Amentep

I love the Pathfinder system but honestly. it's just not a good system for a computer game. If PE were turn-based, sure, that's a whole other thing. But seeing as it is, I'd say building their own system is a good idea, albeit difficult to achieve. Wouldn't they have had to license Pathfinder anyway (deducting money from the project)? Of course. But I don't think that's really the point because designing your own system also costs a lot of money. Still, there is a game that uses the Pathfinder license. Head over to goblinworks.com for info about Pathfinder Online. Right...but they'd have to spend money to adapt the PNP rules to video games. So...money for ruleset + money to adapt rules or money to make your own rules...? My guess is the first is slightly more money for slightly less time spent on the rules vs less money and more time.

There are no game developers younger than me. Nope, it doesn't happen. Once they're hired into the field, they automatically age to my age +1. Seriously, Happy Birthday!

I love the Pathfinder system but honestly. it's just not a good system for a computer game. If PE were turn-based, sure, that's a whole other thing. But seeing as it is, I'd say building their own system is a good idea, albeit difficult to achieve. Wouldn't they have had to license Pathfinder anyway (deducting money from the project)?

Perhaps. Like I said I don't think its guaranteed to collapse, only that its risky behavior.

Yes, I pretty much said that with my illustration of how the system is currently working. My illustration would be that betting that much money only requires one really bad year to leave the studio without any cash.

As big as a google search? Also, since some people seem to like my avatar:

Well I did say if "enough of the majors". MGM faltering (pretty much dead in the water until the Eon's Skyfall production injected some money into them (through a co-distribution plan with Sony) didn't kill the industry. Take out any three from Warners, Universal, Sony, Disney or Paramount and it may very well be a different story. Them going under means not enough product driving people into theaters, which means cinemas aren't selling tickets (and more importantly to their bottom line - concessions), which means they go under which then means that the remaining players have no viable mainstream place to distribute cinema films to. I'd imagine even in this scenario that some smaller, lower overhead independent theaters would still exist as they have a bottom line built differently than the multiplexes. That said, I don't think its going to happen this way; to me what we're seeing right now isn't that dissimilar to the period in the late 60s and 70s where Hollywood couldn't figure out what the audience wanted, Warners almost failed (well technically did fail and was sold off) and economics began forcing out drive-in theaters in the US because they couldn't get enough patrons to keep running. Eventually the blockbusters of the early-mid 70s (culminating in Star Wars) and the multiplex (allowing more showings for more movies distributing risk better) kept the industry going. Eventually they'll find some way to give the audience what they want or it'll die off.

20s & 30s actress Louise Brooks

Yes, the studios have (more or less) said as much.I don't think its good for the industry. It depends on what you mean by "good for the industry". If you mean "provides a large amount of diverse entertainment without constantly recasting the usual suspects, and is comfortable with several successful films instead of having few wildly successful films" then I would definitely agree. I don't think its good because I don't think it is a sustainable practice. Lets say Universal has 14 films coming out; if they totally cost 700 million to make and none of them hit the 500 million in returns they run a really big risk (even with Hollywood accounting) of not having enough money to make further productions. Enough of the majors have this happen and its pretty much the collapse of the film industry, IMO.

Yeah I had the rechargeable pack and it won't charge anymore. Keeping it connected i a pain so I just burn through AA batteries...

"Pot Pie" yummy, What was in the pie? Isn't it obvious from the name? Pots.

Yes, the studios have (more or less) said as much. I don't think its good for the industry.

42

IMO, the Target has to take the high road. Someone who hurls anonymous abuse is looking to have their target either capitulate ("we're sorry!") or to get them to react back ("Why you little..."). EDIT - and as Deathdealer mentioned if illegal activity is involved of course authorities have to be notified. Back when I was on an unmoderated group, there was a poster who took to calling anyone who disagreed with him a child molester to try to cow people from disagreeing with him. He was sued for libel and booted by his ISP. The community shouldn't tolerate the member's behavior and should be clear on that. If its a moderated community than appropriate actions should be taken. If its unmoderated, the community needs to cut the person out; they can't go "oh, but s/he sometimes posts good stuff" because you're only encouraging the abuse hurler to continue on their path. IMO.

Too elite for you? http://forums.obsidian.net/user/6163-213374u/ Looks like last here in Oct. 12

Nah, let's do this instead. What is the appropriate response to abuse? By whom? The target of the abuse or the community that houses the abuser? Or both?

For me - so YMMV - there's really two frames of reference; Kickstarter is a funding mechanism and so the question being asked when a Kickstarter is presented is "does this sound like something you'd like to see exist?" And if the answer is yes, and you believe the risk of losing all of your money, never to be seen again is worth supporting you do. This is the frame of reference of the "supporter". What Kickstarter isn't is a promise to make something you'll actually like; it hasn't been made yet. Might end up being a bit rubbish. This is the frame of reference of the "end user" or the consumer. But Kickstarter isn't a store; you don't put in $20 and get a game, you put in $20 to fund a game that may or may not get made and maybe if the $20 tier gets you a copy of the game as a backer reward you get the game as a reward. All that to say, my bar to back was really set at "made by Obsidian". I like the company, I post on their boards, they make a lot of games I like. If they'd proposed an RPG where you had to navigate your house as a little girl who is running around trying to arrange a mock tea party with her stuffed animals, I'd probably still have backed it. Sawyer could have come up with some sort of weirdly balanced tea pouring mechanics and Avellone could have knocked out some great dialogue between the girl and her stuffed rabbit or something. So considering that, once you add in IE (isometric, real time with pause, fantasy (anything with magic is fantasy, IMO)...well I had no problem with supporting the game. And I'm willing to sit back and see what game they craft; have I liked every bit of information I've heard? No. Do I regret backing it? Absolutely not.

IMO, it does matter. Until recently, the monarchy is the law of the land. You could literally have been killed for not paying your taxes. Business's are private enterprises that are forced to work under the laws of the land and earn money by providing . I may be misremembering the industrial revolution, but my memory is that the meat, coal, oil and railway industries (at least) did keep (or at least was accused of keeping) pay down for workers, intimidating/killing workers who tried to unionize and in some cases working employees to death. They got away with it by buying politicians or becoming politicians themselves and using that to get favorable governmental consideration so as to make their high profits and to turn a blind eye to what they were doing. Or in some cases, they didn't get away with it (like Boss Tweed).

Saying something "is like Item A" doesn't mean something "is Item A". It gives the customer a frame of reference. Clearly some of us felt the frame was more/less involved based on our own interpretation of what they gave us.

Whooo, I totally did not read Cnut the Great's name right on that map the first time...

Nope. But at one time I was headed to be a maths instructor. And its not really cleverness either (particularly the first time I get the maths wrong - been over a decade since I've looked at most of this stuff).

Obsidian used to be a Fallout game developer, until they took an arrow to the knee?

If they earn it through manipulation of public office, does it matter if it was taxation or ensuring companies they held interests in got preferential treatment (lower taxes, government grant funds, exclusive or lopsided contracts with the government)?

Do I need to be stoned to work out the answer? Rope around the circle : Circumference of Earth (CoE) = 2πR where R is the distance from the surface to the center of earth. What he's asking is, essentially how much more rope would be needed to circle the earth if the circle was built from the center of earth ® + 1 meter. So what added to the CoE would equal 2π times the Radius +1 meter? In essence X+CoE = 2π(R + 1meter) X+ 2πR = 2πR + 2π meters X = 2π meters = ~6.28 meters

They didn't have the D&D license, so a 1 to 1 translation was never, IMO, in the cards. So if you've got to create something new I expected some looking at systems and how they work. My expectations were fairly simple - Isometric (or closely related) real time with pause fantasy setting party based Made by people at Obsidian Ent.