Lephys

I'm glad you find yourself amusing, but I said nothing about a funding model. The news doesn't cover everything that could possibly be reported. They prioritize, and other stuff just never gets reported. That's a fact.

Wow... Yeah, far be it from the news to worry about ratings when they report stuff. That's why all political office candidates get equal news coverage, and even the mundane, non-controversial crimes get reported. What world do you live in?

Ehh, not necessarily. Also, it's not any nicer for the lore than the current setup. The current set up has a bunch of different currencies, just so people can reference the difference, but there isn't any functional difference. If one's worth 20cp, and one's worth 5cp, then it's absolutely no different than if you simply found 20cp and 5cp, respectively, and NPC's just all said "Whoa, I see you found a larger sum of copper, instead of a smaller sum." That's what I meant when I said it's "nice for the lore" to have different currencies that don't really function as anything but a single, collective currency. But, back to the "not necessarily" on it being a pan in the arse; nothing requires you to force the player to manually choose to use their money more efficiently. Either way, all the money values are represented in CP, so there's no extra work at all. If you don't want to worry with it, then you'll still find various currencies (as with the current setup), but it'll just default to "use the highest-value currency first, then so on" when you go to pay for something. Automatically handled for you. The only thing you'll notice (if they even do this) is that your listed CP total, at a given merchant booth/interface, will change from specific merchant to specific merchant (usually only in different areas, where it might change anyway; a broadsword in Town A might cost a different amount than a broadsword in Town B). I'm not even trying to say having to manage your currencies is better than not having to or anything. My main point is merely that, if there's no functional difference between them, then it would be like having 27 different swords in the game that all simply have different models. Or... having a whole bunch of different bundles of arrows based on different cultures. "Oh, an Engwithan quarrel is 7 arrows, while a Vailian quarrel is 13 arrows." You're just dealing in arrows, regardless. Take an Engwithan quarrel and tie 6 more arrows to it, and you've got a "different quarrel," even though they're the exact same arrows. Functionally, there won't be any difference between different piles of copper pieces, and different currency pieces, because they're all functionally stacks of various sizes of copper pieces. I just think it might be prudent, if there are going to be various currencies, to introduce some sort of functional difference in there. It's an interactive/dynamic game, after all, so it'd be nice if our choices could, in any way, be affected by the differences in the currencies. It's like the stronghold. If you think managing a stronghold is a pain in the arse, then you just don't manage it. But, they don't remove the stronghold from the game. It's still in there. Just, managing it isn't required to beat the game, or even enjoy the game. However, you still get benefits and unique bits of gameplay from managing the stronghold. Thus, people who enjoy that sort of thing can partake (without just going through the motions for absolutely no significant difference in game experience), and those who don't can avoid it. Same with money. Either way, your money automagically gets exchanged into a CP value when you spend it. Just, if you actually had even a single reason to pay for something with currency A instead of currency B, then there'd be a purpose (beyond pleasant lore text) for all the various currencies and their difference in value. Did you spend all your A coins first because they were worth the most and you didn't really care about them? Maybe some old guy is partial to those, and will give you information for 10 of those, but all you have is B coins. You have thousands of them, but he doesn't care... he just wants A coins. Well, he chooses not to help you out. tough luck. See? That's a functional difference. That takes sheer lore into the realm of actual player choice and interaction. *shrug*. I'm just throwing examples out there, but it'd be nice to see 7+ different currencies actually provide some function other than "you get X cp instead of Y cp added to your giant, virtual CP pile that's merely aesthetically divided up into different coinages so that you can pretend the world has a reason to have various currencies."

To be fair, just because the difference in transparency with Kickstarter games doesn't prevent journalists from writing about them doesn't mean it's irrelevant. If game journalism is going to be the sole source of information about a game, I'd say that factors into the decision-making process when it comes to covering something. It's simple supply and demand. If there are two gas stations at an intersection already, maybe you don't build yours there. Maybe you pick a different intersection. If X% of people already have free access to some information, and your job entails presenting people with information they don't already have, then it's probably worth considering how many people the information you're presenting is going to actually benefit. The demand for that info, essentially.

By all means, you're welcome to your opinion. I'm not sure time is being well spent insisting that everyone else share it, or being outraged that someone could possibly have thoughts and perspectives you consider to be insubstantial or useless. 99.9% of what I say is "for what it's worth" content, and I say as much, quite often. Arguing about what it's actually worth is not really on my schedule. I can tell you what I think it's worth, and then you can go from there. And if you disagree, you disagree. More power to you. You suggested a lack of difference between coverage of non-Kickstarter games, and Kickstarter games, and I pointed out a difference. For what it was worth. Do with it as you like. You're not hurting my feelings. But don't waste everyone else's time with sheer outrage at my perceived idiocy. If you're comparing me to a wall, then I'll take that as a compliment. Walls never ask anyone to bang their heads against them, and serve quite a number of other purposes.

Haha. I was about to joke about seeing that new video footage for that upcoming book. Then I remembered, that kind of really happens. They're called movies. That's actually a pretty good example, though. Just because more people see the film than read the book doesn't mean there's no market for books anymore.

I definitely think it's probably quite sufficient to merely say "this bad guy is a person who does that sort of thing/wouldn't think twice about having his way with folks," without ever specifically focusing or spotlighting the act itself. I don't think much is really gained at all (even by people for whom it doesn't hit close to home) by actually simulating the experience/process/act. Honestly, it'd be pretty seemingly beneficial to have a character written (from actual research/experience) as having gone through it in their past, and currently carrying on with their lives and finding ways to cope, etc. I mean, that's the story of humanity: Bad things happen in the world (whether it's other humans or nature that's the cause), and we see our greatest strength in the form of cooperation in the same struggle. We find our most meaningful connections via common experience. *shrug* It's just one thing for the game world to be a world where the people throughout suffer from the same things people in reality suffer from, and another thing to have it present the happenings to us, "on-stage" so to speak. That's one of the coolest things about RPG characters, though. They can emulate the human struggle, in a positive way. This character's all tiny and not strong, and gets made fun of? But look, mechanically/mathematically, how useful/helpful they are! They can do things others' cannot! This other character went through crazy stuff in a war and has only one arm? Look how you can help him, and how he can choose to fight on, anyway, for what's right in the world. Etc. When they're well-written, they can show us what humans are capable of, in a good way. We don't really need any help finding out what humans are capable of in a negative sense.

I still see many a preview (if not multiple, a few months apart... usually an initial just big presentation, followed months later by a hands-on segment), as well as review, on almost every single game that comes out... big or small. It really depends on the distribution. If it's just on someone's website somewhere, and it's a little $5000 game, it might not get covered. If it's on an app store or Steam or something, though, it usually gets covered. As I said, you can even find reviews and previews for pass-the-time phone games. Since the whole world is now fueled by money, I dare say the higher-ups in charge of those journalism sites wouldn't waste money and webspace having someone write all those if relatively "no one" was reading them anymore. I can't really prove that they're not doing just that, though. Just figured I'd share my perspective. Honestly, I just think that a group being merely a smaller percentage of the total consumer market sort of automatically gets exaggeratively shrunk down to "no one" nowadays, by a lot of people. Again, that's why games can sell 700,000 copies and still be considered "not a very big game," just because they're being compared to the "big" titles that sold 6 million pre-orders, much less total copies. If there are 100 million gamers in the world, then yeah, 700,000 (pure example numbers, btw) isn't a lot, relative to "everyone." But that doesn't mean it's no one. The goal is to utilize marketing when it's objectively beneficial. Not necessarily to reach only some minimum majority or something. There are entire subscription-based magazines dedicated to extremely niche segments of the populous. There's probably a friggin' Cactus-Grower's Digest out there.

*super suspicious glare*... Obviously, Fearabbit, you're on the journalists' side, as well! *hisssss* o_O

Maybe you actually play as an incorporeal soul, who witnesses something crazy, and you feel the need to act on it, and through sheer willpower, forcibly "possess" a body that was just recently deceased? Maybe even killed in a supernatural way (like having its soul removed, thus leaving the body intact so that another soul inhabiting it wouldn't immediately die?)? Probably not, though. I recall them saying you're sort of visiting the land you start in, so it seems like you're probably not an incorporeal visitor. 8P

Aloth the Shirtless! Reputation system, HOHHHhhh!!! Also, I know you you're probably mainly joking, but I sincerely hope that there won't be any "DPS" estimates/ratings on equipment or anything. I hate that. They don't make any sense unless the game expects you to just stand there, constantly attacking an enemy, with no gaps or patterns in your attacks/movement/maneuvering, etc. It kind of goes against tactical combat, since, in tactical play, all seconds are not created equal. 8P

Maybe it could be cool if it at least didn't get automatically converted to copper pieces until you actually spent it? Eliminate the tedium of manually changing your money, but still let different places acknowledge slightly differing values of the various currencies? If you have 10 lusce and 10 awlds, maybe you could at least choose which currency to pay with? If, at a specific merchant, you're buying something that costs 20 cp, maybe putting up 5 awlds will get you to 20cp, but putting up only 3 lusce will get you to 20cp? Thus, you have two actual options. And it matters, functionally, because it decides how many of each currency you have left over after the transaction. In the long run, it wouldn't be huge enough differences to be like "Oh, you spent your currencies ineffeciently? You could only afford like HALF the stuff this other guy could, throughout the game! You couldn't even afford to outfit your whole party with nice things!" But, short term, it could allow those who actually want to partake in such a mechanic to maybe get something faster/earlier, and use their money more efficiently with a bit of effort. Otherwise, while it's nice for the lore, all the different currencies are functionally equivalent to just a single currency.

Way to be a glass-half-full kind of person. Where were you when the Kickstarter began? "Pssh... only like 1K people are gonna back this. It's not even gonna reach 100% funding... No one cares about pitches for these kinds of games anymore..." I think the campaign really could've benefitted from such positive thinking.

It's like a really fancy snapshot of a 3D scene, at the specific "isometric" camera angle. Boom, now they're the backgrounds, but they're still basically 2D artwork in a 3D world.

Just my two cents: Maturely handled sexual content does not = "sex scenes." Just because there's violence in the game doesn't mean there's an action cam that zooms in on all the sword blows, and you're constantly slicing people in half and chopping up their arms even after they're dead, and urinating upon their severed heads. It's the same with sexual content. Not-avoiding it means that they can have it in a context/setting/situation. There can be some assassin loose in the castle, and you start checking all the rooms, and burst in on some noble's daughter and some other guy in a bed. And/or you can have situations in brothels, etc. Doesn't mean there have to be any specific scenes or focuses specifically on a bunch of naked people or sexual acts.

All I did was point out a factual difference between Kickstarter projects and big publisher-funded/driven projects (games, to be specific). I can't help it if you're somehow directly attributing that to those specific journalists in a video I very explicitly admitted to not-having watched yet. The only reason I mentioned not-watching the video was because I knew you guys were already pretty deep in discussing that video, specifically, and if I didn't clarify, it would be assumed that I was jumping in on the directly-about-the-video sub-discussion. Which I was not. Also... my "usual arguing against forum posters stance"? Who else would I be arguing against on a forum? People who aren't posting on it? As fun as it sounds, I don't believe I've ever directed arguments on here at random IP addresses across the internet.

^Dude... you do realize that they've been crafting it, by hand, from the ground up, right? Like, this whole time? You do also realize that most other games don't even start telling/showing-off anything until about 5 months from release, on a generally-longer production timeline? "There's stuff we don't know!" Yeah... it's called a process.

I'm not sure a particular approach to interactive software design can really be "outdated." The game's actually visually quite stunning and modern. It's not even really 2D. And it's not like 2D games are dead or something. And yeah... let's take bets on whether or not the articles'll all say "LOLZ! Check out THIS dinosaur!", and see who comes out better on that. Considering friggin' Android games similar to Angry Birds are mainstream now, and they take like 3 months to program (some of them... they're much simpler games, no offense to them), I'm not really sure what's supposed to be unworthy of coverage in the modern gaming industry... Also, regarding Bastion's success, you had this to say: How did they know it had all that if got inherently ignored in favor of all the spiffy triple-A mainstream games? Besides... why does it even matter whether or not we know the game's great from the coverage? We already know PoE is shaping up to be awesome. You're the one talking about how pointless it is for a game like this to have a presence at E3 because it won't even get coverage. According to you, whether or not it gets coverage has nothing to do with whether or not it's even good. AND how big it is (Bastion was a 9-person team, making their first-ever game.) Appealing games generate appeal. The majority of gamers shift around. They get burnt out on things, and try other things. So long as they're pretty cool, they're pretty cool. Besides, even if only 200,000 people in the whole world learn of PoE from its E3 coverage, that's still a lot of people. Who will then talk about it to any of their friends/family who might also like it, whether or not it's because they're already hunting down that specific type of game. Since isometric RPGs haven't been super huge in the past decade or so, there are plenty of people who haven't really been exposed to them. Are you gonna tell me that every single person who plays games today and maybe has never even seen an isometric RPG before is inherently averse to that entire concept of game? No... See, people go see cheap movies with explosions, and they still go see good quality movies. That's how people work. The people at E3 aren't going to go out of their way hunting down isometric RPGs, but that's what E3's for. They're interested in what they'll see at E3. If they see it and like it, then awesome. Just because a bunch of people only care about the next Call of Duty game doesn't mean they are all the gamers in the world. It just means that fewer people will care about PoE than Call of Duty. Publishers don't avoid backing these types of games because they're stupid and useless and no one wants them. They think "I could put up 20 million, and in 2 years make 100 million, OR I could put up 5 million and in two years make 10 million. I think I'll go with the first one." It's relative. There are plenty of people who would find PoE interesting and enjoyable. Even if that's 5% of the "masses."

Yes, to be fair. Maybe I should say "to be objective"? You're missing the fact that Obsidian showing ONE E3 presentation that we hafta wait like a week to see in no way negates the 79 updates they provided us with before that (all that stuff we didn't have to read about via press articles... yeah, that.) Besides, I don't know what that has to do with the sheer fact that Kickstarted games tend to present information directly to the populous, rather than using the press as a liaison. Call it an excuse if you feel like. I just thought it was something that's true that you were choosing to ignore. You don't have to defend yourself like it somehow proves there aren't incompetent/lazy journalists out there. I haven't even watched that video you're referencing (can't view most media sites from work), which is precisely why I'm not commenting directly on whether or not those particular journalists are crappy or not, much less making excuses for them. I'm not really worried about what you decide is what. I'm just here to say my part and be done. /Done

To be fair, Hiro, you're ignoring the fact that AAA titles often keep stuff WAY more under wraps than Kickstarter titles. It's not that all the readers of that magazine have backed the game, so they can't tell anyone "new" about that game's info. It's that the development team is posting updates on a weekly basis about pretty much everything they're doing. With the newest iteration of Call of Duty, do you just go to some website and read about what the devs have been working on for the past week or so? No, you read preview articles about it... written by journalists... you know, the only people the publisher/developers will share info with? So, there's that. I'm not saying "and therefore ALL gaming journalists are awesome and know how to write articles and don't use things as lame excuses." But, it's not as if they have absolutely no reason at all for writing about Kickstarted titles to be any different from writing about AAA titles, as you seem to be suggesting with the whole "all those reasons aren't reasons at all and are just lame excuses."

@Randomthom, you are correct. My apologies. Part of what I was getting at, though, with the "you see yourself as superior" bit, was that seeing a negative in someone who is of a particular "race" is automatically seeing something that you (as someone not of that race) don't have. But, you are correct in that it can actually be a positive assumption you're making about a race, as well. Although, again, to be clear, there's a difference between making a general comment, and literally believing that every single member of a given race possesses some trait just because they're of that race. Again, if I were to say that Asians tend to be shorter than Westerners, I'm not walking up to a 7-foot asian person and telling them they're short because they're Asian, and "Asians are short." I guess the reason I'm clarifying that is that it kinda bugs me how almost anything attributed in any way to ethnicity/genes nowadays gets pegged by some people as racist or somehow negative. "Oh my crap! You can't point out that it's rare in that gene pool to see teal-colored eyes!" Sometimes, people sort of start inadvertently fighting "differencism." Like our differences aren't what make us unique and interesting as human beings. Annnnywho... Thanks for pointing all that out. I wasn't really doing a lot of that much justice with what I said. My bad.

I remember after Mass Effect 2 came out, seeing someone walk into Gamestop the day after i released to trade-in the game, outraged, because they thought it was just going to be a shooter. That's where just basing everything on video footage leads. I think it's a little beyond just a preference. If you can't be bothered to find out about the mechanics and design of a game, and must only see some moving pixels that represent it, then simply decide to get it/like it, etc., then you're guaranteeing yourself some issues. I'm not going to judge anyone for liking video footage. It's great. But it's not like it's the complete package. And I don't think a flawed process for determining what games to like/try should really be encouraged or accommodated. That's one of the main things wrong with mainstream game development today. There's a higher priority placed on conveying excitement about the game than there is on the actual quality/innovation of the game's design. This is why we get "THE ALL NEW DEATHREAPER 12 ENGINE, WITH REALER THAN REALITY PHYSICS!", then gameplay mechanics that take about 2% advantage of that level of physics. Why? It's more important that buildings collapsed realistically than it is that that actually affected the gameplay. Old games with terrible physics still have mechanics that take loads better advantage of physics-based mechanics, etc.

Aye! This was something pointed out in some developer interview (can't remember which one) as one of the sort of unintended detriments of making a game for a publisher (not just HAVING a publisher, but the traditional publisher-funded game scheme). I mean, either way, you've got milestones in your timeline, to keep to a schedule. But, often, apparently, the publisher treats the whole thing in a much more business-y manner, and they want you to show them pretty, polished demos of everything you're doing. So, often, the team ends up having to spend hours and hours putting together some shnazzy-looking demo, polishing characters and creatures and mechanics that sometimes end up not even being in the final game. Milestone after milestone. You have to do a bunch of pre-emptive polishing that doesn't necessarily end up coinciding with the things that actually needed polish. It's kind of a "go ahead and paint this whole room red so we can see what it looks like, even though we'll probably change the color and you could've just painted a little swatch."

^ Explain Bastion, then. It took home about 1,000 awards the year it debuted at E3, and went on to be a huge success, despite being nothing like the mainstream AAA titles.

No worries. Your English seems pretty good to me. I wouldn't have suspected you weren't a native speaker, Regarding the dragon thing... it's true that stating the results of an objective comparison between dragons and humans is not racist. What would be racist is if you deemed the life/existence of another race inherently lesser than your own. Racism isn't about scientific genetic comparisons. Hell, Norse folk tend to have blond hair. Certain ethnicities tend to be taller than others, etc. That's not racism. Racism is "I'm better than you, and you're beneath me. If you die/suffer, it's fine, and you should, and I should benefit, etc." I get what you're saying, though. It starts becoming skewed with things like dragons versus humans, etc. But, I think that might be one of the reasons that most fantasy races (playable ones, usually) are humanoid. So that we can identify with them. But, yeah, the idea is, if you're a creature capable of worrying and planning and deciding things and evaluating philosophy, etc., then that should be considered. If dragons can speak and reason and aren't all instinct and hunter, then dragons sapiently deciding to just eat all humans/humanoids is no different from humans just deciding that dragons are wild beasts that must be slain on-sight, no questions asked. It's an arbitrary conclusion jumped to because of physical form/traits. "Oh, that dragon's a big monster, 'cause it's huge and possesses incredible destructive power. I don't care if it can think and feel and co-exist." Or "Oh, I'm so much mightier than those humans, wit h their little squishy bodies. Their existence is insignificant, so I'll just kill them all for sport." Racism is the justification of the idea that something not possessing the same traits as you (as attributed to "race"/genetics/culture/blood/what-have-you) is inherently less significant and/or is deserving of malice. At its core, it doesn't matter if it's between beings of pure energy and humans, or human-like races and humans, or just humans and humans... or dragons and slightly-different-types-of-dragons, even.