kanisatha

What a great blog! As a gamer with a disability (I have a serious hearing impairment), I am so very glad people in the industry (and within Obsidian) are taking accessibility seriously. I require captioning for everything voice-related. But even with captioning pretty common these days, some games leave out crucial bits of the game from their captioning system, such as backgound chatter/banter. It's so very frustrating to hear the sound of someone saying something, but then not be able to know what they said. Keep up the good work! And thanks!!

Well, it clearly says it's a group of investors, with the Saudi PIF being one of them. Throwing "Saudi" into the title seems to be just clickbait. And personally, I think this may be the best thing to happen to all of EA's IPs, in my case especially the DA IP.

After playing several RPGs in a row, I've decided to change things up and play the 4X game Humankind next. Any Humankind veterans here with beginner's tips for me?

No, not yet. I thought it was supposed to come out late this year, which would be around now, but I haven't seen any announcements.

I concur. On the "story," point, yes initially I wrote it as "story" and then changed it to "storytelling." I should've left it the way I originally had my post. On the companions' stories in 1, I loved that for several of them their stories had hooks in the main story and so choices in one affected outcomes (ending slides) in the other. And I cared about the companions' stories and their outcomes. Even Durance, who I recall utterly disliking the first time I played the game way back when, I ended up liking and feeling sympathy for him this time around due to differences in how I roleplayed things. The one negative in PoE1 for me was that I felt there were way too many consumables (and crafting materials). By this I mean way too many different TYPES of consumables, whereby it became too overwhelming for me to try and keep track of what things did what for me. So I hardly ever used any of my consumables, even including scrolls, and never bothered with crafting anything. A lot of game development resources couldv'e been saved going with fewer different types of scrolls/spells, potions, foods, etc.

I finally finished my playthrough of PoE1 including both DLCs. It was a very fun experience. Because I had not replayed the game in a very long time, I had forgotten much of the story and the lore, and so it was like playing the game for the first time. It was clear to me that although PoE2 is mechanically the better of the two, PoE1 is better by a wide margin than 2 in storytelling, character development (especially the companions), world-building, and side quests. This is surprising and puzzling to me because PoE2 is the sequel, and had a bigger budget. But it comes across to me as if the game development team, including JES, didn't have their hearts in PoE2 as much as they did in PoE1. Just my take.

Don't quote me on this, but I think I read in the news on the Congressional hearings that the incident happened in the Red Sea, off Yemen, where we have had routine drone patrols for quite some time now. Well, actually, this is kinda' where I am too. The Drake Equation shows us that there have to be hundreds of planets out there with intelligent life, and I am quite sure of this myself. But at the same time, the vastness of the universe is such that even with hundreds, even thousands of planets holding intelligent life, the distances between those planets will very likely be so great as to make interstellar travel extremely challenging. But, I also think that even as alien beings may not be visiting us, it is much, much more possible, and likely, that alien robotic craft may be visitng us, i.e., UAPs.

Yeah, putting on my aerospace engineer hat tells me the same thing. But I don't buy us or any other earthly power yet having that kind of tech, the tech to create a pure energy shield of that sort.

Well, the Hellfire is no longer just an ATGM. It is now a much more sophisticated all-purpose weapon, including for use by drones, helos, and even the A-10 as an AAM.

The tech gap between the tech in these UAPs and the tech we publicly know about is simply too great/vast. This being "our" tech is actually the more far-fetched explanation, IMO. This possible explanation is beginning to gain traction in some scientific circles.

This is exactly my professional take as well. Putin knows how the military side of NATO will react. No need for him to test that. It is the political side of NATO that is suspect, and it totally makes sense Putin will want to (and will continue to) test the political will and unity of NATO. And Article 4 provocations are the best way to do so as well, because obviously an Article 5 provocation could very well backfire on him.

Yup. This video was shown at the hearing yesterday of the US House committee investigating UAPs. Several ex-military witnesses testified under oath that the DoD has entire servers full of such videos. Damning evidence against the deniers.

This may be more the vampire game for me. Looks interesting, but I'll wait and see.

The game does look interesting and good. But without a third-person mode option, I will have to pass on it.

Both South Korea and Japan *should* go nuclear.

I specifically did not include the UK in my previous observations. The UK has, at least in the past, been a good and reliable ally for us. I was specifically talking about Belgium (and other countries like it), because Belgium was what was brought up.

I wouldn't have much faith that a Ukrainian nuke weapons program (a simple dirty bomb doesn't count) could be kept secret, especially given that the FSB has surely penetrated Ukraine pretty widely.

The so-called War on Terror was a very different animal compared with specific actual wars, like Afghanistan or Iraq. And just like with those wars so too in any Ukraine scenario, several NATO countries will send a handful of troops or a couple of fighter jets, completely symbolic and tactcally useless but where they can then pat themselves on the back and claim that they contributed.

Yes, and for China vis-a-vis Taiwan.

Any Ukrainian move towards acquiring nukes would immediately trigger a full-on Russian assault to overthrow its government and take over the country--at whatever cost including using tac nukes if necessary. Any government in Washington would do the same if Mexico were to ever pursue nukes (or an alliance with Russia/China).

If the US committed itself to fight, it will. If it did not, then probably no. OTOH, with the Europeans, even if they give a commitment to fight, I would not consider it credible or trustworthy. Btw, this is why I believe very strongly that Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states should enter into bilateral security guarantees with the US and possibly UK. Trusting that (European) NATO will defend them is folly which they will surely come to regret.

Witkoff specifically said "Article 5-like." Emphasis on *like*. He then expanded on this by saying it would be something like Article 5 without NATO. And personally, I think Ukraine would be way better off with exactly that: Article 5 without NATO. Because I don't have much faith at all that NATO would actually fight for a country that is invaded by Russia, and by this I specifically mean NATO members like Germany, France, and Spain. The US, even under Trump, will fight. It's the Europeans I don't trust -- at all. So Ukraine is better off with an Article 5-like bilateral commitment from the US, which does *not* need to include US troops on the ground in Ukraine. It is indeed Europeans who should shoulder all of the burden of putting troops on the ground, precisely so that it ties them to Ukraine's defense. It is European fecklessness and free-riding that has brought us to this point in the first place.

Same here. I already got it on Steam.

Yes, the announcement came out of the DoD in a routine memo about US military aid transfers to any and all countries. The news media latched on to it as some sort of policy change coming out of the White House, which it wasn't.

Not a flip-flop. The Defense Dept made that decision based on a routine review without the knowledge or directive of the president.