Did you even watch the indepth video ?

They've made it soooooo much easier.

Yes, Hollywood has been putting cg into footage for years but it require a team and tonnes of specialized software that cost thousands of dollars.
This is one app, with an immensely streamline workflow that most school kids could use.

No, if something is tested and works then that is no longer "alternative medicine", it is simply "medicine". The classic example is aspirin, which is derived from the bark of a willow tree. It was then tested and has now been accepted as medicine.

Just because the FDA accepts woo for political purposes, doesn't make it science.

As for FDA approval of St Johns Wort, there is some dispute about the bias of these studies, as it is unexplained why it works so much better in Germany http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000448.pub3/full#CD000448-sec1-0005.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume there's plenty of evidence to support it. Again the answer is to streamline the approval process, not just let any muppet with some potpourri market it as a miracle cure.

I would much rather people pay 10 times the cost for medicine that actually works, and even better, doesn't kill people.

Of course, if you lived in a country with a sane healthcare system, you wouldn't actually worry about this, because in most of the world, it's considered poor form to let your citizens die from treatable diseases ,just because they can't pay for it.

Again, it's really simple, either you understand and accept the scientific method or you don't. Healthcare is complex and requires a lot of work to determine if something actually works. That costs money. It's unfortunate, but the results don't lie.

Looking forward to seeing some enthusiasm behind streamlining the site with a view to making the place appealing to new users.

Many people in the past (not surprisingly, on threads that began and ended with a ban-party followed by a snarky remark by dicks with scripts who can't keep their dysfunctional bullshit in-check such as, "Gawd, can't you read the rules?!") have suggested doing so to curtail spam-

I especially enjoy having the chat-room open to all-comers (good call) and @warmth, You have some great ideas and enthusiasm, Thank You.

As for the "dustbin fairing problem", in the 50s motorbike racing teams were trying streamlined enclosed fairings on their motorbikes to increase top speed, but they caused problems in cross-winds and were banned from competition in 1957:

http://www.fasterandfaster.net/2010/03/dustbin-fairings-and-motorcycle-racing.html

I could see something like this going a long way towards streamlining game design, imagine all the time wasted making all the knickknacks you see in games like Skyrim. Hell, maybe even building a room directly off an illustration.
If this is all just fake then can those involved please burn in hell.

Healthcare should not be a "For Profit" enterprise.

I agree that doctors should be paid well as should nursing staff and so on. but this top ended, high markup on health care is becoming criminal. Kudos to these doctors that care more about the patient's ability to get treated at a fair price instead of being gouged.

By streamlining the job position by eliminating the people that don't contribute but take home high salaries, it just makes sense that this would work. Why would they need to have those high paying positions in there to begin with?

I think this is the day when those high-pay, no-action, dinosaur jobs are on the way out. Or so I hope.

Every X-Com game after TFTD has sucked. Developers keep changing the gameplay away from what made those first two games so good.

When a game is as popular as X-Com was, you are only going to piss off potential customers who loved the originals if you "re-imagine" it into a completely different genre. X-Com was not based on movies/books/comics with beloved characters that could carry a game into other genres and remain successful (think Star Wars). The X-Com world and story did not have deeply fleshed-out canon that could grab the attention of fans, regardless of the genre.

If you create a game that diverges from the gameplay that made X-Com X-Com, it's simply not an X-Com game, imho, and slapping a title like "X-Com: Enemy Unknown" onto the box doesn't make it an X-Com game either. The gameplay/genre WAS X-Com. Not much else defined it. You can have the smartest, most talented people in the industry (who, yet again, claim to be huge fans of the original) working on the damn thing, and still release a pile of shit. You can see it coming when they start throwing out lines like "streamlined interface" (consolized), or "re-imagined" (different genre and/or fundamental changes to gameplay).

The game is getting generally great reviews, and maybe I'd feel differently if they had called it "Martin Attack" or something. But they didn't. They called it "X-Com". And it isn't.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

God I hated that movie. It wasn't because it was bad (and it was fucking awful), but more because it could have been amazing. It had the chance to be awesome high concept sci-fi with decent action thrown in. Instead it resorted to the worst kind of b-movie schlock and a stoned first year arts students idea of profound philosophy.
And that's ignoring how much the movie hates science. Honestly when that retard took off his helmet and said "don't be a skeptic", I nearly walked out at that point.
"Don't be a skeptic"? Are you fuckin' kidding me? Yeah, let's just ignore one of the fundamental tenets of science!
bah....


You hit the nail on the head. They had so many of the right elements actually sitting there, ready to use... But, they really needed another writer or two. They needed one writer to make sure the story wasn't "all-over-the-place", to streamline it while leaving its intellectual side intact and at full throttle; in fact it should've been increased a bit in a few areas, which is my next writer. They needed to keep some of the more unrealistic elements in check as well, like the crashing spaceship...rolling...and her running, IN-LINE with it, such a stupid and corny seen; just CRASH the damned thing!

The second writer needed to shore up all the inconsistencies with the characters and their supposed "psychological persona" created for the movie. We all hate the fact that scientists are in a VERY foreign environment and yet he takes his helmet right off and shows everyone that his science degree was from a Bible University... This trend continues the entire movie, with of course in-line running girl, because that is where the camera is! And, so, so, so, many more to be enjoyed in drinking games to come. This writer would've made sure these idiocies were stopped dead in the script, secondly he would also interject about how certain characters would react to various scenes--in a REALISTIC fashion, not some cheesy SyFy Original movie of the week release...

The aliens themselves, who have seeded life, SENTIENT LIFE (planned out to the extent that the sentient beings would appear very far down their original "release" of DNA material into the environment--that is called ULTRA-INTELLIGENCE!) screw up minor details on their "WMD". This is another ridiculous notion, because if they can plant sentient life around the Galaxy then setting up a spaceship properly would be "kids play" to them... Another hole that needed a script fix or major change.

This movie just needed more development and perhaps less "ego" on-set and more realistic planning and even a real script with insight into the fields being used in the show: anthropology, biology, engineering, and all the other trades and skills used within--they needed to invite REAL scientists on set and to read the script, and to highlight things that were obviously things that wouldn't happen--even IN a "big business" scenario. The actors could've used real "shadows" of their job and a good idea how that scientist would do their job, with advanced technology and knowledge.

BTW, *quality

>> ^mentality:

@Fletch
"You'll have to stop barking first."
Classy. Nice tone you set for the rest of the discussion.
"Not surprised that you have nothing to say about this, as it is, probably, the primary reason so many former Diablo players won't be playing D3.
How many is so many? Did you do a survey? Diablo's core audience, many of whom continue to play D2 to this day, are those who played D2 on BNET. That's where the meat of the game is, and that's where the community is built around. Who do you think Blizzard keeps on patching and adding new content for, more than a decade after D2's release?
" Nothing in D2 required you to go to "sketchy websites" and spend money. [...] Sure, you still don't have to, but both drops and crafting have been nerfed in order to encourage spending."
Did you know that D2 had a huge online item black market? It has basically the same effect as an auction house, except people had to go to 3rd party vendors for it. But guess what? This kind of stuff only matters if you're playing on the ladder. Want to have a nice quiet solo game, or run through the game with a few friends? Who the hell cares if you have elite gear? Play the beta - they definitely did NOT nerf drops and crafting.
The rest of your post is nonsense. D3's stash size is 10x7, larger than the one in D2. And blizzard manipulating drop rates for players depending on their auction house usage? That's just pure bullshit.
Have you even played D2 or kept up with all the interface "streamlining" in D3 at all? Those pets I mentioned above don't do anything except pick up your gold. Talk about "dumbed-down". This game is headed for consoles.
Those pets were removed from the game due to player feedback. "Streamlining" - have you even played the beta? The additional skill slots make this game LESS console friendly than D2. Face it, D2 was already perfect for consoles. And Torchlight? ALREADY on consoles.
SOME randomized dungeons, last I read. Although, if I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter. I said "linear", not "non-random". One does not mean the other. I have little hope you can understand the difference. I'll try to use them both in a sentence for you later.
I said randomized dungeons and quests. If the first time you play the game you get quests ABC, and the second time you play the game you get quests XYZ instead, is that NON-LINEAR enough for you? It looks like you're the kind of person who, rather than play a game, justs makes up bullshit instead and then bitch about it.
Oh, please. The textures look like they shot primary-colored paint balls onto an easel and captured it through a shear stocking.
Like I said, people seem to forget D2's graphics. In D2 you were fighting against red, green, blue, yellow colored monsters while your character was decked out in purple. D2 was cartoony. D3 is less. You complain about D3 being cartoony, then you talk about playing Torchlight? Are you fucking kidding me?
It's Blizzard's loss, not mine. I don't get too emotionally attached to "things". With Torchlight2, Grim Dawn, Path of Exile, and even Legend of Grimrock in the works, I won't miss D3 one bit.
With D3's sales, I doubt Blizzard will miss you one bit. And the Diablo community won't miss you one bit. One less whiny brat to clog up the BNET forums.


Ugh...

Ok, you win, Fanboy. Have fun. I hope it lives up to all your dreams.

@Fletch

"You'll have to stop barking first."

Classy. Nice tone you set for the rest of the discussion.

"Not surprised that you have nothing to say about this, as it is, probably, the primary reason so many former Diablo players won't be playing D3.

How many is so many? Did you do a survey? Diablo's core audience, many of whom continue to play D2 to this day, are those who played D2 on BNET. That's where the meat of the game is, and that's where the community is built around. Who do you think Blizzard keeps on patching and adding new content for, more than a decade after D2's release?

" Nothing in D2 required you to go to "sketchy websites" and spend money. [...] Sure, you still don't have to, but both drops and crafting have been nerfed in order to encourage spending."

Did you know that D2 had a huge online item black market? It has basically the same effect as an auction house, except people had to go to 3rd party vendors for it. But guess what? This kind of stuff only matters if you're playing on the ladder. Want to have a nice quiet solo game, or run through the game with a few friends? Who the hell cares if you have elite gear? Play the beta - they definitely did NOT nerf drops and crafting.

The rest of your post is nonsense. D3's stash size is 10x7, larger than the one in D2. And blizzard manipulating drop rates for players depending on their auction house usage? That's just pure bullshit.

Have you even played D2 or kept up with all the interface "streamlining" in D3 at all? Those pets I mentioned above don't do anything except pick up your gold. Talk about "dumbed-down". This game is headed for consoles.

Those pets were removed from the game due to player feedback. "Streamlining" - have you even played the beta? The additional skill slots make this game LESS console friendly than D2. Face it, D2 was already perfect for consoles. And Torchlight? ALREADY on consoles.

SOME randomized dungeons, last I read. Although, if I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter. I said "linear", not "non-random". One does not mean the other. I have little hope you can understand the difference. I'll try to use them both in a sentence for you later.

I said randomized dungeons and quests. If the first time you play the game you get quests ABC, and the second time you play the game you get quests XYZ instead, is that NON-LINEAR enough for you? It looks like you're the kind of person who, rather than play a game, justs makes up bullshit instead and then bitch about it.

Oh, please. The textures look like they shot primary-colored paint balls onto an easel and captured it through a shear stocking.

Like I said, people seem to forget D2's graphics. In D2 you were fighting against red, green, blue, yellow colored monsters while your character was decked out in purple. D2 was cartoony. D3 is less. You complain about D3 being cartoony, then you talk about playing Torchlight? Are you fucking kidding me?

It's Blizzard's loss, not mine. I don't get too emotionally attached to "things". With Torchlight2, Grim Dawn, Path of Exile, and even Legend of Grimrock in the works, I won't miss D3 one bit.

With D3's sales, I doubt Blizzard will miss you one bit. And the Diablo community won't miss you one bit. One less whiny brat to clog up the BNET forums.

@mentality

I absolutely LOVE list comments! Anda here we gooooo....!

"I'll bite."

You'll have to stop barking first.

"1. Online-only: Yup."

Not surprised that you have nothing to say about this, as it is, probably, the primary reason so many former Diablo players won't be playing D3. The rest of this list is just icing. There is simply no reason whatsoever to require a persistent online connection for single player, at least from the player's perspective.

"2. Overly-monetized: So was Diablo 2. Now those who want to spend money don't have to go to sketchy websites."

Huh? Nothing in D2 required you to go to "sketchy websites" and spend money. Some items were only available in the online game, but the player still had the choice whether to participate or not, and I didn't. In D3, spending real money is an integral part of the game. Sure, you still don't have to, but both drops and crafting have been nerfed in order to encourage spending.

The inclusion of the AH turns everybody into an open wallet that can be manipulated. How? Say Blizzard's stats show a player sells the majority of his uniques in the AH. Up his unique drops. Make more money when he sells in the AH. How about giving players more drops of valuable items they already possess? More duplicates, more selling in AH, more profit for Blizzard. Need more storage space in your stash? Unfortunately, Blizzard just made it smaller in the beta. Luckily, you'll be able to buy more space in the AH. Want a pet to pick up all your gold for you? Oops! Removed, but no doubt you'll soon be able to buy one in the AH.

The whole monetizing thing is offensive to me as a PC gamer and former Blizzard fan. You wanna be a chump? Go for it. Buy yourself some Ancient Armor of Win and have a blast.

"3. Dumbed down: nope. With the skill rune system and the crafting, as well as the new skill bar, there's going to be more depth in D3."

Have you even played D2 or kept up with all the interface "streamlining" in D3 at all? Everything is being nerfed to encourage participation in the AH. Those pets I mentioned above don't do anything except pick up your gold. Talk about "dumbed-down". This game is headed for consoles.

"4. Linear: nope. Still randomized dungeons and quests."

SOME randomized dungeons, last I read. Although, if I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter. I said "linear", not "non-random". One does not mean the other. I have little hope you can understand the difference. I'll try to use them both in a sentence for you later.

"5. Cartoony: Nope. The beta is anything but cartoony. I'd say D2 was way more cartoony with its rainbow pantheon of monsters."

Oh, please. The textures look like they shot primary-colored paint balls onto an easel and captured it through a shear stocking. Again though, doesn't matter. Very low on my list of issues, if it's there at all. I mainly just needed an adjective.

"Your loss."

Please edit your videos before you hit "submit new comment". The original gets immediately sent to me in it's entirety via email notification. Your original comment of...

"Your loss and good riddance."

...sounds pretty fanboy-ey and I can see why you wouldn't want people to see it. It explains alot. However... on the chance it was just a random typo and not an example of your linear thinking, I'll just say this...

It's Blizzard's loss, not mine. I don't get too emotionally attached to "things". With Torchlight2, Grim Dawn, Path of Exile, and even Legend of Grimrock in the works, I won't miss D3 one bit.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm always looking for an opportunity to quote the great Fagan. This seemed to fit. the funny thing is that a lot of people didn't realize that this song was dark sarcasm.>> ^Ornthoron:

>> ^dag:
Here at home we'll play in the city
Powered by the sun
Perfect weather for a streamlined world
There'll be spandex jackets one for everyone
What a beautiful world this will be
What a glorious time to be free

Yay! Donald Fagen quote! He didn't say in the song that all the spandex jackets would be white, though.

>> ^dag:

Here at home we'll play in the city
Powered by the sun
Perfect weather for a streamlined world
There'll be spandex jackets one for everyone
What a beautiful world this will be
What a glorious time to be free


Yay! Donald Fagen quote! He didn't say in the song that all the spandex jackets would be white, though.

As it approaches the boat around :18 -:23, you can almost get a top-view of the streamlined, conical shape of the sharks nose. Definitely not a bullshark, video bro.