everyone kites and certainly people don't kite effectively. Kiting is only needed for special plays (all team squishy) and it is good that it exists as it empowers different plays and increases replayability. Kitting is tactic that is possible because of artificial limits of the game. Kitting is not advance tactic (this is of course my opinion) but quite simple one, it don't demand any great tactical skill to understand why it works or even to realize that one could use it and when to use it. It mainly works in many rts and rpg games, because of different unit moving speeds and how AI moves auto targeting units (it is AI that moves characters in games like BG and most rts, where player only tells where AI should move the characters, etc.). Kitting is silly tactic (this is of course my opinion) and it usually works because of how AI is programmed to work in the games. But as I said this isn't reason not to use it if it works in the game. And in BG kitting is not most efficient tactics for all the party compositions, which is why not everybody at least not in every encounter use it at least as their main tactic. PS. I don't really know where you draw your conclusions of things in your first paragraph, especially when silliness/stupidness ever has stopped something to be interesting?

Answer to your question is yes. People will be able to redeem their copies of the game at least from Steam or GOG.com there may be some other services like GamersGate (as it has strong ties with Paradox)