ThunderPeel2001

I'm going to try and keep a list this coming year. I have no idea how many games I complete.

So somebody spotted this...

There's actually a LOT of Alien universe stuff on that trailer alone -- The big ship is, of course, the one they find at the beginning of Alien. The space jockey is seen in the trailer, too. The vehicles are the same design as those in Aliens. And the title appears exactly the same way the title appears at the beginning of Alien. A surprising amount of Alien stuff, actually.

Here's an ethical question I'd like your opinions on... When you have kids (should you ever have them) are you going to Santa or Not to Santa? What will you do? Is it best to lie and let them enjoy it? Or is it best to tell them the truth and not give them a distorted view of reality? Actual parents may also apply.

Best bit: "If they want lemon / It's very nice / Don't think twice / Give the guest a juicy slice." Say what you want, but I'm not about to forget that coffee needs to be changed every 30 mins. #clevermemorydevices

Interesting. Also, FTI Guitar Hero 2 had such an achievement for sitting through their credits, "Teacher's Pet", which I appreciated.

Is it me or did my pants suddenly get tighter? sftuxbvGwiU

Limbo was still on sale on Steam. Hurrah!

I started to think I'd gone off games at one point, but as it turned out I think I was just depressed and/or suffering from low iron anemia. One thing I learned, don't put too much stock in one bad year versus a lifetime of enjoyment.

Thinking back, the best gaming experience I had this year was the Portal 2 ARG, not Portal 2 itself. Playing those other Indie games to get potatoes to help release Portal 2 early was a hugely enjoyable and engaging experience for me.

I concur, enjoyable as it is.

I think you missed what I was suggesting by: Completely. I was talking more about game design, not artistic skills. I would personally advise, and this is coming from a position of no experience whatsoever, so I could be very wrong, to start your game design on paper - not in an IDE. In other words if you can figure out what your game needs before you start with the technical work, you can try to stop wasting time developing things you don't need. You might just want to get your fingers dirty.

Depending on what you want to produce, a pen and paper might be the best place to start, leaving the technical aspects to those who might volunteer...

I was just about to post this myself. I've watched it about five times already. Seems they've gone for the tone of LotR, which is surprisingly given they said they were going lighter. Still, I imagine the film itself will be lighter.

Whoop!

Has anyone seen this yet? They've apparently got it working pretty well. I watched some guy in work playing a bunch of the demos... I was really shocked at how well it worked and looked. Apparently their marketing department aren't very good, because I'd been looking out for it and it just went under my radar (it apparently launched 6 months ago or something). Also, their website UX is uttery, uttery terrible. But it sure made my draw drop when it I saw it running to quickly and easily. In theory you're playing on a top-end gaming rig, and when I saw it running I could totally believe it could be the future. http://www.onlive.com/service?autoplay=yes If the people in charge started acting less like Gizmodo, they could be on to something.

Days!

I'm guessing this is some sort of flash mob, designed to spread happiness and contagious laughter... but more likely to make someone feel as utterly paranoid and confused. (Like that poor guy who gets on... He looks very concerned and unhappy.)

Glad we got to the bottom of that. Sorry for the confusion. Next job: Actually bother to manually type those URLs in and see if the sources are actually any good or not. After all this discussion, I think I'd actually like to know!

Really? I know they did it for old Amiga games with an emulator. Does that change anything?

Don't think this has been previously mentioned, Gog.com have a huge sale on at the moment.

There appears to be some sort of communication issue. I posted the Wired link in my second post, prior to your first post. I did because people were taking umbridge with the infographic, rather than the infographic's message. Specficially subbes said she was burned out on infographics, and Armchair said he "wanted to believe it", but questioned the sources. To help rectify this I provided a link to the Wired article, something I had previously read, which also happened to have the same message, which would solve both their problems: It wasn't an infographic and it didn't involve the Daily Mail (and it would also have more journalistic credibility). It also happens to be one of the sources on the infographic, but that's neither here nor there, I guess. You are, of course, completely free to comment on whatever you wish to comment on. I took your post to be a critique of the infographic's contents based entirely on your opinion of how it presented its argument. If that wasn't the case, I apologise. I agree that the infographic could be greatly improved by marking where each "fact" was sourced from. I'd certainly appreciate it. Also, I took "poorly backed up information" to mean that you thought there was little supporting evidence to back up the information presented. I.e. It was poorly backed up. I didn't take it to mean that you were pointing out the claims were "not clearly cited". No. I haven't taken it personally in the slightest, I was responding to comments, like those from Nachimir, which seem to want me to defend it as if I had created it: "...is not proof that the infographic is valid. You've also failed to answer the criticism that some of the sources quoted in it are shockingly poor ones, reputed for awful journalism and just making shit up." Yes, that probably would have been for the best, in hindsight.

Alright, alright, I'll take another look... Apart from "poorly backed up information", everything you say seems to me to be about how the information and argument is presented, both logically and visually. This is why I directed people to the Wired article, which essentially has the same message as this infographic, but better presents its argument. Re: "poorly backed up information", see my previous post. Edit: I've also re-written the paragraph that offended you. You're right: It wasn't doing anything good for this discussion.

Wow. That's my own private hell right there.

And here I was hoping that, as an Internet Expert, he'd pop into this thread and shed some light on things.