Amentep

That's the one. Class. Good old Onkel It was a great typo, but I actually started feeling bad for him after awhile...

Yeah, Rachel left not long after we moved from BIS to Interplay, as I recall. Not sure if she was active here at some point or not. I remember her and I having a bit of a disagreement when we were both still mods. Ultimately time has proven her right and me wrong. Awkward.

Haven't seen Charcoal or Chairchucker or Veloxyll in ages.

And here I would have guessed (with no context, of course) that "barding" was what Bards do. Learn something new everyday (two for today so far, also learned about "buskers").

"I will not make any deals with you. I've resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."

No true geek would treat their comics like that. Not sure about that...they are all 90s comics, fairly easy to find at the moment, as the vast majority of those probably had large print-runs due to the speculator market. Besides their resell value is only worth noting if one plans to sell them.

1988 - NIGHT OF THE DEMONS, US, Directed by Kevin Tenney? Its a fun flick from the time as I recall. Another horror film from the 80s with Linnea "Return of the Living Dead" Quigley in it. Thought the end stinger was lame, though as I recall. Two sequels I've never seen were made and a remake came out about 5 years ago of middling reputations. For 80s era Demon movies, I'm probably more partial to Lamberto Bava's Dèmoni even if it makes less sense (in the typical Italian horror way) than NotD. For my part, watched HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON 2. I enjoyed it, but less so than the first. Certain themes were hit so hard they became preachy and the middle section was somewhat slow (substituting family bonding with the Hiccup-Toothless bonding of the first film during the same part of the film). Action was good, but none of the set pieces matched the end of the first. Still, as I said I did enjoy it and it was a decent film if not as good as the first.

When I think of X-Men Villains, I think Brotherhood of Evil Mutants, the Hellfire Club, the Brood, Dark Phoenix, Arcade and The Stranger. What can I say, I read X-Men's 60s and 70s stuff more than anything else...

Congrats GD! Wish you the best.

In the context of STAR WARS lore, though, Light Side/Dark Side makes a lot of sense for Jedi/Sith. The problem from a role-play perspective in KOTOR 2 is, ultimately, you have to be a force user and you have to be on the Jedi / Sith path. Which itself is a carry-over from KOTOR, I suppose.

Yes? Nice way of padding # of posts. Never understoon peeps obsesed with having posts in the thousands. Never understood why people ever cared about # of posts in the first place. I advocated turning it off back in the days of Black Isle, but people then seem to disagree with the position for whatever reason. Anyhow, in my defense (and thanks to Urthor for the link support regarding humour), I think 3072 posts is rather small considering I joined the forums 10 years ago. Although it should be pointed out, against me, that Way-Off Topic posts don't count in the board total, but also for my defense I shall point out I was a lurker for 4-5 years that I've been a member of the forums and rarely, if ever, posted during that time.

Don't forget using the services of hookers and driving people over in the streets, I typically play a hard core gangster type in GTA games with very little respect for law But I'm sure you don't factor in race, gender or religion into who you steal cars from, who you murder, who you drive over or what hookers you use so that you're still a bastion of (lawless) equality.

So...I guess the "#79 entry being delayed" post accidentally referencing #80 in its title is now prophetic!

ACE Team's Abyss Odyssey E3 trailer (coming from Atlus)

In theory you could based on what they're saying about 2.0. In practice we'll see. Creating any kind of storyline was a challenge in 1.0 (although you could, for example, create an arena for example where two characters fought and the system would track who got to 10 wins first or something). I'm really hoping that creating worlds is a faster experience; its a big challenge in 1.0 (not unfun, its way, but it is real easy to get partway through and realize the idea isn't working the way you'd thought it was). Nintendo is getting into the Skylanders/Infinity market-

Thanks for posting this! It looks and sounds absolutely gorgeous! It reminds me of Hitchc o c k (of course), Scratches, and also of Don't Starve a bit. When will it be released? And will it be available on Steam? Right now I've only seen 2015 as a release date. Initial trailers had 2014, but the new E3 is saying 2015. It is supposed to be available via Steam

Cuphead E3 2014 trailer. Dunno if the game is any good, but I like the style harkening back to old cartoons. Also like the look of White Night -

Who am I? What am I doing here?

I wonder, are there any statistics on this? I suppose it might depend on region, and such, but my limited experience in knowing people who pirate, they were all strictly middle-class people who had the money to buy the games, but found getting them for free allowed them to not have to spend money to play games so they could buy things they wanted they couldn't pirate.

Congrats TrueNeutral I'm waiting for the heel turn where, after gaining power, TrueNeutral changes his name to ChaoticEvil. Then the run in from the back. To quote the late Gordon Solie: "He was 'Pearl Harbored' from behind..."

Actually I misunderstood your post I asked my question on; re-reading and with this further discussion I see you're saying, regarding the big publishers - "they make enough money now to continue creating games, so the only loss is to their profit margin which doesn't (typically) get invested in game development but lines investors/owners pockets" whereas I read it as "they have enough money now to make games, it doesn't matter if they make any more money". So a total reading comprehension fail on my part. its still bs. most large publishers lose money on a majority o' their games-- is a handful of successful titles that keeps the light turned on. also, lining the pockets o' investors is what makes the whole system work. if a publisher makes investor no more money than the investor would see from an ordinary savings account or even mutual funds, what is the motivation to invest in riskier game publishing ventures? decrease money that would otherwise go to investors decreases investor motivation to be investing in games development and publishing. am sure you can see how that impacts future game development, yes? HA! Good Fun! Right, I don't disagree with you, but I did fail to understand what Sarex was getting at. In a very general sense, yes if a money making endeavor is making - generally speaking - the expectations for returns on investment such that future development isn't impeded the piracy is only impacting the company having higher that expected profits. The problems, however, come in when the company (for whatever reason - not just piracy) starts making less money in which case development of projects may be ended and the company may turn to chasing trends in an efforts to regain the former profitability. In general, one would think that piracy is probably less likely to effect the big companies because they have more opportunity to cover their losses with huge return profits, but I tend to think mitigating loss may actually change corporate thinking.

Actually I misunderstood your post I asked my question on; re-reading and with this further discussion I see you're saying, regarding the big publishers - "they make enough money now to continue creating games, so the only loss is to their profit margin which doesn't (typically) get invested in game development but lines investors/owners pockets" whereas I read it as "they have enough money now to make games, it doesn't matter if they make any more money". So a total reading comprehension fail on my part.

The theory I saw after the study came out had to do with the brain making more memory connections because more senses are engaged reading a book, turning pages, smelling paper & print, etc than an ereader which does some, but not all, of that.

Under your scenario presented "devs have salaries" Yes, as does every employee of the company. This money has to be achieved somewhere. "part of the money made from the game goes in to covering the cost of the next game" Which would be here. But if the game makes no money, how can it cover the cost of the next game? Nintendo famously had so much money after the SNES era, it didn't matter if the Nintendo64 was a success - they had plenty of capitol to keep working on. But after a while that model is just unsustainable, no matter how much of a cash reserve you have you will exhaust it if you continue to be unprofitable.

Those two do seem to be the same thing - you want some company to make money still in either case, no ? The distinction - to my mind - is that I doubt the average consumer cares terribly much who makes the game as long as its good. Ie, you're buying Call of Duty to play a hot game, not to support Activision. YMMV. They have enough to make games, that is my point, they don't have enough to meet their impossibly large numbers. How will they continue to have enough to make games if they've not bought in sufficient quantities to cover the cost of making them?