Yosemite Sam wrote on Mar 31, 2013, 19:49:
Been holding off watching GoT until it's done... but the other day I was flipping though the channels and came across GoT so started watching a bit... WTF, they should just call it Game of Porn FFS... I mean ok you want some T&A fine but keep it story related, from what I saw it was simply porn for the sake of having porn... seriously put me off ever watching it... was expecting Lord of the Rings not Lord of the G-Strings.

eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 15:19:

sauron wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 13:34:

eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 11:42:
Point. Just because something is published with peer review doesn't mean there isn't an agenda and spin behind it.

At the level of the Nature journals and similar, you can't just make stuff up. It will get found out in a heartbeat by your peers. They are not fools and the process is incredibly rigorous.

That's the whole point of peer review. It doesn't guarantee the truth but it makes things a whole lot more reliable. Especially in the high tier journals.

The question is, who are the peers... and who pays them for what research specifically, as you say, the high tier journals have the problem that only scientists in that field can disprove or prove a study. If all the peers that reviewed this study are climate scientists that are paid to research climate change..... would they announce if they find that climate change is not human made? Or would they propagate a "lie" by keeping or hiding certain data points (with agreements among themselves) to keep themselves employed?

My point is not that this is the case, my point is that I don't believe the journal system anymore because that could be the case. And in the same way I don't believe the "other side" either. Because they could be paid by the industry.

Essentially, they cherry picked data sources on the report 2010, that is a minor thing maybe, or maybe it is the main thing... in any case, if they do that on a MAJOR international report, what do they do behind the scenes among their peer reviews?

Are opposing viewpoints with data to prove their point listed in Nature? Or do they get rejected for false assumptions and bad logic, or reasons more nefarious?

All I am saying is, I don't trust climate scientists anymore, from both sides of the argument.

eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 11:42:
Point. Just because something is published with peer review doesn't mean there isn't an agenda and spin behind it.

Blue wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 08:07:

ledhead1969 wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 01:05:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/dyp9cm5

Nature.com versus investors.com. Are you sure you have properly identified the party with an agenda here?

Blackhawk wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 15:28:
Wow. Is there anything that Blue's News readers don't hate?

sauron wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 14:16:

Creston wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 14:05:

Mr. Tact wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 13:53:
Really?

I meant keep an eye on the development of the game for possible purchase...

Oh and you can pre-order on their web-site currently if you want...

I was just fucking with ya. No need to get upset.

Creston

I was checking out the Numenera book the other day as well - it looks pretty good. I'm a big fan of tabletop RPGs and have a bunch of stuff by Monte Cook already, including some of the old Planescape titles. Maybe I'll see if I can get it for a good price as part of a Torment game KS package.

And I'm sure Tact isn't offended - we're all RPG geeks here, me included.

Creston wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 14:05:

Mr. Tact wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 13:53:
Really?

I meant keep an eye on the development of the game for possible purchase...

Oh and you can pre-order on their web-site currently if you want...

I was just fucking with ya. No need to get upset.

Creston

Dev wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 11:19:

Mr. Tact wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 11:15:

nin wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 10:58:
No, but I went with the all digital $125 on this one to make up for it.

I went with the $75 all digital.

They should make a deal with GoG to provide a GoG credit for the original on the higher tiers.

nin wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 10:58:

sauron wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 10:50:

nin wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 09:39:

Mr. Tact wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 09:32:
I have to say the buzz around this has me intrigued despite having never touched the original game.

I never did, either.

You guys really never played Planescape:Torment? Are you serious? Am I dreaming?

If you didn't play it yet, head over to GOG.com and grab it. It's amazing.

Besides, if you don't I'll send the orcs round. Extra incentive!

No, but I went with the all digital $125 on this one to make up for it.

nin wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 09:39:

Mr. Tact wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 09:32:
I have to say the buzz around this has me intrigued despite having never touched the original game.

I never did, either.

InBlack wrote on Mar 7, 2013, 09:26:

nin wrote on Mar 7, 2013, 09:16:

Boo.

Got that right. Disappointing...

I second that. Or third. Or...whatever, its not good news.

Dev wrote on Mar 6, 2013, 18:14:
3 posts of great stuff

Flatline wrote on Mar 6, 2013, 17:18:

Dev wrote on Mar 6, 2013, 17:06:
polygon interview
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/01/09/planescape-torment-sequel/

A couple good interviews. Here's some tidbits:

InXile believes it has learned a critical lesson from its crowdfunding success. The creative leads at InXile believe that the traditional publisher/developer model of funding video games is broken, and the developer is staking its future on that claim.

and

RPS – Can you talk about why Wizards of the Coast were resistant to licensing Planescape again?

Fargo: We asked and were rebuffed. In reality we didn’t push very hard on licensing it as the team was excited to work with Monte on Numenera and they felt that there would be less creative restriction. And WotC has been pretty silent on this space for some time. Neither Feargus nor I was able to get a Baldur’s Gate 3 project going.

RPS – Did you meet any resistance when seeking the Torment name?

Fargo: I patiently waited for someone to do something with a Torment concept but nothing happened. After many years the rights expired and allowed me to step in and put together a great team to make another title of its kind. We will improve on the mechanics and deliver a deep narrative story that is deserving of the name Torment.

So apparently the torment trademark was expired which is how they can use that, but they don't have IP from wizards.
And they've tried to do BG3.

Wizards of the Coast is driving D&D into an unmarked grave. It went from 20 million active players at the height of 3rd edition to like 2 million active players according to a court document a few years back at the "height" of 4th edition. Now they're cranking out 5th ed, which is supposed to be this "universal" edition. The beta was fucking terrible. First beta test had material like the cleric who was better at finding and disabling traps than the thief.

But the heads of D&D don't *like* the old settings. Hell, they basically shit-canned *dragonlance*, which kind of boggles the mind. Nobody's willing to even mention Planescape, so it doesn't surprise me that they couldn't get rights to develop in the planescape setting. WOTC and Mearls probably would see a planescape revisit to be harmful to their intention to make D&D Next (what a horrible name) "successful" again.

Creston wrote on Mar 6, 2013, 15:25:
The pledged amount is literally updating faster than I can hit F5. LOL.

Creston