Elerond

I would agree with your argument if every skill has and impact in combat. If that is the case, then synergies with attributes could have real impact in all situations. If skills are mostly non-combat related (as they seem to be), why would you want your low dex, high int rogue to take a point in lore at a given level over one in stealth (which will help make up a potential deficiency in combat). Remember, fewer skills likely means fewer skill points. We don't know how many skill points we get per level, but I remember someone saying we would likely only be able to max one skill by the end of the game. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate with this, and once we have more information, it might be fine, but I'm not really seeing any advantage in terms of class viability if most skills are non-combat related. Certainly, its less work for Obsidian. Which is reasonable, but leads to most skills being passive attributes in scripted sequences (like pick-pocketing and tracking) and gives us less authorship in the game world. It has stated that all skills will give some short general benefits inside and/or outside combat that they are useful for every party member outside of scripted events and conversations. And in scripted events and maybe also in conversations skill test is for general level in party instead of highest one. So you should get value on your skill points regardless on what skill you put them and regardless on which classes your characters are. This is of course bases on information that we have given and how I remember it (meaning that it could contain errors).

No... in a couple of months we may have a beta. Did you miss the late December release date announcement? 2-3 month before release can not be called beta anymore. It is like what EA does with stuff like Battlefield. It is a public Demo nothing else. Define "beta" for us, Darji. Beta is something they work constantly on. They polish things change things in terms of interface, dialogues and so on. Beta is something you should constantly feedback about balance and through their changes. That will normally take many month if they do it for real. Wasteland 2 for example had a Beta, Divinity had a Alpha and Beta and there was a constantly change in these ones. If you give people the beta 2-3 month before release that means 1-2 month before everything should be finished than you will not get the needed feedback. As they said before. They are already in a Beta status in their studios. And this is the moment Beta testers or backers in this case should be involved. A EA beta or Demo is something you only do balancing stuff through data they collect from players. Beta is state where software is before it is after alpha state and before release candidate state. But there is no definite definitions for those states, but they are defined by developers themselves so that they themselves know that how ready software is and what kind work it still needs. Software is usually considered to be in beta state when it has all features and content that release version needs are done at least such level that testing and polishing of whole product can start, but this isn't always the case, as such definition don't always work with development process that developing team uses. So beta is meaningless term if you don't know definition for it that developers of software in question use for it. And from previous update you can see that Obsidian uses alpha and beta states to determine how ready each of their teams are addition to overall state of game. And they use beta to define state where all content and features are done, but not necessary on such level that game is actually playable from start to finish, let alone that it is enjoyable to play or that it ready enough to give for beta testers to play in their opinion. Softwares especially games can be months in beta state without actually being in state where they are actually usable on level that even resembles final product, which is state that most non-developer beta access backers probably excepts to get their hands on.

It is difficult and time consuming to make RPG that don't abstractions that aren't in odds with real world examples. PoE has only five skills for two main reasons, first it focus isn't in simulation, but in exploration, tactical party based combat and story telling, and secondly they wanted all skills to be useful for every character, which becomes that much harder to do more skills you add. I'm not concerned with simulationist aspects of gameplay; I'm concerned about options in exploring character builds, transparency of rules, and symmetry of design. Specifically, I expect Obsidian to keep its promise of allowing us to pursue unconventional builds. The whole aspect of 'party roles' already rubs me the wrong way. Coupled now with this streamlined skill system, and begin to wonder how far we are going to be allowed to stray off the path. Maybe it will be fine, I'm not making any accusations, but I am concerned. Heavily abstracted (or streamlined as you said) skill system is much better basis for RPG system where you can build unconventional builds, as such skill system has much lesser change make some builds virtually useless. This is because of that in heavily abstracted skill systems there is lesser change for useless skills that make game become harder if you invest in them, as you don't have some other skill that you actually need in the game. Class based system usually causes it that some classes are better in some party roles than others. Josh has said that you have ability to build all classes towards roles which they aren't necessary best choice in game and if you choose to do so it should not make your character nearly useless, which is the case usually the case in class based crpgs, but instead be valid way to build your character(s). I don't say that you could not or should not be concerned, but to me PoE seem to be going towards such system that will give you all those things that you listed.

It is difficult and time consuming to make RPG that don't abstractions that aren't in odds with real world examples. PoE has only five skills for two main reasons, first it focus isn't in simulation, but in exploration, tactical party based combat and story telling, and secondly they wanted all skills to be useful for every character, which becomes that much harder to do more skills you add. Survival is skill that determines how long effects from consumables (foods, drinks, potions, drugs) last and in scripted sequences it is used in options that involve wilderness, hunting, etc. things that one usually associate with surviving in nature. For tracking they probably use in scripted events survival skill, perception or intellect depending on which works better in that scenario from narrative perspective, like for example in scenario where you try find where person or monster went in wilderness they could give you option use your survival skill to follow their tracks, and in scenario where you try find some one in crowd in city they could give you option to spot that person using your perception, and in scenario where you try to determine where person that you followed disappeared in dark street they could give you option to use your intellect to determine if your character can figure that out. I don't think that they will use talents (general or class specific) in many or even any scripted events, as that would make in most cases mean talents that are meant for scripted events only which would make it quite complex to make them such that player should choose them more than one character in party and if they use talents that also give combat bonuses in scripted events, it would make hard for player determine without meta knowledge which talents are best for their character, which are both something that Obsidian has tried to avoid in PoE's design.

When I heard that I thought that they were blowing it out of proportion. I'm pretty sure they can get investors on board, and they will get more support if they change their subscription plan. But if Nintendo has managed to make terrible decisions and stay afloat so can Crytek too; although that's mostly due to competition being dead. While Nintendo has certainly made some bad decisions, they've also hit some massive home runs. Past runaway successes, like the DS, have given Nintendo quite a healthy cash reserve to fall back upon during hard times. I don't know if Crytek has ever had that type of crazy money making success, or if they'd been smart enough to sock some money away for a rainy day. Aye, Nintendo currently has cash reserve so big that they can run a $257 million deficit for 38 years before they run out of money. So Nintendo can make several bad decision in row without risking bankruptcy. Information about Nintendo's cash reserve is from here. http://wiiudaily.com/2014/03/nintendo-not-doomed/

Crytek May Soon Go Bankrupt Due to Poor CryEngine Adoption, Ryse Flop – Report

What you think will we see gentlemanly 0-0 in USA-GER match?

It includes. You can already go Torment's backer portal to get your code.

Which is at the end of august, if I got that right from the linked KS announcement... so 2 months early, huh? I didn't expect them to be delivered until PoE was released, so thats even earlier for me By the way, I have been stalking Wasteland 1 on GoG for some time now but I am always put off by the graphics (that game is even older than me...) is it recommended to play it beforehand for the setting or can I skip it? I really can't bring myself to play this. You can skip it, although there is some inside jokes and references in Wasteland 2 that one probably will miss if you haven't played original Wasteland, but there is nothing in story wise that you would miss if you haven't played it.

Getting enough visibility that your game gets funded isn't always that easy, which I could see why indie studio would be interested of such partnership, and it don't actually cost them anything, but they need to rise 5% more money than what they would need without such partnership. But it seems that this partnership didn't help this game to get enough interest to get funded. So it seems that this partnership program isn't instant success. But I would bet that this project wouldn't had any more success without this program.

It seems that it is not their games, but indie games from indie studios. Square Enix's business idea in this seems to be offering support, visibility and possible distribution deals for those studios and get 5% of crowd sourced sum and 10% of revenue (if they distribute the game) as compensation. To me it seems to be cheap and easy way for SE to search talents that they can use to develop their bigger tittles in future, given that it will get some wind under it wings.

Germany - Australia (4-0), Argentina - South Korea (4-1), Germany - Argentina (4-0)

They didn't all agree One who said that he covered KS games gave small protest towards that weird statement. Format what they used in their wrap up shows was such that it would encourage or even allow debates between journalist. I don't championing anything, I have only stated that those journalist weren't wrong in their statement that covering KS games is in most cases more difficult than covering AAA games. I don't and those journalist don't say that such coverage is too hard, but that is more difficult and it's different than covering AAA games.

I've already covered this Elerond. Magazines and web sites have more than one page. Why wouldn't you cover multiple things at the same time? Why limit yourself to just one part of the gaming industry and not do an article on an indy or Kickstarter game? The site might be surprised at the amount of hits if it becomes, and it may just become a popular indy/Kickstarter title through reporting of it. http://www.gamespot.com/e3/live/ There is GameSpots live stream schedule from this years E3 so that you can see how much free time they had to give additional coverage, as we are speaking about some of journalist whose job was produce that. And even with web pages you don't get free coverage about games, but publication needs to pay for someone to write that coverage, which is why that coverage needs at least pay itself back and rather of course produce profit. And publications have access to only limited number of journalist, especially in events like E3, which mean that they need to prioritize their time towards those games that they think will produce most profitable coverage. P.S. I would remind that we speak about those four journalist in that video and statement where one of them said that covering KS games is harder than covering AAA games, not about magazines or other publications, but one journalist perspective. P.P.S. And they covered KS games as they stated in video, so it wasn't even them one or other scenario.

If you're job is reporting on games and they find it all to hard to do their job with a certain type of game (eg. Kickstarter games), when it's actually easier to report on Kickstarter games with a wealth of knowledge at your disposal including new stuff that the dev's tell them in interviews such as E3. Then yes, they're incompetent. But keep taking my quotes out of context Elerond. Difficulty of task depend always on what one wants to achieve, so if you want to make coverage that will get specific number of hits, your task is most likely be easier if you cover something that is popular than something that only few people have ever heard before.

Those sentences make them sound more competent and less out of touch? Here you whole post: "What that shows me is how incompetent and out of touch the gaming press is today. Don't know how to write up a story about a Kickstarter game? Kickstarter games are difficult? They need to get with the times." I don't see how they do anything else than specify why they are incompetent and out of touch in your opinion, which don't in my opinion add anything such that it would matter when we consider my paraphrasing "they were absolute wrong with their opinions and are embarrassment to all gaming journalist that there are", which is reason why left them out, although I added link to your whole message so that people can check it out to see if I miss quote you.

Addition to already mentioned games these also have 90% or better score in metacritic. 1999 Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings (Metacritic 92%) 1999 FreeSpace 2 (Metacritic 91%) 1999 Medal of Honor (Metacritic 92%) 1999 Tony Hawk's Pro Skater (Metacritic 92%) 1999 Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver (Metacritic 91%) 1999 Ape Escape (Metacritic 90%) 1999 Street Fighter Alpha 3 (Metacritic 93%) 1999 Syphon Filter (Metacritic 90%) 1999 Donkey Kong 64 (Metacritic 90%) 1999 Rayman 2: The Great Escape (Metacritic 90%) 1999 Beetle Adventure Racing (Metacritic 90%) 1999 Mario Golf (Metacritic 91%) 1999 SoulCalibur (Metacritic 98%) 1999 Gran Turismo 2 (Metacritic 93%) 1999 Final Fantasy VIII (Metacritic 90%)

Yep you didn't use embarrassment, but "What that shows me is how incompetent and out of touch the gaming press is today." , which I paraphrased.

You're also excluding some choice commentary and body language from them as well. The girl even nodded in agreement with what they were saying. So even though she didn't say anything, she agreed with them just the same. But we'll just discount those facts. Especially those great comments they made. Here's a question. Would they have had the same problem writing articles about these games if they didn't know they were Kickstarter games? Ah, the bias of reporters and media. But lets forget that it doesn't stop the general gaming media writing articles about these games. In fact, it's been pointed out that some journalists are eager to write about these games. Yeah, must be really 'hard' writing about Kickstarter games when some journalists can't wait for the embargo to be lifted and are itching to tell everyone about their reviews. Which is a point you continue to ignore. I think that you project your believes on her, that journalist may or may not agree with others, but I don't know as she didn't actually said anything about subject and because I would not care even if she agree with those that spoke as they didn't actually said anything that is wrong. Same problems would be there even if journalist didn't know that game is KS, but they just could not adjust their coverage to respond on those problems. I would point out that PoE isn't just any KS game as it is third most successful KS, it has well know studio behind it, it has publisher behind it, it has PR people in their booth addition to developers, it has hype created behind it that goes beyond its backers, and its E3 coverage wasn't released to public beforehand. So covering it is different task than covering some smaller KS game. And even with all that behind it you will not find PoE even from most of list that say that they have all games from E3 2014. And in that video that journalist that said he has covered KS games, but said that it is more difficult than covering AAA games, also said that KS games do new things that one can't see in AAA games, which is why they are interesting to cover even if it isn't as easy as it would to cover AAA game. But it seems that we are in impasse, as in my opinion those journalist didn't say anything insulting, controversial or stupid about crow sourced games and were justified with their opinion, where you seem to think that they were absolute wrong with their opinions and are embarrassment to all gaming journalist that there are.

I don't see it as a binary, an either / or decision when you can do both. We're talking about a website or magazine that has multiple pages. Why can't you do an interview in the morning for the AAA dev and an afternoon interview with the small indy dev? Or schedule different appointments on different days? Again, you can do both. And we've seen gaming media sites report on Kickstarter games. So it's no problem for the gaming media industry to do so. That's the point you seem to want to ignore. We were talking about those journalist in that video, which one said he don't cover KS games and don't want cover them, and another said that he has covered at least three and will probably cover more and also said that covering KS games is more difficult than covering AAA games. Third, one who brought subject of KS games up, said that there were several small tittles on show floor that he has never heard of, many of them being games that have kickstarted. Fourth panelist didn't express her opinion about subject but seem to be amused about what others said about subject. So GameSpot as publication did cover at least some of KS games that were in E3. My point has been it is more difficult task to write worthwhile article about KS games, but not impossible or even so difficult that nobody does it, meaning that those journalist in that video in my opinion had justification to say that it is more difficult to cover KS games and covering them is different than covering AAA games.

You missed my point. I didn't argue that journalist can't cover KS games for audience that have never heard of them, but it is more difficult cover KS games so that it's worthwhile to do compared to covering some AAA tittle. Because number of people that are interested to read/listen/watch coverage about most of KS games is so much smaller, especially if you cover them so that your coverage don't interest backers/fans of said game as they in high likelihood constitute major part of the people that are interested coverages of said game, than number of people that are interested about AAA tittles. So difficulty of covering KS don't come from writing some kind coverage about game, but writing such coverage that it will get enough readers to cover the time they spent to writing said article and not spending it to cover some other game that beforehand has more interest towards it. Like for example do you interview author of new best seller, published by some big publisher or author of crowd funded and self published book that has sold couple thousand copies. Act of interviewing said authors so that you can tell about them and their book for someone that haven't heard them is same regardless of which author we speak, but writing such article about author of self published book that it will have more readers than article about author of bestselling book is much harder task or even writing such article about author of self published book that it will cost of time that you spent writing it is more difficult task than what it would be if you write article about best selling author.

So if anyone including myself goes to a gaming website and the website has copied and pasted something from a dev blog. No one will read it? It won't bring any readers? Even those readers who have never heard of the game before? Wow, that's amazing. You're right. Whenever I go to a gaming website and see a game I've never seen before, I don't read it because it's obviously been copied and pasted from a dev blog. Amazing logic there. And if journalists aren't familiar with the game, then here's an easy question for you. When journalists do write about it, how does that affect readers who have never heard of the game before? Do you go read stuff that Obsidian tells about PoE's updates on gaming news sites or do you read them here or do you do both? I for example don't read any news articles about KS updates on games that I have backed and I don't usually read any information about projects that I haven't backed as they didn't interested me in first place. Of course my habits can't be use any indication about larger demographics. But I have noticed that news coverage about KS projects has fallen heavily from what they were in 2012 and begging of 2013, which tells me that there has not been enough people that have been interested of them. I didn't say that there isn't any people that read about KS games, but most them are very small and even and they are aimed to much smaller audiences than what AAA games (which is reason why they had to go in KS in first place) , meaning that number of people that are interested of them is small at best and usually notable part of that audience has usually already backed the game during it KS. So when one is making decision of covering such game in event like E3 one has to think that will that game interest enough people that it is worth while to cover it instead of some other game (because in those events there are dozens if not hundreds of games and one person or even publication can cover all of them at least not throughly, especially when you are live feed journalist as those who you so keenly scold) and if one decides to cover such game one has to think what kind approach one takes on ones covering, as usually publications (especially live feeds) have limit how long articles they publish/how much time they can give for one game, which means that you had to decide what kind of information will interest most people. This is the phase which can be more difficult for crowd sourced games than with more traditional games, because traditional games have publishers and publishers have PR people whose job control information about game and give press most interesting tidbits of it. Where many/most crowd sourced games don't have professional PR people, but instead of all information comes directly from developers who often have little if any experience in selling games. Meaning that covering journalist will usually do more work to find those tidbits information that would interest their readers and that fact that don't help that people that are most interested about game probably know much more about game than what journalist can learn in that short time that they have time to write their cover about game, which make catering them harder what most journalist are used. KS and other crowd sourced games nearly always interest much less people than AAA games. Fans of KS and other crowd sourced games usually have much more information about those games than journalist themselves There is usually no marketing for KS or other crowd sourced games, which means that people don't usually come to seek information about them, meaning that journalist has to make their coverage so interested that bush radio will bring readers for it or/and hope that readers/watchers/listeners of their publication will look them anyway. There usually are no press kits for KS and other crowd sourced games, which means that journalist has usually do more work in gathering videos/pictures/audio about the games. So in short: I can understand why journalist would say that KS games are more difficult to cover than more traditional funded games and how this is general statement that don't actually concern all KS games. And I can also understand why journalist who has not covered crowd sourced games ever can say that they are strange bunch and he is clad that he don't have to cover them. But this don't mean that I think that covering KS or other crowd sourced games is impossible or that there is no readers KS/OCSG coverages, but that I can see why journalist would prefer to cover AAA games instead. Someone could say that covering crowd sourced game instead of AAA game is like covering low level (like Football league two) football match instead first level football (like premier league) match, meaning that there are people that interested about low level match, but number of people that are interested about first level match will in all likelihood dwarf those that are interested about low level match and probably also much higher percentage of those people that are interested about low level match go watch it on the spot, which can make it more difficult to comprehensively cover that match in way that it is worthwhile thing for publication to do.

Elerond. tsk tsk tsk. You did say 'it don't bring any readers and if you haven't followed updates by yourself'. Here's your quote. Also, as I've said many times, the target audience would be people who don't know about the game. In fact, it would be easier to write a review for a Kickstarter game because you have a wealth of information with the Kickstarter updates to write an in depth review to people who have never heard of the game. Not the opposite. "Writing article that covers same things what game's most recent kickstarter/forum/blog/etc. update covered is easy job, but it don't bring any readers and if you haven't followed updates by yourself then interviews with developers in events like E3 can easily produce ton of information that developers told in their blog over year ago" If you don't cut what I said in meaningless sentences then you will find out that there is context for those sentences that I said. But I make it easier for you. "Writing article that covers same things what game's most recent kickstarter/forum/blog/etc. update covered is easy job, but it don't bring any readers" With this sentence I mean that it is easy copy and paste what developers have told in their update about game, but I don't believe that it will actually bring any readers. "and if you haven't followed updates by yourself then interviews with developers in events like E3 can easily produce ton of information that developers told in their blog over year ago" With this sentence I mean that if journalist is not familiar with game and don't therefore have any knowledge what developers have previously told about their game it is highly probably that they will produce content that don't have any new information about game. There is context that you decided some reason in your post cut out, and ask what it is. Which is in my opinion same as creating your own point of view which you want argue against.

I gave an opinion from the start saying these guys don't know how to write about a game due to the type of funding and they should get with the times. The funding isn't relevant. Elerond and Lephys did defend these journalists with words like 'not reading updates to these games' and 'to be fair'. Firstly you don't need to read updates for the game to write an article about the game and you don't need to take the side of hacks and give a contrary argument. And Lephys relishes in these abstract arguments? For pages and pages? Not talking about specific examples? So there's really no substance to his posts. Anyone can argue and disagree on abstraction with superfluous posts. Lephys didn't want to talk about the specific example that's been talked about for pages and talk about some general problem? What general problem is that? There's no general problem. The industry doesn't have a problem reporting these games. Elerond proceeded to say things like "it don't bring any readers and if you haven't followed updates by yourself". Irrelevant as I've pointed out many times. Or is Elerond talking in the abstract? Who knows. Maybe you can explain what Elerond is talking about in this context. And I'm not getting worked up. I'm quite calm and relaxed. I do find it funny that you think I'm all worked up over this. Also, maybe ask the question to yourself, why does it bother you to jump into a debate between Lephys and myself and proceed to explain Elerond's and Lephys' posts and then ask me why I'm getting worked up? Perhaps ask why is Lephys debating page after page on some abstract meaningless point that has nothing to do with the gaming media industry as a whole. I said that I can understand why gaming journalist can find it more challenging to cover KS games than games that come from more traditional ways. I also said that it can be difficult to find something to write about KS game for those that actually would be interested to read about, as they probably have heard all/most of information that you have about game directly from developers, and repeating old information don't bring many readers and your time is better spent to cover something else. But as you like to put words in my mouth (as I never said this or even implied this "it don't bring any readers and if you haven't followed updates by yourself"), I will let you talk this with yourself as I plainly obvious that my point of view do not interest you at all, as you create instead of it fictional point of view that you argue against.

Areas are created as 3D models then they are rendered to 2D and after that they are finalized by hand.