Showing posts with label thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thoughts. Show all posts
Monday, March 27, 2017
Avernum 2 Crystal Souls Is Out Some Cranky Thoughts
Avernum 2 Crystal Souls Is Out Some Cranky Thoughts
 |
| The II in this logo is hard to see, and it drives me nuts every time I look at it. |
We have just released our newest game. Its Avernum 2: Crystal Souls. It is a huge indie RPG for Windows and Mac (iPad coming soon), on Steam, GoG.com, Humble Store, and our own website. You know. All the places the cool kids hang out.
It came out yesterday and early sales are very strong. Thank you, kind customers!
Avernum 2: Crystal Souls is, like half of what we do, a rewrite. This particular story is arguably the one loved most by our fans. (Avernum 3 is the other contender) The previous incarnation, Avernum 2, came out way, WAY back in 2000, so I am utterly unapologetic about releasing a rewrite.
My main goals when doing these rewrites is to respect and maintain what made people love them in the first place. This is made so much more important by the fact that I cant write new games like this anymore.
Cool Things About Avernum 2
The first two Avernum games have a story structure that is still unique in RPGs. There isnt one storyline. Theres three, each of which has its own goal, missions, final boss, etc. You can play one of them and have a satisfying game experience, or you can be hardcore and do more.
Its a huge game, and I wanted people to be able to play a smaller chunk of it and still feel that they got somewhere. I think theres a good idea in there, and other developers should steal it.
Also, the game takes place in Avernum, a subterranean nation full of exiles, petty criminals, and weird, alien races. Its like Australia, but with even more monsters. Or like the proverbial parents basement, but a country. Its a really cool setting, one that has resonated with players for over twenty years. I still love it.
 | |
|
Nobody Wants an Aging Rock Star To Play the New Stuff
If you go see the Rolling Stones in concert, you dont want to hear their new stuff. Yuck. Boring! You want to hear the old hits, written when they were young and energetic and crazy and fresh.
My old games are kind of the same. As I rework them, I cant get over how weird and quirky and energetic and chaotic the stuff I did when I was young was. My games were full of rough edges, joyfully overpowered spells, and the sort of concentrated oddness I have a harder time generating as I get old and boring.
Rewriting them, Ive tried to make it a bit more user-friendly with modern tweaks like quest lists and tooltips. Yet, I mostly spend my time being jealous of how silly and loose I could be when I was young.
When I wrote the Avernum trilogy for the first time (when they were called Exile), I just threw everything in there I could think of, and, thanks to a weird alchemy of skill and dumb luck, it worked. People loved the games, and I got a career out of it.
 |
| Avernum 2 was a rewrite of Exile 2: Crystal Souls, which came out in 1996 and looks like this. Some people seriously tell me that my games havent changed at all since I started. Oh, you silly internet! |
You Still Have To Make New Stuff, Or You Go Insane
Dont get me wrong. I am proud of my newer games. They dont sell as well, but they do have a following. I dont hallucinate the fan mail.
I still need to keep doing the rewrites. They make good money. People like them. The old games dont run well (or at all) anymore. I get tablet versions out of the deal. So Im going to keep doing it. When people complain about rewrites, it just means theyve failed to fully acknowledge how awesome I am.
And I still need to write new games, with new systems and interfaces and stories, or I will simply go insane. If you like my old stuff better, I wont take offense. Different people like different things.
But More About Avernum 2: Crystal Souls
Its a really big game. The story and setting are cool. Its retro and oldschool, but with a modern interface to keep it fun. Theres a big demo on our website, if you arent sure. Take a look!
Available link for download
Thursday, March 2, 2017
Assorted Thoughts on Financial Regulation
Assorted Thoughts on Financial Regulation
The financial regulatory reform debate is starting to kick into high gear, and I hope to bang out a post on financial reform this weekend. But in the meantime, here are a few general (and somewhat random) thoughts relating to financial reform:
- My nomination for the Ten Worst Decisions in the Financial Crisis List (you know, if that list existed, which I think it should): Citis decision to bail out its SIVs and bring over $100bn in toxic assets back onto its balance sheet. Really this was Vikram Pandits decision — the day after he was appointed CEO, he decided to bail out the biggest Citi-managed SIVs and bring ~$50bn in toxic assets back onto Citis balance sheet (reversing the banks previous position, which had been that it wouldnt bail out investors in SIVs without liquidity puts). If youre wondering how Citi ended up with so many toxic assets, and how regulators missed such a massive build-up of risk on Citis balance sheet, this is your answer. This is also why Im somewhat sympathetic to the regulators (in this case, the NY Fed). For supervisory purposes, all these toxic assets were gone from Citis balance sheet, because these were true-sale securitizations to bankruptcy-remote SIVs. Then, all of the sudden, the toxic assets were back on Citis balance sheet. And its understandable that regulators didnt foresee that Citi would voluntarily agree to buy back $100bn in assets that it had previously sold in true-sale securitizations.
- Its true that the idea that "whats good for Wall Street is good for America" has been disproved, but that does NOT prove the opposite—that is, it doesnt prove that "whats bad for Wall Street is good for America." Its frightening how many commentators fail to grasp this distinction. Which brings me to...
- Cutting into Wall Streets profit margins shouldnt be an explicit goal of financial reform. In other words, we shouldnt look for where the Street has the highest profit margins, and then say, "OK, now how can we cut into those profits?" In most instances, enacting sensible regulation based on an objective weighing of the evidence will lower Wall Streets profit margins anyway. But the fact that the Street is going to profit from a particular regulatory change doesnt necessarily make the regulatory change ineffective, or insufficiently "tough on Wall Street." One argument I hear a lot on OTC derivatives is that we need to push them onto exchanges rather than clearinghouses because Wall Street would still make fat profits if they just went through clearinghouses. Thats not a coherent argument for why public policy should require exchange-trading for standardized OTC derivatives.
Available link for download
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)