Amentep

It doesn't? Then what does the doctrine of capitalism say? AFAIK unless there's some newfangled definition, Capitalism only states that means of production, trade and industry aren't controlled (or aren't majority controlled) by the State, that generally private ownership and accumulation of capital are expected. There is wage labor, competitive markets and negotiation of prices. There's actually nothing in that that inherently says anything about profit (or for that matter, treating people ethically).

I'm fairly sure they have a good grasp of who gave it to them and how it reached their hands, though obviously they can't go into the specifics because they have to protect their sources. And that may be true; my guess since the leak was casting call sheets the most likely source for the leak was from someone connected with voice actors/talent agents. But all I'm saying is that what Kotaku offers as proof that the SarahReed post isn't how they got the material is the statement "Those documents did not come from anyone at Bethesda Game Studios." One, at some point the documents DID have to come from Bethesda Game Studios or else they wouldn't have any bearing on Fallout 4. What they mean is that they weren't given the material by someone directly at Bethesda Game Studios. Two, the SarahReed post never claims she gave them to Kotaku - "I leaked some of the first Fallout 4 info by accident, and it ended up in the hands of Kotaku. Oops." In other words, were the SarahReed post true - lets say she accidentally sent the casting call sheet to someone who wasn't bound by a business contract or a NDA while trying to email to a talent agency and that person gave it to Kotaku - then technically both her and Kotaku's statements would be true. So Kotaku's claim doesn't refute hers (although I'd argue Kotaku is probably more reliable as a claimant than an anonymous person on Reddit).

Glorious!

While I think that Kotaku's right and the SarahReed post is phoney, their reasoning is wrong. SarahReed doesn't claim she gave the material to Kotaku, she claims she accidently leaked it and it ended up in the hands of Kotaku. So Kotaku saying "Nuh-uh, we didn't get it from SarahReed!" doesn't prove anything as she didn't claim she gave it to them, only that it was her leak that allowed them to get it.

BTW everyone, quote pyramids are the devil's work. THE DEVIL'S WORK I SAY!!!!11111onetwothreeisthisthingon? I think a valid point to be made with respect to the article written and with respect to Polish/Slavic culture is that in the US there were bigotry and abuse to the Polish, the Italian, the Irish and other non-Anglo-Saxon and/or Protastant groups. Limited housing, limited jobs, ethnic slurs. Was it as bad as Africans or Native Americans or Asians had it? No...but that doesn't make their treatment good. Just as the Page Act of 1875 was created to curb Asian immigration into the United States the Emergency Quota Act (1921) sought to curtail immigration of Jews, Slavs, Italians and generally speaking those from Southern and Eastern Europe deemed undesirable for the US. The Immigration Act of 1924 further restricted immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, as well as Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Indians because, again, WASP types didn't want them in their neighborhoods. While I know a lot of people aren't fans of his work, Tauriq Moosa is of Middle Eastern descent. I'm not sure they're always lying. I would say that people parrot things they've heard, believing they're true because they don't know better very easily on the internet. Even better on Twitter where its easier for an untruth to volly around the twitter-sphere in a quick, pithy comment before the truth can even get started (part of why I think twitterage is so endemic on social media now).

Well that and the idea that growth can be eternal rather than planning for how to deal with fluctuations and downturns, IMO, are huge problems with businesses.

I did want to point out something that I see as a logical issue with these two arguments, and I'm curious as to what other think. Making the argument that "African descendants in a game based on Slavic mythology" /= "European descendants in a game based on Indian mythology" is fair, but to me the argument should be "African descendants in a game based on Slavic mythology" vs "African descendants in a game based on Indian mythology" - if the idea is that Africans need better representation in games, in both cases they'd be minorities underrepresented by the "mainstream" culture of both locals that the stories are based on. To use an example, do people complain that Dynasty Warriors doesn't allow you to create an African player in their create a character soldiers? You could counter that its based in history, but just like the Witcher's relationship with Polish history, Dynasty Warriors is a fictional world - one with magic. 'But there are no monsters, and the original stories are based on history," could be an argument (although the Witcher is based - supposed fairly faithfully - on a book series itself), so what about Warrior's Orochi then? Magic, other worlds, demons and warriors pulled from around the world. But nobody from Africa? Are there complaints about this? What about Jade Empire? Final Fantasy? I ask, because from my perspective this is where the feeling that these complaints are essentially throwing Polish/Slavic culture/myth in with Anglo-Saxon/Celtic/Norse myth as being something that is "from white people" and therefore not as important as something from some non-European locale. Unless, of course, there are cries for Warrior's Orochi, Final Fantasy or other Asian based series to add African based characters that I haven't seen - which is possible - it seems strange to bring the charges against this game as opposed to other games that come from fairly homogenous societies (as I understand Poland and Japan both are) which don't allow for characters from world cultures outside their own. I could clearly be missing something; and its possible there are debates I've missed or this is the start of something that seems rather arbitrary because it is just beginning, but from the outside (having never played a Witcher game) I admit the article left me rather confused as to why it, ultimately to me at least, seemed rather arbitrary in its choice of games to criticise (ie something mainstream popular and "white" rather than niche and Japanese) ore even why there was a need to make an example of any particular game at all.

Congrats! Gainful employment is always a plus (unless you're filthy rich, in which case its a clear minus).

Weird that there's an issue with Dwayne Johnson and Daddario's respective ages (Johnson is 14 years older than Daddario) but not Gugino's and Daddarios (15 years and assuming Daddarios is playing Gugino's and Johnson's characters child)

The console title, FALLOUT: BROTHERHOOD OF STEEL did suck IMO. And I say that as someone who generally likes action titles of its ilk.

"An RPG is what I say it is" With apologies to John W. Campbell (who said it first, regarding Science Fiction), I doubt you'll get an agreement on anything else.

I think it is pretty safe to assume it will be Wasteland II with swords. No way this will be a first person game...IMO anyway. But it is InXile so I am pledging no matter what. A lot of this will become more clear when we show our prototype footage later, but no, this game's exploration is in first-person blobber mode. Looking forward to it!

I don't think its a bad policy. If I was an indie developer making short games I might be worried that the policy disincentives people trying my game particularly if they can't get 2 hours of play out of it. BUT, you could argue this is where you'd need to get creative pricing and find that point which - based on cost vs length - a person would feel foolish not to try it.

5% of a 30 second game is like a second and a half. Did someone even register the game had loaded by that point?

I think it is pretty safe to assume it will be Wasteland II with swords. No way this will be a first person game...IMO anyway. But it is InXile so I am pledging no matter what. Confirmation would be nice - if not for convincing me to pledge, then to head off the "Oh a better Grimrock/MMX game, I'll pledge" brigade from their disappointment if it turns out to be isometric.

I didn't think Roxxor's review resulted in insults (its been a few weeks, so my memory may have slid it from mind); and hyperbole is used in a lot of positive reviews ("really, this is the best thing EVVAH!!!") as well as negative and really isn't a sign of unreasonableness. Unreasonableness in a review is when Roger Ebert used a paragraph or two of a film review to talk about the films IMDB page rather than the film itself.

YMMV, I think a visceral negative reaction is just as valid as a visceral positive response. Reviews that express either reaction would therefore be reasonable and expected. Don't get me wrong, I liked PoE, but I think its valid to hate it as well, and valid to express that opinion. Did I agree with everything that Darth Roxxor found wrong with PoE? No. But that didn't mean that his point of view was devoid of insight or not worth considering. There seems to be a whole lot of attempts to mitigate negative reviews by declaring them invalid for varying reasons (one doesn't have to look any further than the people who dismissed Sensuki's complaints by saying he was mad that Obsidian didn't listen to him and hire him and other nonsense). The bottom line is that a negative review is of no more validity than a positive; they are expressions of personal engagement that - written well enough - may allow the reader to understand where they may stand on the game without having played it. Darth Roxxor's negative review actually made me consider a few things and - to my benefit - knowing how certain parts of the system worked was better for me to subsequently appreciate it for what it was being forewarned than I might have been without the review.

I think they're those story based games. Viginette games I think they're called. Never played them but always imagined them to be like semi-interactive short stories. Nina Freeman is credited on two games on Steam, "How do you Do It?" http://store.steampowered.com/app/353360/ and "Freshman Year" http://store.steampowered.com/app/364450/?snr=1_7_7_151_150_1 Both appear to be free, so I'd imagine Ms. Freeman is thinking hypothetically about a future game that she might make which may be longer, and thus have a minimal purchase fee, but also short compared to other games. I believe her website indicates the next game she is to work on is called "Cibele".

I think its a perfectly valid review, just as Darth Roxor's was. I don't prefer either as they represent the opinion of two different people. Both were relatively reasonably written statements of how the individuals engaged the game and what that engagement meant to them.

I didn't find the video awful, but there's precious little about how the game would actually play, IMO. I want to pledge, but can't decide on a tier without more information.

I'm currently playing Etrian Mystery Dungeon. So far its interesting; not quite what I thought it might be, but having not played the Mystery Dungeon series I wasn't entirely sure what to expect.

It's physically impossible for every game to be the best experience ever. In fact, only 1 game could ever have the best experience ever. I disagree. Primarily because time is a progressive vector construct on which our personal experiences occur in a chronological order, all our experiences do not occur on a memory singularity but in a memory stream. At various points on that stream we may judge 'bests' differently as our experiences accumulate. Think of all the games that make up the overall gamespace, those that we have not played may be regarded as Schrodinger's Games (as with F4) which exist in a state of quality flux; they may or may not be better than previous games and while they may or may not have reputations associated with them it is only by opening the box and playing them can you make the judgement of which is best yourself. As such, until played they do not exist in the subjective opinionspace of what is one's personal 'best' rated and indeed it would be perfectly possible- if distinctly edge case scenario- to have every single game in existence be the 'best' at a certain point if you played them, sequentially, in ascending order of quality. ie, at any given point the last game you played would be best and stay so up until you played the next. Or alternatively, you might have multiple bouts of amnesia... In other words while there may be only one best game ever, at a given time and for a given person, that assignation is fluid and dynamic and over a set time course there may well be multiple best games of all time at given, discrete, instances on that time course. The key word here is: EVER. The best game EVER is the best game, period. It doesn't matter if you compare it to games from the past or future. It's the best game. EVER. So, I must agree with Keyrock here. --- On topic, Fallout + Skyrim + Skyrim or Better Character Creation (NO MORE "EVERYBODY IS F**** UGLY AND LOOK LIKE A MORON, DON'T MATTER WHAT YOU DO" CC of FO3 and NV) + Better Graphics + MODS = SO MUCH WIN "Best" is subjective; but even so, there can't be a Best better than all the rest counting future, because the future can't be accounted for when determining its relationship to the present since we perceive time in a linear fashion. To be able to advise on a best game from the future, you'd have to be from the future, meaning that only someone at the end of time would actually have the ability to create a potentially absolute "Best" or you'd have to exist outside of time so that you could consider all of creation to determine "best". Since you can't account for the future, "Ever" as a statement can only posit that something is the best up until that point of time; if after the first Best Game Ever a new game comes out better than it, it becomes the new Best Game Ever to that point. This Ever point is not the same as the last Ever point and therefore it is possible to have two Best Game Evers considering two distinct points in time (and, in its way, two distinct versions of you - you can't step in the same river twice and all that). At any rate, whether you agree with me or not, the whole point of my argument was the futility of desiring that every game be the best ever (or even better than the last). I've been able to enjoy Bethesdas games for what they are, rather than my expectations of what they should be (as so many people seem to criticize them for).

Yeah stacking multiple weapons when selling them and in sellers inventory would be mega-nice.

To be honest I can't say I've ever cared for their stories. But those hiking simulators are the bomb! I kid, I kid. Of the four Bethesda games I've played, I've enjoyed playing three of them. That doesn't mean they were all perfect, but I don't expect every game to be the best experience ever either.

Since I pledged to the kickstarter rather than purchasing it, I'm not sure I'm the opinion you want. The game has a lot of text and a lot of reading in it. Character creation is complex and the importance of things in character creation may not be intuitively clear to you (read the manual). It has a fair bit of combat, and combat is highly normalized. Its a large game, with a lot of side content to explore. Some things are at best rudimentary in implementation, like the Stronghold which has a place in the game but feels like it should be more. Overall I liked the story, I thought it had some interesting characters and quests. Sometimes there was illusionary choice railroading when I'd rather have had real branches.