Home
Twitter
RSS
Newsletter
Sinthesys' Profile
PALGN Guru
PALGN Guru

Contact Information
Email address:  
Private Message: Send private message
MSN Messenger: MSN Messenger
Yahoo Messenger:
AIM Address:  
ICQ Number:  
Username:  Sinthesys
Joined:  15 Aug 2007
$poons:  58.00
Total posts:  2968 [Show all]
[0.38% of total / 1.39 posts per day]
Post Score:  3668  ( 3847 / 179) [Show all]
Total votes:  2224 [Show all]
Location:  Perth
Website:  http://palgn.com.au
Occupation:   
Interests:  
 
Referrals
Sinthesys  has referred 1 user:
tyrannocon
Buddies
People with Sinthesys as their buddy: 2
Sinthesys' buddies: Easter Bunny, Jesus
[Add Sinthesys to your buddy list]
Sinthesys' Recent Forum Posts
Pagan's Mind wrote
redemption wrote
I enjoyed Baccano enough to watch it twice. One with subs, once with dub. Its fun, alot more fun when it has the extra episodes.
Speaking of which, do you recommend the dub or sub for Baccano?
I recon go for the dub. I don't usually say that, but considering all the regional accents (particularly the sort of boston, italian-american we have all come to expect from the Capone era of gangsters), it actually adds a bit more depth to the performances and the voice actors are decent enough to carry it.
Re: Gaming Bargains V2 (1 year ago)
el_supraman wrote
dead island and space marine 58 bucks at big w - http://www.bigw.com.au/Offer/BigGameBargains
Anyone know how this works? Are Big dub decent at delivery times? Otherwise, anyone know if it's possible to pick up these games at a similar price in-store elsewhere?
Baby, I hate songs like this.... 3/10. Much more respect for the MF Doom Cian put up (His Danger Mouse colab is bliss).

But if we're looking at songs about being a girl, I'd rather listen to Beck:

Re: Terraria (1 year ago)
I mean, I'd be happy to do it; I've set up a Hamachi network already, but I probably won't be able to 24/7 it, just use the 'host & play' function. I'm not sure how to set up a ded server, so if anyone can school my stupid ass, I'd create one.

Also, sorry for my late response Windburn & Co, I haven't been PALGNing much lately. PM me if you're still interested and want a swifter reply...
Re: Terraria (2 years ago)
Anyone keen to get a palgn server going? I can create a large world and run the whole thing over Hamachi if necessary.
Re: Mortal Kombat Legacy (2 years ago)
Benza wrote
honestly if I hadn't seen the original short I wouldn't be giving this another shot for the second episode
My thoughts exactly. However, that 12 minute video was still better than Mortal Kombat 2.

I'm holding out for some sweet Scorpion vs. Sub Zero action in future episodes...
Re: Post your Pix (2 years ago)
First one, then the other.
Re: One Questions (2 years ago)
I find this website pretty good for subtitles...
1. When did you join PALGN and why did you join?

2007, mainly due to my friends having no interest in games, short of weekend bouts of Halo, Modern Warfare, Smash Bros or Mario Kart. In other words, they are very casual gamers. I found it nice to have an outlet to express my inner geek.

2. What were your initial gaming interests when you joined PALGN, and have they changed at all since? If so, how?

When I first joined, I wasn't playing many games, mostly PC, partly because of a decreased interest in gaming. After being here a while, I bought a Wii, loved it, neglected it, dusted it off, sold it and bought a 360. Since then, I rekindled my love for console games and neglected the PC completely, short of strategy games. Having a Wii emulator and a 360 controller PC wireless receiver, Ive had my fix of Wii games too.

3. Do you feel like you've contributed anything to the community, and if so, name a few things you think are worth mentioning (e.g. Popular threads, site suggestions, competitions, staff involvement)

I contribute nothing, other than being a royal pain in the arse to some of the posters here. When I get on forums, I tend to be cantankerous and argumentative, mostly because I use it as a form of procrastination to avoid doing assignments. Other than that, in my earlier days here, my only real contribution was probably being the biggest thread/grammar nazi. I probably would have been a horrible mod, so I settled for being an average back-seat mod.


4. Has PALGN increased your knowledge of the gaming industry in general?

By great strides. Before coming here, I knew next to nothing about the releases of games and only had a vague idea about the difference between the biggest developers and the sorts of games being released. PALGN has basically been my only source of gaming news and I guess through that, I've learnt a lot about how the industry works.

5. Has PALGN given you any inspirations towards your career path?

Not one bit.

6. Have you made any friendships since joining PALGN that you feel you could only have made through a site like this; one that brings people of similar interests together?

Yes and no. I'm not very vocal about who I like and who I don't, but if I've plussed you, it probably means I think you are a funny guy. If I've argued with you, you probably hate me by default. I think of that hatred as a mark of respect, at least.

7. Have you met anyone from PALGN, and if so, do you still meet up with [any of] them often?

No, I haven't met anyone here. There are a few people who I think would be cool to hang out with, but being that I live in Perth, I'll have to remain tucked away behind an avatar.

8. Overall, do you think PALGN has made any major influences on your life?

Sort of. I mean, owning a console and buying games has been a significant money and time sink, so there's that...
Sin Ogaris wrote
Sinthesys wrote
When you're an adult, this behaviour becomes less and less acceptable, unless you are in fact, drunk. Also, the head on your shoulders becomes less and less likely to listen to that voice, unless you are in fact, drunk.
This is quite simply the dumbest comment this thread has spawned. Being drunk doesn't give people the license to do stupid ****, nor does it specifically mean they're going to, like the guy above said if you're going to do stupid **** while drunk, you're going to do it sober, alcohol does not turn you into a completely different person.
Before you well and truly get your panties into a bunch, maybe you should take a step back and stop making implications and assumptions. I never said it gives you 'the license to do stupid ****' I merely stated that:
a) It is more understandable to be irresponsible when you are under the influence. If you call your mate a ****-head while drunk, he's going to be much more forgiving than if you did it sober.
b) People use it as social lubricant because of this. Perhaps it's because they know that they have a better chance to get away with something they were going to do anyway if they have that excuse, or perhaps it's something they wanted to do, but were held back by inhibitions while sober.

Sin Ogaris wrote
nor does it specifically mean they're going to
I never said that either. But c'mon, are you going to sit there straight faced and tell me you are a perfectly reasonable person while drunk and have never woken up the next day regretting doing something you'd only have done if you were drunk? Hell, the entire sitcom trope of 'what did I do last night?' is built around this very fact. Don't disagree for the sake of it, Sin.

Sin Ogaris wrote
like the guy above said if you're going to do stupid **** while drunk, you're going to do it sober
What the fuck does that mean? You are more prone to doing stupid shit when your judgement has been impaired by a mind altering substance. This isn't rocket science, buddy, it's just the nature of alcohol. Will you start beating on your girlfriend, just because you've had a few drinks? Probably not, but would you consider driving home after having a few when if you were sober, you'd never, ever think you'd be the person to drink drive? I think everyone can relate to that sort of lapse in judgement due to drinking...

Sin Ogaris wrote
alcohol does not turn you into a completely different person.
Where did I say that? Now you're just putting words in my mouth. Fuck me mate, I think you called the witchhunt a little early...
mrpookles wrote
I work with someone that quit drinking and their comment they bring out whenever there's work drinks is: "People only drink because they're shy and need the alcohol to be sociable. I don't need alcohol to be sociable."

Discuss. Not only the comment, but that particular line of attitude.
It reeks of denial. They quit drinking, but because it still tempts them, they have to bull-**** a reason to give themselves positive reinforcement and a false sense of superiority. Just like the fox, they call the grapes they cannot reach 'sour'.

That sort of attitude annoys me, as they take a personal decision and turn it into a public judgement call all in the name of nourishing their own ego. If people drank to make up for their social deficiencies only, why do people drink alone?

Grim-one wrote
Sinthesys wrote
It's the friend that goads and cheers you into doing stupid **** and then tortures you the next day for it.
Again you don't need to be drunk for this to happen.
When you're an adult, this behaviour becomes less and less acceptable, unless you are in fact, drunk. Also, the head on your shoulders becomes less and less likely to listen to that voice, unless you are in fact, drunk.
grim-one wrote
There was no comparison, I was pointing out that you can have fun and memorable moments without being drunk.
Nobody said you couldn't, they were more talking about the type of fun you have while drunk. I.e. more.

grim-one wrote
As for qualifications? This thread was inviting opinions from both sides, thus as a teetotaller I'm qualified
Everybody spent their first 18 years or so being teatotallers, so it's not really a unique perspective. You actually have to had tried drinking before you can comment on it, and to a lesser extent, life when you are deprived of it. You don't know what it's like, so you can't compare drunk good times to sober good times yet. You can't offer a well formed opinion without that experience.

grim-one wrote
I'm not trying to tell you guys not to drink and have fun doing it. Just trying to point out that it's not necessary in order to have fun or be sociable.
Nobody ever said you need alcohol to have a good time, in fact, everyone has said the opposite. That's not to say you won't have a comparatively better time when you're drunk. You don't need friends to have fun, but you have a hell of a lot more fun when you're with them. Same with alcohol I guess: It's the friend that goads and cheers you into doing stupid shit and then tortures you the next day for it.
grim-one wrote
Aussie XP wrote
I truly feel if you haven't had a few drunken experiences with your closest buddies, your missing out on some good memories.
I don't really agree on this though. I've never been drunk but I've got plenty of good memories hanging out with friends and doing hilarious stuff. Plus I remember it all, unlike some of those who were drunk icon_wink.gif
If you have never been drunk, what are you basing your comparison on? Seriously, if you haven't experienced both sides, you aren't really qualified to comment.

What he means by 'you're missing out on some good memories' is that when you get drunk with your friends, you tend to do crazy/out of the ordinary things. Things that are fun, spontaneous, exciting, dangerous and often very stupid, but ultimately some of best memories you'll look back on. Some of the dumbest, but funniest things that have happened to me wouldn't have happened at all if my friends and I weren't drinking - Good or not, they were certainly memorable...

Quote
And I've never once in my entire life not remembered a drunken night, honestly I think people who say they can't remember it are just plain stupid or they think it makes them look "cool" for having that many drinks....I say they need to HTFU. I always remember things fine even when I've had terribly drunk nights.
I lose my memories when drinking fairly easily. Once I go past a certain point of drunkness, I won't be able to remember much at all (past that point, I can remember everything up to that point just fine). It'll all be snippets of scenes or conversations, everything half remembered, half heard. I can drink a lot too, so I think it's just a personal effect it has on me, not me being cadbury.
I'll usually drink anything that isn't too sweet (hell, I'll probably still drink it), but I very much love a pint of ice cold beer. The only things routinely on tap that don't cost an arm and a leg are Kilkenny or Carlton Draught. I don't usually drink wine other than over dinner, as it gives me a horrible hangover, and scotch is usually something I drink with friends/family when at home, talking into the wee hours of the night. I guess what I drink is very much context sensitive, but there's nothing I really hate.

Quote
Big absinths fan though. Love the stuff
If you ever get a chance to get your hands on the original french stuff with wormwood extract, do it. It's friggen golden when lit over a spoon with a sugar cube into a thumb of ice water. Gives you a nice buzz.
Island_Wolf wrote
But it should not be a requirement to be socially accepted. Not everyone wishes to drink and if they choose not to they shouldn't be left out just because drinkers feels the need to see them differently. I never experience that personally as the people I'm with is very understanding but it is sad for me to hear that there is a chance that non-drinkers might be left out due to drinking preference?.
I think it's mostly because people see non-drinkers in a drinking setting as making a judgement call about everyone else who is drinking - They feel judged, like the only non comic lover at a comic convention, they feel like you are judging their pass time by not participating. It has become a part of life, culturally, that one cements their friendships through drinking, perhaps due in no small part from the honesty that comes out of being drunk. This is not something that will be easy to change, but most good people won't shun you for abstaining unless you throw a moral hissy fit when asked why. Only an asshole would ostracise you for it.

Island_Wolf wrote
I say quit over-analysing as there is indeed more than 1 way to have fun that isn't necessarily less fun. When common alcohol beverages let me down (it in fact ruin the fun for the people around me too), sugar gives me this childish feeling.
Perhaps, but there is a huge difference, especially chemically on what different drugs do to the brain, compared to mere 'natural highs' (or sugar-highs). The amount of positive chemicals like dopamine, 'happiness chemicals' that trigger positive feelings in the user can't be matched through nature. I bet you a million dollars you'd never achieve the same amount of 'happy feelings' you get from one ecstasy pill than you can get from all the sugar in the world.

Compare sugar to alcohol in relation to highness and you're comparing wearing pocket lint to a full sheepskin coat in a snowstorm. It's not even comparable.

Benza wrote
Sinthesys wrote
People who are violent drunks usually have deep-seated anger issues that they suppress when they are sober, perhaps unconsciously.
Well ****, last tiem I got really drunk I lay on the floor in hysterics unable to get up, untill eventually my laughter was contageous to myself and I was just laughing because I was laughing untill my stomach hurt and I couldn't breathe.


what does that say about me?
You secretly yearn to be a clown? Probably that you have a healthy sense of humour...
See, I can get behind that sort of thinking Ramblerun: You tried it, you're not fond of it, and you keep that as a personal opinion. Sorry if I was a tad aggressive, but it's sort of a reflex after encountering so many self-righteous anti-drinkers...

That said, the person you are when you are drinking is the just you, sans the social inhibitions. When you drink, you don't 'change' per se, you just care less about how you come across. People who are violent drunks usually have deep-seated anger issues that they suppress when they are sober, perhaps unconsciously.
Aussie XP wrote
Its been clear to me over the years that you just can't convince some people no matter what, to even try it.
Usually, it's because they have formulated an opinion that is entirely divorced from the alcohol itself. From experience, the straight egers have either swallowed a bunch of propaganda or they've had a traumatic experience related to alcohol. Either way, their opinions are based on people who don't drink in moderation - Their opinions are based on substance abuse, not sensible substance use.
Because it provides additional benefits besides taste?
Ramblerun wrote
Although you are entitled to your opinions, I still don't understand why you are attacking the people that have a different view to yours. Saying things like 'childish' and 'uneducated' are in my opinion the epitome of a horrible argument.
It's not a fantastic argument when you simply level your opponent with those sorts of ad hominem attacks, but I think it is pretty naive (read: childish/uneducated) To think that all alcohol tastes bad. Why? Because most, if not all people thought that before they got used to it. Part of growing up is learning about acquired tastes and realising that, although the particular thing may taste bad to you at the moment, it doesn't objectively taste bad. People (read: pretty much everyone) like it because it taste's good, so you saying it tastes bad just makes you look unaware of the complexity of flavours it contains.

'I don't like it' is miles and miles away from 'it tastes bad'. One is subjective, the other is objective.

Ramblerun wrote
A lot of your argument seems to revolve around getting used to it or doing it properly.
And how is that invalid? You can shit on anything if you use it incorrectly. Games? 'They're stupid, because if you play them for 18 hours straight, your eyes start to bleed' Books? 'They're stupid because if you do it while driving or walking, you crash into things'. Using something properly is a big part of getting the most out of it, and by forming a judgement on something you aren't even using properly, you are robbing it of a lot of it's benefits due to your own misuse. People who skull half a bottle of jacks and then complain that alcohol makes you sick are pretty stupid, no? If you slowly sipped it over a period of time, you wouldn't feel that way - The negative effects come more from the way it's used, not the substance itself.

Ramblerun wrote
I can only ask why would someone want to endure at something that gives them no joy in the first place until they get used to it or dependant on it?
Because once you do, it can offer a supreme amount of joy. Being dependent on anything is not a good situation, and neither is it an excuse not to do something. You can get addicted to anything, not just drinking, so that would be like saying 'I'd never visit a casino because I could get addicted'; True, but you could also have a lot of fun and not get addicted.


Alcohol is a useful tool: nobody is saying it doesn't have its drawbacks, but by denying yourself of it completely, you are missing out on another interesting experience in life, or rather, an interesting way to experience life. Your loss, but don't pretend it's because of the alcohol and not because of you.
Re: Funny Links (2 years ago)
Appel wrote
I'm happy to give it a shot.

Not sure what the missus will say.
'Now we can swap outfits!'.
grim-one wrote
mrcool37 wrote
*It's expensive
*It tastes horrible
I've copped a bit of criticism over it, but I seriously consider these reasons as a bit childish and an uneducated assumption based on inexperience with alcohol.
I'm childish and uneducated if I think alcohol is expensive and distasteful? I find your criticism of personal taste and budget unwarranted.
Well, yes. Most adults have both the funds and the palette to drink alcoholic beverages on occasion. The statement may not apply to you personally, but the point mrcool made still stands as roughly true given the tastes and income of the general population.

grim-one wrote
The only alcohol I can stand the taste of straight are the milk-based ones such as Kaluha and Baileys. When used in food - I'll also enjoy Guinness pies, wine sauces or liqueurs in desserts. Otherwise I find beer and wine just outright sour. Spirits are distateful, if I can actually taste anything past the burning alcohol sensation.
Like coffee, alcoholic drinks are an acquired taste. You may not like them if you don't drink things like that very often, or have an acute sense of taste (much like kids, who happen to hate anything with too strong a flavour other than 'sweet!'), but that doesn't objectively change the fact that the majority of the population enjoy these drinks for the taste and effect. It's pretty much universal, dude. There's a reason fine wines are such a sought after commodity around the world, and it isn't 'cos they get ya' blotto.

Hell, I used to hate wine and beer for similar reasons you stated, and when I drank, it was things like 'midori and lemonade' or '..... and coke'. Eventually, I developed a taste for alcohol and now I am a keen enjoyer of all sorts of beers and wines. Hell, I didn't like capsicum, cucumber or tomatoes until I was around 17 and I realised being fussy was embarrassingly childish, and so I forced myself to try them more often. Now, I love them.

grim-one wrote
And how can you argue it's not expensive? Tap water is (damn near) free, juices and soft drinks are bloody cheap outside of bars and restaurants (where everything is expensive).
Does water or juice get you drunk? You can't compare 2 litres of OJ to a fine bottle of cab/sav, it's just not the same. The cost of Alcohol in this country is mostly tax anyway because the stuff is so good, too many people overindulge. It is expensive, but not prohibitively so. Soft drinks are the saving's brand chocolate to alcohol's lindt.

grim-one wrote
Maybe I'm missing the alcohol induced rainbows and unicorns someone else mentioned, but I'm perfectly happy without them.
You don't like the taste, so of course you're perfectly happy without it. I'm not sure how that affects the general usefulness of the substance or the accuracy of mrcool's statement.
dimefan90 wrote
But I find it funny that she is a nutritionist yet she has a HUGE ass and hips.
That just means she's doing something right.

Island_Wolf wrote
Not yet, I'm not that knowledgeable when it comes to food/drinks :S
You should probably get that checked out asap. Your reactions don't sound normal at all and you could end up going into anaphylactic shock from eating/drinking something new. Find out if it's allergy related or something else entirely, as that sounds troubling.

Although you can have plenty of fun without alcohol (or other drugs for that matter), I feel sorry for anyone who can't partake in those deviously enjoyable little substances that cross our paths here and there. It's a quality of life issue for me; Although I could live without them just fine, I could equally live without sunsets or rainbows just fine - But the world would be a little less colourful as a result.
I just went back and watched the clip. Afterwards, I was all like:
.
Benza wrote
Pam may have replaced Krieger as my favourite.
The interrogation scenes were perfect. 'Who taught you to hit, your husband?'. Classic. I think it just topped piggly...
Give it a couple of months and they will have forgotten all about it...
Re: Funny Links (2 years ago)
I especially enjoyed this version.

Re: FABLE 3 (2 years ago)
Benza wrote
Quote
. Equivalence is key. The bugs in games today are nowhere near as minor as the movie examples you've mentioned, and so it's not really comparable.
In my experience they are. Fable 3 is the first game I've played in a while that had really bad bugs. I mean I've seen stuff on youtube of massive bugs in Red Dead Redemption and **** but the worst I ever got was some clipping issues with his coat.
To be honest, it's probably easier for me to count the games that don't have obvious bugs, than it is to count the ones that do. Random corruption of my character file in borderlands, the aforementioned Farcry II, falling through the level and being unable to move in red dead, quest items disappearing in dragon age, major slowdowns during halo: reach, and of course fable's horrid breadcrumb trail. That's just from the games I've played recently that I can remember. I think Mass Effect 2 was the only game I've played recently that didn't have a single bug, or at least, I didn't encounter any.

I see these imperfections as pretty unacceptable. It's hard to find a movie equivalent, as it would be different for each example. In farcry's case? The movie would stop 15 minutes before the ending and you wouldn't be able to see the rest. Some of the others, would simply be like the director accidentally going into blair-witch mode with the camera at inappropriate times, and plot important characters disappearing from the film halfway through.

Benza wrote
Gotta say I do. I love me some bad movies (And I would watch the **** out of your new ending to gladiator) I wouldn't say Fable is an A grade game though it's firmly B-grade. It's got some great ideas but the execution leaves a bit lacking.
The difference is: Fable is not meant to be B grade, it was developed, pachaged and sold as an A grade release. B-grade films are made to be trashy, they are, in this analogy, 'intentionally buggy for the audience's enjoyment'. The equivalent of B-grade films would be intentionally b-grade games, something most likely made by an indie dev. I'm not holding the small studios to the large studio standard here, i'm trying to say that A-grade games need to be A-grade in bug quality, and right now, people seem content with giving a lot of bugs a free pass.

Benza wrote
I also think you have to take into account the difference in production methods.
A boom mike swinging into frame requires them to stop recording and re-do the scene which really wouldn't take that long. Maybe an hour at most for a really complex scene that they need to reset.

Fixing a glitch in a game depending on how bad it is could take weeks. Things like the frame rate hick ups in fable 3. I imagine would be problems in there engine that would take a long time to smooth out.
Yeah, and think about the costs of having to re-shoot an effects heavy action scene, because of a fuck up - They are often 'one take' scenes, because it's simply too costly to have to set it up again. I mean, if you wanna just use worst case scenarios to make your point, I can do that too, but the fact is both movies and gaming have both easy and hard solutions to 'bugs'. That's just the price you pay for working in that medium. Fixing a glitch can be a five minute fix too, don't forget that. NPC getting stuck in the corner of a specific room? Put a table there, problem solved.
Benza wrote
One thing that's been bugging me about the game. I usually love DLC, but this is the first game I've played were I actually feel that ****'s been cut out for DLC. I mean you have to download a dye pack to get black dye? That's just **** up.
Yeah, it's pretty damn shameless. Clearly they have the time and effort to fix things (like bugs), but they'd rather spend their time cutting things out and repackaging them back to you with an additional cost.
Re: FABLE 3 (2 years ago)
Benza wrote
Gotta disagree with this, you do accept it in movies. There is a goofs page listed on every movie on IMDB that lists the **** ups. Be they plot holes or technical goofs. Does anyone let the fact that one of the Romans is wearing a wrist watch get in the way of enjoying gladiator? Or the fact that you can see a van in the background in a shot of Braveheart? No you just accept the fact that mistakes happen and let it go.

Some mistakes are acceptable, the **** ups in fable 3 though are like one of the actors being smacked in the face with the boom mike.
You dismantled your whole argument in the very last line. Equivalence is key. The bugs in games today are nowhere near as minor as the movie examples you've mentioned, and so it's not really comparable. Of course nothing is free from imperfections, but there's a standard in film that is nowhere near the same as the standard for games.

As you said, the Fable 3 ones are glaringly obvious. We don't tolerate 'bugs' in movies that are that obvious, so why should games be released with such obvious flaws?

I mean, I'm not saying the fact that your character's cape moves through his body a bit completely ruins the game for me, which would be the equivalent of a roman with a wristwatch, but rather, there are massive, sometimes [i]gamebreaking[i] bugs that are present in games when they ship out. Things like farcry II's gamebreaking 'cannot continue past this mission' are fucking unacceptable. That's the equivalent of the roman in gladiator wearing a fucking jetpacking velociraptor and killing maximus.
Re: FABLE 3 (2 years ago)
Benza wrote
How do you manage to make something so much worse in a sequel that was basically fine in the last game?
It was rushed for a pre-Christmas release?

Most of the shitty bugs in any game come from the fact that devs are forced to ship out an unfinished product to meet a deadline. I guarantee you, any problem you have with the game, they knew about pre-release, but didn't have time to fix.

But until game bugs are treated as game breaking - that is, universally slammed by critics for being an undue annoyance (hopefully giving any game with obvious bugs in it an instant lowest score as an unfinished product), nothing will be done. Everyone these days has accepted a certain level of bugginess as standard; We expect imperfections in the finished product, while we don't tolerate it in other mediums. If you accidentally saw a mic boom or a bit of the 'curtain' slip away during a movie or tv show, it would be s***canned as unfinished and unprofessional, so why do we accept these unnecessary imperfections in games? I'd hazard a guess and say it has to do with the history of game development, but I'm sure film went through a similar period, with each generation becoming better and better at hiding the 'stage' from the audience and keeping up the fourth wall...

TL;DR: Bugs are in games because we take it with a smile and keep paying for them. Games are for profit, and the margin on hard work is low, while cheap thrills make for full coffers.
Re: Fallout: New Vegas (2 years ago)
Nietzsche wrote
I only played throught the beginning once and saved before the character creation screen of Fallout 3. Did the same with Oblivion. I can't see how you were bothered with it.
The gaps between play-throughs were so large, I had probably formatted my computer by the time the next play-through swung around...

I probably could have just downloaded a save file made at the end of the vault, but eh...