Amentep

At which point Beer didn't have to make his issue with Fish public. However he chose to make it public and thus loose whatever illusion of objectivity he had (which, going by being called "Annoyed Gamer" can't have been much). Saying that he would have been fine with a "no comment" is, IMO, a bit disingenuous as well. Clearly he wasn't okay with it or else he wouldn't have taken the twitter feed personally (which, given that Fish also took it personally makes me wonder if there's a bigger personal history here than we have. At any rate I'd argue neither side comes off looking great). Plenty listen to them, which is the sad and funny thing. People don't need them, can't really think of anything they've uniquely provided other than social justice outrage (woo RPS) or just funny drama. Okay so how would someone who doesn't have access to forums like these get an opinion on a new game that has been released without reading a gaming journalists review? I know a lot of people ask the employees of the local game store for opinions when they go in looking for something to buy.

I watched THE WOLVERINE. I thought it was a good movie, but a bit like Iron Man 3, decides not to really be a "superhero" movie. Logan is thrust into a situation where he is forced to choose sides not knowing what is actually being fought for; in someways the story is akin to YOJIMBO or A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS with the exception that in this case Wolverine doesn't just arrive in town without invitation (in that way, a bit more like Hammet's THE GLASS KEY). Its a bit of hard boiled film noir meets Yakuza with western and samurai influences with a small dash of superheroic sci-fi. In this light, I think THE WOLVERINE works fine; the emotional aspect of the characters work, the mystery is adequately shadowy (at least until you realize at which point it begins to solidify what's going on and which players are doing what). But I suspect if you're looking for big screen superheroics, you'll be a bit disappointing if you can't enjoy what the movie does deliver in.

You can copyright the text, yes. You can copyright"You have to roll the 20 sided dice to determine the attack." This doesn't prevent someone from writing "Take the dice with 20 sides, use the resulting number, that's your attack value." Computer interpretations would be even further than that. Right. But spells, for example (or at least their text and - if they had a unique enough name (think Tenser's Transformation instead of fireball), religions, possibly some of the racial details would all be potentially out.

Your link says you can copyright your text though. And in fact the D20 stuff is listed as ©Wizards of the Coast. How much that protects the D20 system from exploitation in a video game I dunno though. I can't imagine LucasArts would have licensed Star Wars without a provision allowing them to use whatever was created for the game for their own purposes (put NPCs into comics, put the ruleset into video games, put settings into books).

I should imagine it works even better if no-one is called Steve. Then you have a free ticket for looking for him. I shouldn't go around observing people. No-one likes being spied on, whereas the sight of someone else dashing around working harder than you is always soothing. Unless your name is Steve. Besides in my position I'm a manager, everyone thinks I'm observing their work anytime I show up clipboard or no (in fact I coincidentally showed up three times at an office over a short period and every day the head of that department had something happen and was running late or having to call out to the point that the individual was convinced it wasn't coincidental that I was showing up!)

Isn't it problematic if no one at your place of work is named Steve? I like the method of creating a page of boxes with vague words related to your job functions or job area, putting it on a clipboard and then wandering the place slowly checking the words off after careful observation of those around you.

These eyes looks quite normal for me I'm seeing a light reflection from the eyes that the camera is picking up. Similar to "red eye", but its not as red here but still noticeably "shiny" to me.

Sounds like a sci-fi movie title.

I've been playing to much Skyrim, I see these "glowing" eyes and think "Vampire!" ...

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?