rustypup

They provided *more* than sufficient information for the vast majority of their supporters. And by vast, I mean everyone except the vanishingly tiny number of unique individuals who have somehow convinced themselves that the devs report directly to them. Which is both weird and interesting.

Welcome to *Molehill Mountain®! Entitled bleating! Manufactured drama! Conspiracy theories! It's a craaazy ride for all ages! *Molehill Mountain® is a registered trademark of the Waaaambulance Corporation. Whiny neck-beard voice sold separately. It's done when it's done. I would personally prefer something relatively feature complete and stable.

i always said that DnD based games are at least 90% luck. Sounds more as if Karkarov was playing at run-and-gun instead of buffing the tanks... which is where the whole 'tactics' thing comes in... Casters used as offensive units against casters is begging to be buried in a hail of fail... Back on-topic: One of my primary deciding factors was the isometric field of battle. Because battling camera angles while you're battling critters is more frustrating than entertaining.. OP still sounds like a bridge-dweller's commentary.

There is nothing novel about this. You appear to be suggesting that stalking, harassment and death threats are unique to the Internet?

"Offensive" is not universally applicable. Who are we to draw the magical line? Suppressing *everything* I may find personally offensive based on my cultural frame of reference is nothing other than small minded fascism. Freedom of expression should not fall victim to a minuscule population of vitriolic gasbags.

or... stop posting personally identifiable/trackable information in clear-text like some mindless dolt? ... It just makes it so much easier for the crazies to move from spouting brain-farts to acting out whatever cognitive dysfunction is assailing them. We've had the Internet for a while now. How is this not the default no.1 rule. Yet there we go, spamming every orifice of social media with the minutiae of our daily activities like some faceless, adoring audience out there is gagging to hear about our last meal, bowel obstruction or hedonistic binge whilst expecting nothing bad could possibly happen. It's like watching a someone hug a lion. The butt-hurt post the mauling is always so dramatic and completely divorced of context. First off, we are now completely OT. Secondly, engaging trolls is the last thing we should do. You cannot win. Anyone who is actively displaying anti-social behavior is not going to play nice because you've taken the time to berate them. They've already demonstrated they lack any concept of social nicety, thus argument from decency is wasted effort. Given that this behavior is rarely self-correcting the *only* response is to ignore it.

No. Because it's the healthy response. What exactly are you proposing here? "Cleaning up" or "policing" the internet? Really? At no point was it suggested that we should tolerate it. Anywhere. But getting our collective knickers in a knot of impotent hand-wringing accomplishes nothing. Hormone addled gits behave like hormone addled gits. Socially disruptive throwbacks relish negative responses. You cannot win. Accept this and ignore it *or* waste stomach lining and time fretting about it. Which is the correct approach?

That hacking sound is a guffaw...

The world is well populated with a large number of mentally unstable people. There is nothing any particular individual can do about that. When you enter the public frame of reference you are in all likelihood going to attract the attentions of a small fraction of the pool. Is this fair? I don't know. I do know that world doesn't abide by any commonly accepted standard of "fair". Requiring that this not happen is like standing with our collective hands on our hips demanding an immediate cessation of all hostilities and a return to good cinema.

Frankly, it's the internet. It's a sordid mishmash of conflicting cultures, sexualities, ages and depravity. Taking anything it spews out at face value, (or worse yet, internalising it), speaks to a psychological defect. You would not accept an impossible invitation from that grammar-deprived prince to invest in extracting illicit funds from some African state, so why in the name of all that is cute and furry would you care if he called you a bilge-swilling necrophiliac? There is a disturbing trend in the media to lend credence to the babbling idiocy which is social media, so I guess we can expect more public examples of emotional distress in the face of anonymous drivel. Because the mindless utterances of passive aggressive nincompoops matters. If I were to stand in a crowded room and voice an opinion or start painting a picture, I'm going to get criticised. Not only that, some of them will be unbalanced to varying degrees. A small but significant number will be religious zealots incapable of processing the real world in a healthy way. The trick is recognising this and realising that this is *their* problem, not mine. If, on the other hand, I imagine the world exists purely to bolster my ego and never rub me the wrong way, then I am skirting the very edge of madness and should be led gently away to a padded room somewhere before my delicate constitution gets bruised. It's a public forum. No special dispensation. No magical anti-critic/psycho shield. Deal with it. If you can't deal with it, stay away. Don't climb in face first then bleat about how you lost a tooth.

It's an RPG. One of the core attractions of an RPG is the leveling. The gradual drip of additional skills, talents and hardiness that hooks us. I'm not sure where it said anything else on the box, but this is pretty much what I bought in to. Lack of level cap means the entire game will be tied to kit. Which is a horrific idea. May as well switch our minds off and plug away at yet-another-call-of-grinding-warfare..... Level cap all the way.

Read his Spellsinger series. Would it surprise you to discover he's a furry? To clarify my stance. I have no problem with other species in fantasy games. If they're there to add depth or anything else significant. When they're basically animal-heads on human bodies they're only going to irritate me whilst serving purely to titillate the furries.

... with prominent breasts... and only 2 such prominences... like a real people! But with fur! :/ I honestly have nothing against novel races if they're there to encourage immersion, add challenge or even variety... When they're there to pander to the mouth-breathing social deviants, I see "meh"...

I hate to nitpick, (not really), but these and their packmates that continue to infest the ES games were always human-like beasts... The Argonians may have had pretend tails but they still moved and spoke like humans. Because we are spectacularly well-equipped to empathise with other humans. A trait evolved to detect deception...and developers be lazy and prefer the cut-and-paste approach to modelling... As awful as the Mass Effect games were, they at least attempted to move away from this silliness.. Folks who get bent out of shape arguing for the inclusion of human-like animals *generally* do so for the simplest of reasons. Sexual deviancy. Which is fine but does nothing for immersion or entertainment.

I voted "Furries, begone!".. because... seriously. Also, "ourselfs" ?