Gromnir

fixed. giant meteor would cause considerable collateral damage. a meteor, even the size o' a marble, would more than do the trick. HA! Good Fun!

am s'posing that the devil and the deep blue sea options is appropriate in the present context. unfortunately, am not certain what the candidates actual represent. bruce is the board's stuart smalley. politically, bruce is a bit random, but he sure does think obama and clinton are swell, so... wod? sure, we got two ends o' a spectrum, but is less a political divide than temperament. HA! Good Fun!

*chuckle* so, the conspiracy theorists work themselves into a lather over nothing... again. HA! Good Fun!

if she could spit forth gouts of radioactive fire, our vote would be hers w/o reservation. HA! Good Fun!

funny. when we ask for specifics, Then you sudden become taciturn? *chuckle* HA! Good Fun!

stated by whom? sensuki has provided sketchy details and we clear has not followed this silliness elsewhere. how were interview set up, and with whom? letter? email? phone call? who were parties to setting up the interview? when were interview set-up? when and where (specific) were interview scheduled to take place? any specific provisos regarding possible cancellations communicated at time interview were set up? how were interview canceled? when, specific? who communicated cancellation and to whom were cancellation communicated? email? phone call. snail mail? were reason given for cancellation? what, if any, were reason provided for cancellation? specific. did codex respond to the cancellation? how did codex respond? who at codex responded? there were a request for personal info from infiltron, yes? when? who specific requested? how were such a request communicated? to whom were request communicated? how did codex respond? who at codex actual responded? etc. there is folks telling us what were reasons for cancellation, but nothing in quotes as we would expect. am not seeing dates or specific names or anything we would expect from folks confident that they been done wrong. simple oversight? possible. in our experience, folks screwed over loves to give details. gotta pull teeth to get info from shady... not our board shady, but non-specific sketchy shady characters. sensuki's reasons (transparent as they may be,) is largely irrelevant. if some genuine wrong were done to codex, then the wrong should be communicated fully, and with supporting evidence. HA! Good Fun!

useless? are you kidding? am not caring if it is the world's most uncomfortable chair, but it would be extreme useful for when family visits. the kids would love it and we would derive much pleasure as we strike a slouching super-villain pose while deigning listen to our aunts, cousins, and uncles complain 'bout... whatever. "yes, please do continue." HA! Good Fun! ps we would buy one today if not for fact that such silliness is almost always ridiculous expensive and we is too cheap to throw away money on such joke props.

I believe the meme is, "Fixed that for you." You're welcome. Causality is overrated. doesn't look fixed. not take a person serious simple 'cause they is a journalist would be a bit curious. is any number o' journalists we take serious. am betting there is journalists hurl takes serious. one would expect that there is journalists that nonek takes serious in spite o' his fix. that being said, is clear no reason to take somebody serious just 'cause they claim to be a journalist. the internet has spawned a blogging culture that has diluted what were once journalism. is particular tough considering how little the more respectable print journalists actual get paid. http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Reporter,_Newspaper/Salary we take journalists as serious as their work demands. bad journalists, which is the norm 'mongst so-called gaming journalists, deserve little respect. others? http://www.cjr.org/analysis/the_best_and_worst_journalism_of_2015.php is good and bad. HA! Good Fun!

yeah, 'cause they can't cancel pending the release o' the desired info. isn't as if these things ain't scheduled months in advance. whole thing sounds absolute idiotic. not to provide limited identity info to a corporate entity from whom you is requesting interviews is jackarse stoopid. one thing sensuki got right it seems is that the timing is largely irrelevant. sarex suggest some kinda subpoena situation is occurring, which makes even more ridiculous. why did they cancel our complete unrelated interview? well perhaps the legal action they is taking 'gainst one o' your editors could explain that quirky behavior... but again, is all second and third and perhaps four or more people removed from whatever is the actual truth. HA! Good Fun! ps and in case some is missing, is sensuki who added the info 'bout the request for identifying info from codex regarding infiltron. sensuki obvious thought that nugget were relevant to his story. sure, perhaps he didn't realize the significance, but try and ignore? bad.

with a beta run, you coulda' had a paladin, fighter, rogue and barbarian and four o' your party woulda' been extreme light on the micromanagement. that being said, initially, when beta were released, combat felt frenetic even with low micromanagement. in spite o' fact that you couldn't do much other than move your pawns, enemies had all kinda abilities. the pace o' combat were quick. HA! Good Fun!

Not that I'm defending the Codex, couldn't care less about them, but the way Gromnir has been spinning it makes it sound like InExile just wanted to know who they were talking to, which certainly doesn't seem to be the case. we got no idea what is details other than what sensuki provided. he noted that codex were asked for name and email and etc, but didn't elaborate when we asked if the info requested were more intrusive. did they wanna subpeona? would be jackarse stoopid to act surprised that an interview were cancelled if a codexian editor is hiding behind anonymity to avoid legal action, no? even so, we can only respond to sensuki and the info he provides, 'cause we sure ain't interested enough to dig for info. HA! Good Fun!

Not really, friendly fire was implemented/ignored in RPGs according to whatever worked for that particular game since the inception of the genre. I'm more worried about Obsidian dropping 6 member parties and Josh Sawyer mentioning on several occasions that combat in Pillars of Eternity was confusing due to the party size, which quite frankly seems ridiculous to me. Honestly I thought it was a mess in PoE. There were so many abilities and spells scattered across so many characters that I gave up micromanaging early on. I'd prefer smaller parties. In D&D I don't remember having so many abilities for melee and ranged folks, meaning I could just micromanage the magic ones. improved ai for companions could help. we has noted frequently that in team sports games you got called plays. instead o' micromanaging for sports teams, you call a play that results in the entire team executing a complex set o' instructions. individual companion ai improvements would be nice, but with a party we would actual prefer what has been standard in team sports since forever-- called plays. that being said, we much enjoyed that the poe non-spell casters had depth and breadth o' abilities. one reason why the rogue were one o' our two least favorite poe classes is 'cause the passive abilities were, in general, superior to actives. build a good melee rogue simple meant finding ways to maximize damage to foes suffering from status effects. once combat started, our rogue were almost like a fire-and-forget missile. we would send the rogue out and have him/her attack prone (or whatever) enemies. dull. our other party members could do stuff, but the rogue would simple chunk disabled foes. as a matter o' fact, the original beta poe fighter were much like the rogue. fighter were low maintenance tanky/defensive class. the original paladin were also extreme low maintenance but were support and tanky. clearly the poe developers had intended to provide multiple classes that did not require much micromanagement. fail. considerable pre and post release changes resulted in the fighter and paladin becoming much more active once poe combat began, 'cause that is what folks wanted. kinda sux for hurl, but the poe that woulda' suited him best were the early beta. am not sure what lessons the obsidian developers took from poe, but post release, there were a clear evolution o' multiple classes that increased their level o' micromanagement. HA! Good Fun!

*snort* what is it 'bout the internet that it breeds this curious mentality that the obsidans and inxiles owe the nameless and faceless mob details o' their business, but when such businesses ask for the most innocuous level o' reciprocity (name and email) from those who intend to print interviews, we is treated to public displays o' bitter mewling and anguished hair rending. if codex had provided the requested info and inxile still wouldn't allow the interview, then we would understand sensuki's public pity party. HA! Good Fun!

have no idea. do you? am guessing that the rpgwatch (never been to the site) news editor, if they have one, would be enough to satisfy. has rpg watch ever misquoted or misrepresented inxile? regardless, it were a reasonable request to ask for info. codex didn't provide. don't really have much cause to complain at that point. HA! Good Fun! ps and name and email is hardly an NSA-level intrusion, is it? did inxile also request social security, mother's maiden name, city o' birth?

articles is published by a number o' staff indeed. makes worse for codex, not better. you give 'em the personal info for those capable o' publishing? insulating anonymity o' the internet is swell and all for the codex, but is less amusing to publishers and developers. to you it is a wrong detail. a reasonable request for info were made to codex and it were not provided. if you think inXile had no reason to demand such info, then take a stand such as you did. good on you all. even so, can't act all that shocked and surprised when inXile chooses not to grant interviews when codex don't provide basic info. HA! Good Fun!

agreed. am not certain that mewling over the petty injustice is the best way to sell the hardcore nature o' the codex. am s'posing that the codex has a few drama queens, but give inXile one o' their demeaning poster tags woulda' been a better way to go we s'pose. what is vol's tag at codex? HA! Good Fun!

infiltron is the guy "publishing" the interviews. if misinformation is presented, am wanting to have the name and info o' the guy publishing. and "publish" don't mean he needs get hard copies on his brother copier and send out to dozens o' folks. simple posting at codex counts as "publish." am recalling that chris avellone noted at least once that codex misrepresented his comments during an interview. it happens, often complete by accident and w/o malice. the thing is, if such kinda stuff happens, one is Not contacting codex to discuss with infiltron or sensuki or whomever. am gonna get names and real info, or the relationship ends. HA! Good Fun!

I think you might be misinterpreting something here. "The PR agency also asked for Infinitron's personal information - name, email address etc, Codex staff declined to give it." can't give basic info o' the guy posting the interviews and releasing info to the public? no interviews with codex would be the predictable outcome, no? regardless, to respond to hurl, folks become as emotional invested in their fan and review sites as they does with a game. game is played a couple dozen hours and often forgotten. a game site, on the other hand, can be visited daily for years. a slight or injustice done unto _______ can be far more significant to the gamer than is the actual quality o' the game. we got a prime example (or two) o' that mentality posting in this thread. HA! Good Fun! *edit* weird double-post... kinda

having given interviews, we suspect that refusal to provide name, email and other simple info would be a deal breaker for us. "señor p00pypants" might be a famous nom de guerre for an internet personality, but am not gonna waste our time if an interviewer can't even provide basic personal info. HA! Good Fun!

y'know, every time we get a puppy we marvel at just how long it takes to get 'em house trained. am thinking we much prefer non-puppies. we got older dogs that is as playful as puppies, albeit not quite as cute, but the peeing and the pooping and the wondering when it will all end makes puppies not our favorites. am not a cat person, but it would be fantastic if dogs learned as fast as cats 'bout proper places to vacate bladders and bowels. ... not actual football 2016, but... HA! Good Fun! ps we did have jaw drop moments when we saw multiple articles compare kaepernick favorably to muhammad ali and jackie robinson. tough to sympathize 'bout media mistreatment.

still could be a career ender. is too bad. am thinking it weren't fair to bridegwater, but more than a couple sports outlets were predicting a major step forward for the young vikes qb this year. ah well, good luck to him. pre-season injuries is inevitable but is a few teams getting hit extreme hard this year. some speculate that the reduced practices and reduced conditioning is actual a reason, but is all speculation at this point. heck, we even feel a bit bad for romo... though we gotta admit that when we played, we genuine were attempting to put guys in the hospital with every hit. intimidation were a big part o' the game. wr gets alligator arms after a couple big hits and rbs sudden is more concerned 'bout ball protection as 'posed to yac. when we did knock a guy unconscious or injure him, we would pretend to feel bad, but inside we were doing a little happy dance. *shrug* it is a rough sport.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X70VMrH3yBg can always use a little boom-boom. HA! Good Fun!

as an aside, our favorite fishing song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQC2_NJj2iA HA! Good Fun!

it isn't anything like lying by omission. nothing from his statement were left out o' the report. 49ers backup qb views on other topics, political and personal, were wholly irrelevant to determining whether kaepernick's reasoning were reported accurate. *shrug* a backup qb sits for national anthem and gets far more coverage than would bart if somebody noticed him sit. am not seeing any reason to complain 'bout media as a whole. there was nothing for the media to set straight regarding his protest or the coverage o' kaepernick's response. of course they had no reason to "help set the record a little more straight" (enough qualifiers?) 'cause the record is pretty darn straight regarding what were said by kaepernick. and the media understandably has no interest in correcting every other media source that were too mean to kaepernick. kaepernick got no special insights on the issue, but simple by being a backup qb he got far more attention than would you. to complain 'bout media being unfair to kaepernick strikes us as a difficult proposition to swallow. HA! Good Fun!

Accurate, but incomplete. It isn't quite lying by omission - because yes, Keapernick was stupid enough to only give that initial answer - but the more trash talking I hear about Kaepernick as a result of this story, the more it begins to feel like it, particularly when the media seems to have no interest in trying to help set the record a little more straight. If the media's only duty is to make money and be at least technically honest (avoiding breaking any laws and also thus not having any qualms about not bothering to follow up a story that affects the general perception of a person), then I'll be trying my best to avoid giving the media any clicks or views... ...But I already try to do that anyways. there is no lie by omission. how did the media lie by omission? kaepernick has other things he wanna protest? fine. that don't change at all why he sat for the national anthem. the reporter reported kaepernick's response as to why. they did accurate and Complete. were not that kaepernick gave more answer but the reporter only printed half the answer. That would be lie by omission. fact that kaepernick failed to give a good answer is not fault o' the reporter. is no duty on the reporter to do other than report accurate. lie by omission? not even close. you are being unfair to the initial reporter regarding this story. you got a particular beef with a few reporters that went overboard and spun nonsense 'bout kaepernick? fine. link the bad stories. am betting there were more than a few. we can also link dozens o' brief reports that provided just the facts w/o any kinda editorializing. regardless, this is a poor example for media fails as a whole. kaepernick has gotten more attention and more coverage than his protest likely deserves. his protest, and the reason for protest were covered and covered accurate, and kaepernick even got substantial follow-up from many sources. not a good example. HA! Good Fun!