kanisatha

Thanks for the summary! I'm actually really happy that the 1,000 planets will not all be teaming with life and full of stuff to do. That would be entirely unrealistic and kill my immersion. I want to land on planets that are barren/desolate. I want to land on planets that only hold resources I can extract and pretty much nothing else. That's not boring for me at all. To the contrary, that's what would be interesting to me. Sooooo excited for this game!! I wonder if I can still run it and play it even though my computer doesn't quite meet all the minimum requirements, especially not having an SSD?

Interesting that the wording involves "sovereignty" without mention of territory and borders. That will be an immediate 'no' for Ukraine, with justified reason.

Maybe of interest to you: https://gamerant.com/bioshock-infinite-similarities-clockwork-revolution-trailer-brian-fargo/ https://www.ign.com/articles/microsoft-responds-to-clockwork-revolution-bioshock-infinite-similarities

Well, supposedly there are reasons to be hopeful of a third-person option: 1) Apparently in a job posting from Obsidian for Avowed back in 2019/20, they specifically asked for people with programming skills and experience in both first-person and third-person combat animations. 2) In certain places in the recent gameplay trailer they do show both exploration and combat animations in third-person. But of course it remains to be seen if these reflect in-game gameplay or are merely cinematic displays. 3) When Grounded was released Obsidian said they did not have any plans to add a third-person option for that game, and yet now they have announced the addition of a third-person option for that game. So, all taken together, some measure of cautious optimism?

Yes it is first-person, and because it is inXile I would imagine there's no chance of a third-person option. Also, time travel as a concept really bugs me in all forms of entertainment. If it is possible to go back in time and change anything and everything, is anything real? Does anything matter?

Anyone seen this? I can't decide if it is something I'd like to play or not:

Hello Obsidian! What's with the recent push to make first-person-only games? When TOW1 was released, Obsidian claimed they couldn't include a third-person option because of their budget limitations. Well, things are different now, aren't they?

Yeah this is what may prevent me from buying it right away. I think my current computer will really struggle with it.

I'm happy to pay $70 for Starfield as I know I will thoroughly enjoy that game and be playing it possibly through the end of my life. Totally worth it. OTOH, it is BG3 that I'll be waiting for 40+% off sale price to buy it. And Avowed (and TOW2) I won't buy at any price unless it comes with a third-person option.

It really bothers me that this question isn't being addressed in any of the interviews (Carrie Patel, where are you?) or here on the forum where devs are supposedly reading posts. I can live with any and all other issues with Avowed, and would very likely enjoy playing the game as it has been described thus far. But the first-person perspective exclusive with no third-person option is very much a deal-breaker. And I'm quite sure that will be the case with a great many others. Their now-fellow stablemate Bethesda seems to have no problem having both options in their games including in Starfield. So as far as I'm concerned there are no legitimate reasons for not including a third-person option in Avowed (and in TOW2 for that matter).

Starfield gameplay:

Heh. I was going to ask the same thing.

I predict Boeing or Northrop Grumman gets the contract and not LM.

Patriot comes in a quad towed-TEL (transporter erector launcher). The military unit known as a battery can vary in how many such launchers it has. US Patriot batteries have either four or six launchers each (typically four), plus all the other pieces such as the radar, engagement control station, power plant, etc.

I'm still entirely on CDs for my music, since I stopped being interested in any new music by the late-90s. I have around 270 CDs in my collection.

The Solasta DLC is releasing on the 25th. A good preview here:

The US brought it up with the SA government back in December itself. The ambassador's comments were merely the first public comments.

https://news.yahoo.com/russia-belarus-strategy-document-230035184.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAxet4LIxuvF8daGVL25xrQOh2eFTNvz2adU9oXvrFkPomK_-H4MMvPP0Ia82xWTmOFWNR3n0Yl3GS7cI2XKBLTvhxbj5C62vPfyDbsxUpBexBZL0SegWMfIacowyisjecDImBjaQUNqTERlclGar_-KSs5dF61L2xl83sq-pEJq

It has no future. It will be fully absorbed into Russia before the end of this decade.

Foundation was the only one I ended up adding to my wishlist. I don't like builders with a lot of combat and invasions and the like. I just want to be left alone to build my city/empire. And, I also don't like the games that track each settler/citizen individually as a person, with stats and such, because then I will end up very attached to my people and be super-depressed when they die on me.

Thanks! I also have Kingdoms Reborn in my wishlist, and had Ostriv for a long while before dropping it because I got tired of waiting for it to leave EA. Now off to investigate those other titles.

Would you mind listing the city-builder games on your wishlist? I only have two (including Farthest Frontier) in mine, but love these games and want to be sure I don't miss any potentially good ones. And yeah, I also am a hard 'no' on Early Access games.

Buy Raytheon stock now.

Well, you still have to put something on the table for the Russian people to believe the lie. Even lies need an anchor. The "prize" that Putin was going to serve up to the Russian people was supposed to be Kiev. But he failed (miserably) to deliver on that prize. So Bakhmut has become the consolation prize, something with which Putin gets to justify all of the many, many ways in which the Russian people have paid a heavy price for Putin's stupid war. But, in the process, Bakhmut has also become some sort of 'white whale' for Putin, something he *must* have no matter the cost.

Putin has no choice but to keep at it in Bakhmut, because only by capturing Bakhmut can he then go to his people and tell them he has achieved a huge success in the war and can then declare "victory" in the war and try to force the Ukrainians to accept a ceasefire that locks in the current frontlines. Capturing Bakhmut being some sort of big "win" is complete b.s., of course, but it's the Russian people he'll be looking to convince, and they can be convinced of anything. And the Ukrainians understand all of this, and are therefore using Bakhmut to make the Russians pay dearly.