FoolishChaos

I thought I had signed up for the PC beta back during e3 but I'm not sure if that relates to the insider thing? Either way no email, bleh.

Looking forward to giving it a go after skipping hardline last year

Its only unlikely if we are denied the opportunity to track people down. They include the names of who discovered what. As soon as you find someones planet, all you have to do is message their username and ask if they want to retrace.

@lv4monk said:

If your question is "Can I see another player; can we interact?", then the answer is no to both counts. I can't say why the devs refuse to just say this, but if you look at some of their recent tweets and how they skirt the issue I think it becomes clear.

I really do not like this practice. As a player who takes joy in really delving deep on a game, and progressing through its many difficulty levels, lying to me about something as fundamentally true as a percentage is not good for me moving forward. It builds preconceptions that actively defy both the highest difficulty and also any other game with "surfaced" percentages, and also, you know, reality.

Does this apply to overwatch as well?

I'm playing on commander, second go around, and after a full game never using over-watch ambushes (because why would you?), I decided to do it on a whim with squaddies. They all had a similar chance to hit the pod, 75~%, so I set three to overwatch and had the fourth shoot. All 4 shots miss and I threw my hands in the air and thought "that's why you don't do that". I mean, missing four 75%'s in a row is not particularly special in xcom terms, but after reading this post, it seems like it must have been rather unusual. I would have had to miss a 75%, a 90%, a 95% and another 95%. Now, that can totally happen. But it still seems more likely that I am missing some piece of the puzzle here than I actually just rolled that bad.

The marsh actually made me restart the game. Maybe I didn't have to go this far, but this is what happened to me:

1. Get to marsh, do the first set of tutorials.

2. Didn't immediately realize there was a back side to those panels and did the puzzle to cross the gap.

3. Can't figure out how to get out of my new prison, surrounded by puzzles I didn't have the insight to complete.

Ah, yes she did. This is reinforcing my curiosity

This is not an encouragement to back out of payment due to length, but simply me pointing out that if you finish the game and believe the narrative to be non fiction, and if you believe that you purchased stolen goods, there is a way to avoid your money remaining with that developer in this very specific case.

I really need to play this game.

I have not yet played the game, but I am pretty sure the crux of this discussion revolves around the ending to it. So spoilers, I think.

In this list article on destructoid, "The best new IP's of 2015", the author gives a bit of a strange recommendation. She includes The Beginners Guide on the list as one of the best new IP's of 2015, but then states:

Just make sure to complete it within your Steam refund window, as there are legitimate reasons to want to return this game after purchase.

Moderator edit: The author has updated the article, stating:

"This is not an encouragement to back out of payment due to length, but simply me pointing out that if you finish the game and believe the narrative to be non fiction, and if you believe that you purchased stolen goods, there is a way to avoid your money remaining with that developer in this very specific case."

So, why would she say this? Well, the answer lies in her twitter replies, as this has sort of blown back a little bit.

She believes that there is a chance a player of the game will take moral objection to the possibility that the narrative is true, and that there is a Coda whose work was used without consent from Wreden. Again, I haven't played the game but how likely is any of this? I don't think I'll have time for the game this weekend, but this whole thing has made me very interested.

I'm enjoying the show (ep 11 atm), but maaaaan the continued conflict past like episode 7 has seemed extremely contrived.

Except flying is literally just hitting the jump button after a running start. Seeing as there is only one block to hit the jump button on after the running start, and no other input is required, I don't see how it is a false equivalence.

He didn't know how the cape worked, when he found it. He then proceeded to use the cape for several hours

Also "Am I supposed to believe he decided to fly there by pure chance?"

I mean, yes. The spot you are talking about is one of the few areas you have enough ground to fly to. This sort of thinking is akin to wondering how a player found an invisible block, when the entire level is a 1x1 pit, and in any instance of jumping, they will hit the invisible block.