Xydonus

Number 1 thing that will kill you off easily in this game is boredom. Not boredom in the game but the player becoming tireless and impatient. You'll end up taking more risks and eventually get to the point that your running around the place like a madman without a care in the world.
 
Its the psychological effect of repeating a playthrough combined with frustration. Gotta maintain patience throughout your playthroughs and keep the risks to a minimum.

Memory leaks are pretty much my primary beef with Bethesda. I offer a certain amount of leniency to creators of expansive, wide-open games with large maps and oodles of things to do that are entirely unrelated to the main plot. Especially with larger companies that rely on funding from people that aren't the ones who physically make the game, as they're more often than not subject to the whims of individuals who do not understand or do not care about some/much/all of game design.

Making a game like FO3, NV, or Skyrim on a deadline is unthinkable if you expect it to be perfect. I'm sorry, but that's kind of the way it is. But memory leaks are a sin that I don't think any game should suffer from, as it gradually makes files worse until they simply corrupt or no longer function. And that's aside from gradually eating up more and more of your memory.

Wasn't aware you had statistics available that stated everyone was playing sandbox..

Wasn't aware you had statistics available that stated everyone was playing sandbox..

maybe the most dumbed down, but it my eyes, easily the most fun. New vegas was too barren and boring for me, but I think the main problem I had with it was that it never gave me that feeling of fear and excitement that I got with fallout 3, e.g. coming out of the vault for the first time or going to the school near megaton.. which is strange, as with the TES games its opposite, oblivion had more fear and excitement early game than skyrim, but the oblivion gates completely killed the game for me, whereas skyrim completely immersed me and he me playing almost constantly until I completed it 120 hours later.
 
Also my first play throughs of skyrim and fallout 3 were completely unmodded, letting me have a second playthrough months later with all DLC and tons of mods.

well 2 of the best games ive ever played, ever, on anything, have been Fallout 3 (not new vegas, sorry binky ) and skyrim, so im very much looking forward to any news about fallout 4

See, I'm against this. I think wounds and that should be hidden under clothing. I think a tell tale sign would be perhaps blood on the clothes, or some kind of tooltip when you hover over an npc/player and it might say (depending on some skill) 'You notice what looks like some kind of mark, but can't tell because its obscured by the clothing. Perhaps its nothing.'
 
As long as its not gamey and doesn't provide the player all the information on hand because I would rather alternative options in finding out about someone being infected rather than just looking at the npc character and going, "Yep! He's infected. Say hello to my 12 gauge!"
 
I want to have situations in which when I'm playing either with npcs or players (namely players) and one of us is infected, what fun is it if we can just instantly tell if one of us is infected? No fun at all! There's no risk at all then, and Zomboid is all about risk..
 
If I want to hide my bite mark from someone I should be able to do it in a balanced and fair way without any gamey systems that tells someone that I'm infected without putting much effort into trying to find out.

See, I'm against this. I think wounds and that should be hidden under clothing. I think a tell tale sign would be perhaps blood on the clothes, or some kind of tooltip when you hover over an npc/player and it might say (depending on some skill) 'You notice what looks like some kind of mark, but can't tell because its obscured by the clothing. Perhaps its nothing.'
 
As long as its not gamey and doesn't provide the player all the information on hand because I would rather alternative options in finding out about someone being infected rather than just looking at the npc character and going, "Yep! He's infected. Say hello to my 12 gauge!"
 
I want to have situations in which when I'm playing either with npcs or players (namely players) and one of us is infected, what fun is it if we can just instantly tell if one of us is infected? No fun at all! There's no risk at all then, and Zomboid is all about risk..
 
If I want to hide my bite mark from someone I should be able to do it in a balanced and fair way without any gamey systems that tells someone that I'm infected without putting much effort into trying to find out.

I think the negative effect as a result of bad early access releases in the past may have further sidelined certain consumers who once might have been tempted to buy such a game. If I can be persuaded never to pre-order a game anymore I'm sure there's others who feel the same about early access.
 
I do foresee Zomboid doing very well on full release to the disbelief of many. I just hope TIS is ready to handle all that extra load... ehem.
 
As for people demanding trading cards/achievements before they buy the game? ErR?!??!
 
Chances are they've probably already indulged, found out about no achievements and cards and are simply sulking as a result.

I'll hoard as much npcs as I can like cattle...
 
Then, I shall go forth onto another persistent server with my army of gun-toting loolah's and reign forevermore!
 
Kill my pretties, KILLLL!!!!

Back when my line of work was a lot more journalist-y I’d do a lot of interviews with Executive Producers, Senior Marketing Vice Presidents and all other manner of other glorified mouth-pieces for the big publishers. Whenever they brought out the old “of course, we’re doing this for the community – they’re who matter!” line I’d start to roll my eyes. I wouldn’t stop rolling them until I’d asked my killer ‘DLC plans?’ question.
 
I don’t want to be like that guy – the guy who talks about the value of a game’s community without once visiting it, and praises it as a part of some bullshit boardroom checklist.
 
Without Project Zomboid’s community (without you - the person reading this – whether you’re a lurker or a regular) times could’ve been so much darker. We owe you a ‘thank you’ so massive it’s almost impossible to deliver. Your testing, your enthusiasm, your friendship, your shared passion for the game… it means more than I can convey in a simple forum post.
 
I’m not going to whitewash the bad stuff. Two years ago TIS self-inflicted some wounds from which it took an age to recover and gave ruffians ample room to play, and I know that the fabled ‘winter of no content’ was tough on us all. (I don’t think we ever answered the question of what constitutes a ‘white knight’ and what constitutes a ‘troll’, but we certainly seemed to get closer to the answer than most…)
 
So, before the Steam Early Access launch potentially stirs things up, I wanted to say thank you. To our moderators, to our regulars, to our lurkers, to our critics, to our fans, to those who dip in and out… everyone. Thanks for giving a shit about our zombie game.
 
Speaking on behalf of all of the Indie Stone, all of our contributors and anyone else who’ve found themselves strapped onto this rollercoaster for the past couple of years – it wouldn’t have been the same without you, and it’s entirely possible that it couldn’t have happened at all.
 
We’re really appreciative, and we’ll always do our best to do right by you – however we can.
 
You started this. You incubated the PZ infection.  You'll forever have our thanks.
 
LOVE Y'ALL

Well for starters they take 40% of any advertisement revenue from my videos so it's not really a free service unless you are an end user.
 
As a content creator I am a paying customer... and I've been locked out of my own comments section unless I agree to use a social networking site I have no use for. In fact Youtube wont even allow me to link my existing G+ account to my channel. Even if I do step in line, I'm forced to create a new G+ page losing the 100's of followers I already built up over the last few years.
 
Yes they can make whatever changes they like, but it sure would be nice if they asked the people providing them with the content that they earn advertisement revenue from. Or thought it through for longer than a minute before forcing it on everyone to prop up a failing social networking site.
 
It's even more laughable when you actually take a look at the video explaining the changes and how it will make the comments section a nicer place to be, and the top comment on that video when I last checked was an ASCII penis so... yeah. Disruptive, frustrating, and demonstrably not effective on day one.
 
That's just a taste of why it's a big deal for some people

We also have the freedom to petition changes being undone, Google is trying to shove the Google+ D down everyones throat on all google products and its not an effective system nor is it a good one, especially its interface.
And they're are alternatives to Youtube.
Vimeo
DailyMotion
 

I can't imagine anything worse in the world than working on multiplayer and sacrificing the entire rest of the game for it- don't mince words, that's what you're asking.

EA strikes again.
 
Man, their record is getting more and more impressive - I'm not sure if you guys remember the Ultima series (man I feel old) but that was the first in a long line of EA fucking up established brands.
 
Bioware and Mass Effect 3 could technically count too but only for the crappy ending. Should I add Maxis (sorry EAMaxis) and Sim City 2013?
 
Finally they completely raped my childhood to death by making Star Wars as an MMORPG which could not have failed if any other company had been handling it. Sadly EA were involved and that game has gone from crap to crap.
 
Also on a related note from my experience working for them for a short while as a QA tester for a Harry Potter game I know that their management practices are APPALLING.

The problem, as I've said, is we made exactly the same justifications and benefit of the doubts ourselves in the past. We were the same, coming from the same view point as yourself. However, we've been through it. We've personally been stung by it, despite adamantly shooting down anyone who said we were in dangerous territory.
 
And your 'concerns about SteamOS' boil down to the same thing in reverse too. You say I'm being as naive as you, but I'm not. I was quite a Google fan in the early days, until they started slipping into the dark side. Once that happened my support of Google wained. I was practically man crushing over Obama for the first term, then all this drone strike and NSA shizzle came out the woodwork and I start to change my viewpoint on it. Whether Valve do it right for years is neither here nor there. If they start it off right, then its worthy of my support. As soon as they stop doing it right, my support is recinded. It's not a binary eternal thing. You say "but I find your views on where Apple is going in the future to be hilariously inconsistent with everything they say and do. " which is identical to my views on your concerns on SteamOS considering what you're being suspicious of them doing is exactly contrary to the entire point they claim to be doing it. people aren't stupid and would pitch a fit if SteamOS completely went against the whole reason Valve set out to make it. Valve aren't stupid either, so they'll at least wait until everyone's using it and its a big success before slipping in any evil. If a year is all we get before then, then it's still a year more than we have currently.
 
But I'd trust a singular man who is an idealist, even with the risk he'll be later replaced at some indeterminate time in the future with someone evil, than a group of businessmen who know or care little beyond the share price and yearly bonuses. These people VOTE on things, and the 'top guy' who's touted about as the big dog at these companies is only there because the shareholders voted them in as CEO and there is all manner of politics all built around the business of rising that graph so their shares are worth more.
 
Whether Valve have done ill or not (of course they have, what company hasn't?) it cannot be denied having a benevolent dictator is the best form of government....until the benevolent dictator is succeeded, of course, and therein lies the problem. But as far as I can see Gabe ain't going anywhere soon, and I have faith that his vision for Linux and gaming is a noble if not completely selfless endeavour.
 
Google made their motto 'don't be evil' and I'm pretty sure they meant it. However, the power goes to the shareholders, and they are bought out, succeeded by heirs, convinced and arm twisted, bought and traded, and driven by the desire to make money, so it makes not one jot of difference what the CEO says, at the end of the day the majority will get their way. And if what they want transpires to be evil, as most money making things are, then so be it. This is why Valve are quite a unique case.
 
Basically the problem is we can just switch each others arguments around and replace the names and it's pretty consistent. Steam has done stuff that's pissed you off, so you don't trust SteamOS. Apple/MS has done stuff that's pissed me off, so I don't trust Apple/MS. Fair enough, there's not much else to say really.  Except I give my trust easily, but take it away just as easily. And Apple/MS have already had teir day in the sun as far as trust is concerned. Valve have never done anything to shake my trust yet, and SteamOS and everything they say they want for it only goes to strengthen my trust. And while they don't have a kill switch or any plans to add one, I'll be happy to continue using it. As soon as I get a whiff you can guarantee I'll be one of the first ranting on twitter about it.
 
If you're happy with Apple, then that's cool. We can carry on as normal, and just both hope everything turns out swell.

Ratlord,
 
By that logic, why would anyone buy an Xbox or PS3? They buy it because there are games that come out that they want to own.
 
For the vast majority of people, any operating system is irrelevant - they are task based on what they want to achieve, not bothered about how that is achieved.
 
Why else do you think Macs have seen a massive increase in sales to the older, richer generation? To steal a Mac phrase "it just works" and that is all non-tech people care about - can I perform this task effectively and easily with this computer/tablet and this application I see that helps me write emails/order prints.
 
We've seen all this happen as a result of "appification" (sic) of many things - give non-techs the chance to have a catch-all website that does 100 things or an app that does 1 thing at a time, most will choose the latter and the numbers reflect that.
 
As for what us techs do - we are an anomaly, and the biggest mistake Eric Schmidt openly admitted he made at Sun was assuming everyone was like "us" when actually very few of the broader sales market are.

No, Apple and Microsoft are fundamentally worse, to a factor of 1000.
 
The proof is in the pudding when it comes to OS's. A game distribution service and an OS are two different things completely.
 
A better comparison in terms of Steam would be comparing it to iTunes, and I suspect Steam would win every time, if only for the fact you buy a game and you have it there to DL for life, instead of having 5 downloads or whatever it is with iTunes that means if I ever moved job or formatted my PC I'd lost everything I'd bought.
 
Leaving digital distribution platforms aside, there is no direct comparison to Steam as you use it now and Apple/Microsoft.
 
You can read  GabeN's thoughts on Greenlight, Steam, Microsoft, SteamOS, and one thing's clear. He obviously envisions an ideal future scenario where Valve is taken out the equation, and Steam becomes a marketplace available to all. This is clearly the direction they are trying to move in, with limited success so far (e.g. Greenlight) in giving power to the people when it comes to publishing.
 
Regardless, it's very clear that open platforms, in terms of OS, is something important to Gabe, hence the obvious choice of Linux, being the one OS that's not 'owned' by a corporation with its own financial self-interests trumping the security or freedom of their users (unless the lack of security or freedom because a financial concern, of course)
 
An OS for a computer and a distribution service for games or music are completely different. People unhappy with Steam can go onto Desura, GoG, or any other service, or just buy directly from people's websites. Steam, while it may corner the market in digital distribution to the point people feel its unfair (and they are trying to address this, and I think SteamOS is a big part of this), Steam does not actively DENY you the ability to purchase elsewhere.
 
So Apple and Microsoft? Here's where I started ranting a year or more ago, and people just thought I was some conspiracy theory loon, but what they are doing is scary. Very scary, and it must be combatted at all costs. In this case Linux and Valve are our champions, and we should be relieved that it looks like there's a way around the dark future I can see slowly slotting into place.
 
If Valve 'deny' you access to a specific indie game you want on your Steam list, how bad is that really? How about a situation where you were denied access to a freeware malware removal tool, or how about if you were completely denied being able to run an indie game on an OS level. Without hacking the OS, it's literally impossible to run it. How about if you were denied the ability to play Project Zomboid because Microsoft had a in-house developed zombie survival game they were trying to promote?
 
No bother, you say. I'm technologically savvy. I could jailbreak it and install what I like. Problem is Project Zomboid never got made in the first place, because Microsoft wouldn't let us on their Microsoft Store, and people downloading it from our site cannot run it without following a scary, possibly illegal and dodgy sounding step by step guide to hacking their OS. Most people aren't tech savvy, so as soon as your average joe would have to go out their way doing stuff way out of their depth, the market disappears and companies like us disappear. The corporations making AAA games have deep pockets, and will likely somehow 'circumnavigate' the restrictions.
 
This isn't some crazy oddball conspiracy theory. This is happening on both PC and Mac platforms. Stepping stones that will, granted, probably take 2-3 operating systems to come to full fruition, but it's coming.
 
It's like terrorism, or anything else. People get tricked into giving up their freedom for the sake of 'security'. Good old Apple and Microsoft are creeping in more and more things to 'protect' their users from getting viruses, by making sure all programs that are not digitally signed by them will pop up an apocalyptic message saying THIS FILE MAY BE DANGEROUS, IF YOU RUN IT IT MAY DAMAGE YOUR PC.
 
Within the next few years it will be required that all software, ANY executable on either of the platforms, REQUIRE signing or they simply will not run on the computer, AT ALL.
 
What you have now, despite signing being 'free' and 'painless', is a kill switch embedded into every single program running on those platforms. With a flick of a switch, Microsoft or Apple could, at any point in the future, decide to stop your program running on ANY computer that wasn't hacked to run unsigned software. Aka probably 99% of many software developers customers.
 
Will they flick that switch? Of course not, why would they? All they stand to gain from it is 30% of the revenues from that program sold on someone's website when it's forcibly made to be only distributed through the Apple app store or the Microsoft store. Can you put hand on heart and say in 5 years time, they may not just decide to do this. We're only talking billions of dollars of additional revenue.
 
As soon as the iPhone took off, and the app store, feeding Apple with 30% or so of all apps sold there, took off, that both companies sat up and realized the gold mine they are stood on. They need to prepare, over years, to slowly drag the OS's in a direction step by step so as to not alarm people too much, or piss everyone off, until so many people are using these stores anyway, that it doesn't seem like such a big deal to the large portion of their customers when they flick that switch.
 
As I said in my tweets, Apple BAN satire on their app store. They take apps down all the time for 'lampooning public or political figures'. That's not right. In fact, that's downright evil. But hell, it's their shitty phones, they can do what they like really.
 
However, they have looked at this and are trying to basically replace desktop systems with a more phone app style eco system, and does that mean that Mac users are forever denied the right to play a game taking the piss out of the Obama administration, or something mocking the NRA and making a point about gun control. Perhaps some satirical game about US occupation, or hell. Anything. 
 
A company that would suppress such things is evil (literally no other apt description) and should be avoided and should lose business of anyone who cares about such things. People defend the freedom of the internet all the time, but we access the internet through devices, and these devices should be protected by their users to the same extent. What good is a free internet if every device you can access with it has a stringent set of guidelines about what is 'alliowed to run' on it.
 
And as I say, it doesn't matter if you personally can circumnavigate it, because the people MAKING this stuff lose all their potential market (the millions who cannot circumnavigate it) and thus this stuff stops being made.
 
SteamOS:
 
Built on Linux (still has all the linux stuff there for you to use as you like, all currently existing Linux software, open source and whatnot) Will have source code available for SteamOS itself IIRC Will be free Envisioned by someone who has often passionately championed open platforms Will make Linux user friendly Is designed primarily for living rooms, thus a two pronged attack not only on Microsoft's desktop dominance but also on console industry which itself has a lot of rot (what with a large percentage of it being dominated by the same Microsoft that's fucking up the desktop, as well as facilitating 1984 telescreens for the NSA to watch you in your living room, fuck me) Okay it might be a massive balls up, but its the best chance we have of avoiding being funneled into Microsoft or Apple's evil machinations and is the best hope for this industry, particularly the little guys who could otherwise be stomped underfoot by MS. Look at their appalling treatment of indies on XBox 360, and imagine a situation where all PC game developers had to be at their mercy too.
 
And before you say 'but that's Microsoft, I'm talking about Apple', Microsoft have been basically aping everything Apple have done for the past god knows how many years. Sorry to say it but Apple headquarters was where most of the evil was conceived.
 
I could literally write about 100x what I have here on the subject, but this is basic overview.

Nope.
 
Wouldn't throw my money away like that.

The guy from Darthmod made Empire's AI quiet good, it actually put up a fight most of the time...

Nope.
 
Wouldn't throw my money away like that.

Yes. Although while I acknowledge that meanings change, if they broaden too much then we need a new term. Another example (although one which is not so broad) would be "free to play". As a term it implies a straightforward, "it's free" - after all, what else is there to with a game other than to play it? But of course nowadays, the term would be more accurately described as "free to examine" since often-times although you're free to poke around and try things out, to really "play" it as designed, requires payment of some form. I'd imagine there are many free to play developers out there making games which are free to play in the truest form, in that the only purchasable items are cosmetic. And I'd imagine that they are similarly dissatisfied with the negative baggage the term has become loaded with. But there's only so many categories you can place games into before things start getting really silly, so they're stuck with it.

Yep; you don't have to worry about global politics as much and nobody will give a damn what you do in Ireland. Mostly.
 
I tend to favor playing as Byzantium and attempt to reforge the Roman Empire which you can only do if you have the Legacy of Rome expansion. Fun times
 
I would recommend trying out the CK2+ mod which you'll find in the mod forum under the new thread, CK2 continuation or something like that. It keeps the flavor of CK2 but adds a ton of stuff to the game. Improvements that you can't say no to. Just a word of warning though: CK2 patches tend to break save games and mods which is a real annoyance.

Simply put: CK2 is a family dynastic political strategy game that covers Europe and parts of the east. There is practically no trade/economy aspect to it other than taxes and that. You do have the military side of it though which is somewhat similar to EU IV.
 
EU IV is a grander scale strategy with focus on trade, conquest, deeper diplomatic treaty agreements and covers the entire world. There is also a colonization aspect to it. In EU IV, you play the country, not an individual with a family. Your ruler still matters as he has different stats and that, but they are nowhere as deep as CK2. They are similar graphically and how they play out on the campaign map, but the similarities end there.
 
I've got both of them and have played them extensively. I personally prefer CK2 as I find it a far more complex game with a lot more depth to it than EU IV. It has more character due to the political intrigue and you grow attached to your virtual characters that you essentially raise throughout the game.
 
Playing EU IV has none of this feeling. You don't really feel attached to your country and the depth just isn't there. Don't get me wrong; its a great game but I find CK2 is just vastly superior despite their differences. I also find CK2 has more layers of strategy to it rather than just marching your armies across Europe to conquer. You'll find yourself being a victim of a scheme or perpetrating some schemes yourself.
 
To balance this very one-sided CK2 favoritism out that I'm showing, EU IV has its own charms. EU has a nice trading mechanic that allows you to manipulate it directly giving you an added layer of strategy to deal with your foes. It can be quite difficult to understand at first however. It also has a colonization mechanic that allows you to search for new lands (America) and colonize them for your country. EU also has a far deeper diplomatic treaty system. Discussing the terms of surrender to an enemy is fantastically detailed giving you lots of options and feels very satisfying.
 
Anyhow, its up to you what you want. If you want a deeper attachment to your country and to deal with family/politics; CK2 would be it.
 
If you want a far simpler approach of controlling a country but playing on a bigger stage with economics thrown in; EU IV is it.

If you want to have an objective discussion, you might want to first establish to the readers why they should take your statements as descriptions of factual states of being in the observable universe, instead of just opinions like everyone else's.