213374U

Yeah, because every time a drunkard makes a mess, it's everyone's fault, but his. Therefore, everyone must pay, but him. And so they do.

Shut up fool, he's him. He has a different constitution, a different brain, a different heart. What you see is obviously his tiger blood.

Agreed. Probabilities of yet another Trek movie being any good were pretty small as well, but the facelift did work, surprisingly enough. So as long as the probabilty is non-zero (Uwe Boll directing for example), I'm not against a sequel. What I'd really like to see though is new stuff that compares favorably to the masterpieces of the past. After watching Repo Men, I'm increasingly convinced that there's something very wrong at the core of the (sci-fi) filmmaking business. Is talent a thing of the past or what? What I don't see is how a crappy sequel or spinoff reflects on the original, though. Same as with the automatic trashing of sequels of cult games, me no understand.

That's... eye opening. Throughout DAO I had the feeling that they had set the right stage to tell some tragic, dark tales... and then they had gone out of their way to introduce a HeRoIC (read: win-win) way of solving quests that reversed that effort completely. Connor is a good example of this. You can have his mother sacrifice herself to perform a dangerous ritual that can save her son. Or you could risk going to the Circle to get them to do the safer version of the ritual. Only... there is no such risk. Apparently all the abomination aspires to is turning his uncle into the court's buffoon and isn't threatened at all by the heroes' actions, so it'll wait patiently for you to go get some reinforcements. Hell, you can solve the rest of the plots before going back and dealing with it and despite the sense of urgency you get through the quest, nothing ever happens. Eamon doesn't kick the bucket. Undead hordes don't ravage the countryside. The kid stays patiently in his room. This effectively renders Isolde's sacrifice meaningless. The scene of the bargain offered by the desire demon is similarly cheapened. You can learn the single most overpowered specialization in the game from her, for the fair and reasonable price of an innocent's soul. Or you could, you know, unlock the specialization for that and subsequent playthroughs and then reload the game and be a hero (a dark hero if you become a blood mage). Same with the Reaver spec, etc. The game is full of these cheap choices that allow for the player to win all scenarios no matter what, paving the way for an "optimal" way through the game, and a suitably chirpy epilogue. Of course you can still roleplay and purposefully make calls that get people killed needlessly, but then when you are told by Alistair that "there could have been another way!", you know he's telling the truth. He's not na

Good to know that you can handle the whole Obsidz boards experience. Funny though, that you felt the need to take a potshot and call names. Shows how strongly you don't care.

Hmm, no. Poker is a completely different game with a strong component of randomness and where body language reading can provide the edge. Also, previous hands don't directly define subsequent rounds and so patterns are much less important. I'm hard pressed to think of a worse game you could have chosen to compare with. At any rate, I don't see how being a FIDE master (and I'm going to grant the benefit of doubt and assume you're not just pulling stuff out your ass) is interchangeable with being a cognitive scientist and therefore an authority on the matter. Would you let Lance Armstrong perform heart surgery on you? Perhaps you'd like to cite some actual authorities. You know, so you have something more solid to stand on than "bull**** moran" and "no U". http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguide...89TJCB47VF1HDQ9 ^Not an academic piece by any means, but illustrates what I'm saying. See, I'm not just "speculating". Is pattern recognition "memory" in the same sense as reciting a bunch of historical dates? Probably not. Is it "reasoning" in the sense of solving problems one has no familiarity with? Nope, it's not that either. I was wrong to say there's no skill involved in playing chess. Mostly because I can't very well define what constitutes "skill", without falling back to the notion of success and building on top of that. And since some players consistently win and others consistently lose, there is definitely a degree of "skill" involved. Whatever that may be. Irrelevant. Apples aren't oranges. Grom already made this argument, btw. Read the chess discussion part and how sophistication isn't necessary for complexity. DA2, judging from the demo, is neither sophisticated nor complex. [citation needed] I'm inclined to believe otherwise, given that intelligence is an important factor in a person's character. http://booksthatmakeyoudumb.virgil.gr/ (not to be taken too seriously!) "No true Scotsman..." It's also circular logic. Good entertainment will attract many people. It attracts many people because it's good. That says very little about the quality of whatever it is you're talking about. Semantics. "Defined" vs "influenced", "affected" and "reflected on". Pivotal design decisions affect the essence of a game. Traditional RPG conventions were getting in the way of the enjoyment of the game for many people, as revealed by datamining, so they had to go. Or so said Laidlaw. Good point. Maybe indeed. So then we're left with Grom's point that Bio simply has drawn all the wrong conclusions, in light of their changes to the game. Heh.

"You are wrong because I say so. Also, my dad can beat up your dad." Thanks man. Everything is clear now. Next.

Chess is essentially pattern recognition. You can perhaps recognize a pattern if you haven't seen it before, but having played a gazillon games and being familiar with the most common patterns is what distinguishes top-ranked players from amateurs. In high-level games, reasoning and branch pruning heuristics may play a bigger role as players go out of their way to seek less analyzed scenarios, but other than that, yeah, it's memory.

Chess is a game where a small number of simple rules can produce a huge variety of situations - that's a degree of complexity that's absent from modern day games. At any rate, chess can take a lifetime to master because it's essentially a memory game, not one of skill. Masters memorize thousands of structures and how the game will develop depending on the move so they can play two or three turns ahead of the game, that's how they can play n games simultaneously against lower-ranked opponents and beat them relatively effortlessly. So, I'm going to say, not terribly relevant. Complexity has no inherent value, you say. Once again, I'm underwhelmed by your not-so-insightful remarks, considering that I'm not arguing for greater complexity for complexity's sake. I know that no single element has inherent value, as they are simply tools at the game designer's disposal. A deliberate lack of complexity can be as bad as a deliberate excess, as is the case with salt. You have come to like simple things (false btw, what you are hinting at is your preference for emergent complexity, as your chess example shows) Good for you. I like fiddly stuff. It's a sloppy rebuttal too because I didn't say smart(-er) people necessarily enjoy more complex games, either, which is what you disputed. Look at the *other* side of the curve. Smooth Grom, real smooth.

Cool story bro. Now, re-read my post and try to compose a response that isn't a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived insult (PROTIP: the meat* of the argument is in the proportions and how dumbing down is a deliberate effort supported by customer behavior studies, to expand their potential target segment, not that people who enjoy BW games are stupid). Didn't I say I'd settle for their cinematic shooters? Yes, yes I did. I'm not crying over the spilled milk. I eat more Whoppers than filet mignons in a year, anyway. *pun not intended

Yes. And? I'm not sure how looking at actual player data is a bad thing. And, how about you read the rest of my post and the post I made afterwards making my position clear -and why I don't like the result of their datamining- instead of trying to put me in my place? The real complaint is that it's simpler to get rid of the curve altogether, than make an approachable game with scaling difficulty and progressive complexity. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/vie...2454-Easy-Games No, but it's a rule of thumb that tends to work better than approaching anything and everything with wide-eyed innocence and high expectations. Do you accept that stupid(-er) people prefer simpler entertainment formulas? Do you accept that the distribution of intelligence in a given sample follows a gaussian distribution? DA2 is, by virtue of being defined by conclusions drawn from customer behavior analysis, a lowest common denominator game. This doesn't mean DA2 will be a thoroughly unenjoyable piece of **** with no redeeming qualities whatsoever - rather, it means that BioEA would rather serve Whoppers than filet mignons, because demand for the former is bigger and they understandably want to make more money in a business where filet mignons and Whoppers are priced equally.

I'd be more inclined to believe that were it not for the fact that the huge step backwards that is DA2 (as far as what I want to see in RPGs goes) is the result, among other things, of datamining influencing the development process. As a result of the realization that I hold "fringe views" wrt computer games in general and RPGs in particular, coupled with the de facto democratization of design decisions adopted by Bio, I have given up all hope that they will make the kind of game I want, and will have to settle for their cinematic shooters at best, and perhaps the MMO. I no longer feel like collaborating with them for anything. Do you see yet why I don't appreciate their efforts to make me use their bastardized Facebook? And tinfoil hats are, like, so 90's.

Yeah... you do know that Bio has used datamining techniques to gather info on their playerbase, right? And that said info has been used to make design decisions? Considering the result, I'm not surprised at all that Gorth wants to keep that **** to a minimum.

This is probably as rigorous as you can get without shelling out some dough for professional market data, but a quick search at Gamerankings returned these results. http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?pa...10&numrev=3 http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?pa...01&numrev=3 Take that as you will. Not even the 2010 economic crisis has been able to reverse the tendency of increasing numbers of released titles per year. Not making any statements on the overall shape of the gaming industry; what is pertinent to this topic is how more games released per year means potentially more time spent playing games than actually modding them.

I don't think you have to encourage players to do anything... they will do it if they like the game well enough. I think also the growing number of releases per year is a factor too - modders have a finite number of leisure hours, and may prefer to spend them playing new titles than modding old ones, regardless of the quality of the tools at their disposal. That said, you may be on to something...

Yes, the "something" you are referring to is actually putting some effort into encounter and monster design, and maybe a bit more into AI, as opposed to just repeating the same structure of stupid, insipid mobs in huge numbers, throughout the whole game. There were a few instances of interesting encounters in DAO (Tower of Ishal Ogre for instance), but they were generally too few and too far between. I want fights that force me to think on my feet and make me come up with something other than the same routines that work 99% of the time. I want different enemy groups to have different abilities that require me to actually pay attention to what's going on and do something other than "mana clash the mage, mop up". None of this can be accomplished simply by changing the damage and health factors across the board, it's something that needs to be done, at least to an extent, manually. If you know a bit about BG2 mods, the difference between the current approach and what I'm talking about is like the difference between the cheese-ridden Tactics and the performance-killer Sword Coast Stratagems. re ME2: in ME2, enemies simply use their powers more often in higher difficulties (which isn't that big of a deal really, as enemy powers are weaksauce anyway, except for Harby's), enemies are equally brain-dead in all difficulties. I really like ME2 gameplay, and I think the combat in that game is deeper than what most people admit, but this isn't terribly relevant as that game is essentially a shooter, and your squadmates are artificially gimped so they don't steal Shepard's thunder. It's also more evidence that Bio can't (or won't bother to) program AIs for ****...

This is missing the point completely. You know that the way difficulty sliders work, only coefficients affecting enemy health and DPS are changed, and maybe stuff like crit % and resists. Turning up the difficulty doesn't result in more complexity in encounters, smarter enemies, or more dangerous use of the abilities they have. They are basically the same, with artificially inflated stats. This causes two main problems: combat is just as boring, but now it requires more micromanagement as you are forced to repeat the same kiting/healing/potion AI-exploit cheese routines in every fight - in short, managing combat becomes a chore. The second problem, it doesn't help with immersion if the lowest sorry ass bandits can stand up to the Savior/Champion/Hero in question, and give him a run for his money, because they have end-boss level stats as a result of lazy difficulty scaling design.

You mean, of course, universal suffrage. They aren't one and the same. Largely irrelevant, at any rate, as universal suffrage as it's currently implemented in Western countries is a system -or rather, a sham- built to guarantee stability with the rise to power of the middle class. We aren't really that much smarter, more refined, better looking than people two thousand years ago, that's for sure. If anything, we have better marketing and PR, but that's it. I'm just taking random potshots here, because I haven't slept today so forgive me if I'm a bit all over the place. You are right, we don't bash each other's heads with stones. We invented an industrial process to bash the heads of other people en masse, and from a distance. And, lo and behold, two world wars in less than a quarter century, followed by a "cold war" whose strategic foundation is deeply rooted in the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. The resolution of that game has brought us to a period of fierce economic warfare and constant, low-intensity regional conflicts influenced by global forces. Frankly, I'm not convinced that our way is more "sensible" at all, unless by sensible you actually mean sophisticated. It's the same old, same old kill your neighbor, take his stuff. We just keep raising the stakes, is all.

What does this mean? It means that Bio would much rather make Indigo Prophecy 2 than Baldur's Gate 3. DA2 needn't be a bad game, but it sure as **** is shaping up to be a pretty atrocious RPG. In truth, this is to be expected - for Bio, gameplay has always been just a vehicle for storytelling. When gameplay was solid (we're talking NWN here), this was cool. But considering that players would much rather have a romanceable king Cailan than actual tactical depth and varied, well-designed encounters, solid and distinct class development etc, it's not surprising that they are scrapping certain aspects of "traditional" RPG gameplay. I have faith though that, despite PR talk, their MMO will still essentially be a number crunching business, dominated by a need for careful planning and a strong emphasis on gameplay.

Hahaha. Looks like even Bio fans could be alienated by a design philosophy that revolves around catering to the largest possible amount of people, no matter the price. ADHD-afflicted teenagers putting down the game before earning an achievement? We can't have that - more titties and blood splatter are clearly the solution. And get rid of all those confusing numbers and needlessly convoluted mechanics, not everyone can count, much less add and substract. Oh, and that fazing interface and tactical camera need to go as well, the game is meant to play in autopilot anyway. Sorry folks, but Bio's datamining has revealed that retards players can only be trusted to move from one encounter in the derp roads to the next, that's it. So that's what they are keeping. I also read that DAO's lead designer quit his job shortly after completing work in that game, but he hasn't revealed his reasons. And now those who told us oldfags who wanted a solid RPG to go play Torment are apparently hating the changes. Roofles indeed.

Funny how (pop) history tends to paint the guy at the front of the movement as the defining factor for change - when often nothing could be farther from the truth. Gandhi didn't force the British from India, Hitler and Tojo Hideki did. I remember reading some time ago about a letter sent by ol' Winston to the king when he was the First Sea Lord, expressing concern that the exorbitant costs of maintaining the RN were about as high as the British Raj's, and while the Empire may not need the Raj to survive, the same most certainly could not be said about the Navy. On the thought of non-violence, here's a quote from a guy that, unlike today's generations, knew what he was talking about from personal experience: "We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us."

Funny. Wouldn't that apply to the magazine as well? I have yet to see the anti-piracy corps even comment on that. Yeah... the problem with IP is that it's so ****ty a concept that analogies using real-world things tend to be flimsy at best. There's a very real reason why jaywalking is illegal (potential property and/or personal damage, traffic disruptions...). What's the potential harm that downloading an illegal copy of a freely-distributed demo can do? Honest question. That would be an intelligent, practical and even elegant way to go about it. EA is dogmatic, unlistening and treats customers like retards. But hey, the industry is being destroyed by pirates.

Interesting angle. How would this explain the failure of revolts in several places? Does it correlate with the spread of such comms? I've no idea. If so, get a paper out about it, double quick. It looks more like that the amount of popular access to outside influences (media, trade, etc.) improves the chances of success and the degree of motivation. Ideas can indeed be dangerous. Yeah... the idea that the revolution can actually triumph being the most dangerous of all. Impossible to say for certain, but I doubt things would have gone this far if Ben Ali had managed to stay in power. Is it 1848 all over again?

Feels good man. Anyway, I'm still interested on the distribution permission details for the demo - are copies from the mag under different restrictions than from other sources? This is one odd case of "piracy", where the good being pirated is free, (not even the mag is charging anything for it, even if they clearly stand to gain from releasing early). This whole argument hinges on the assumption that making copies of the demo is copyright infringement. But is it? Demos are, generally, distributed freely. And as far as I'm concerned, Wiki is as good a source as any. It's not like any source is above reproach; this is the internets after all...

I asked because legislation is not homogeneous and I'm pretty certain it's not copyright infringement here in Spain, despite attempts by EU bureaucrats to undermine national sovereignty. At any rate, do you have any information on the relevant TOS? Generally, demos are distributed freely so long as no profit is made. The problem is that the demo was released earlier, and so the only available source in practice is the mag - in theory you would -will- be able to download it from any number of gaming sites. I think the excessive hyperbole benefits neither side, here. Also, what happens when the demo is officially released tomorrow, does it cease being piracy? Or is it piracy still if it's downloaded from MU instead of the EA servers?