Path of Exile’s Duelist Debuts

Have you guys checked out Path of Exile lately? I got to see an early build and spoke extensively with the devs when they first announced the title last year, and as the game moves through the Alpha test and towards a public beta, it’s garnering more fan attention.

PoE is a free to play MMORPG ARPG that’s very much in the style of the early Diablo games. They just announced the Duelist, the 4th (of 6) playable classes with a very gritty cinematic, and it’s worth a view. If only to hear about a quest that sends you out to kill a, “whore and a halfwit.”

I’m going to interview the GGG guys on an upcoming edition of The Diablo Podcast as well, so if you’ve got questions about the game, you’ll have a chance to get them asked directly.

Tagged As: | Categories: Other Games, Path of Exile


You're not logged in. Register or login to post a comment.
  1. ARGH! So much uninformed linguistic commentary! Flux, I have been with you since pre-D2, and I am disappointed ><

    a) Chinese ideograms are no more context-sensitive than any other writing system… in fact often LESS so… since homophones (two words pronounced the same) are usually written with DIFFERENT ideograms.

    b) As pointed out above, Korean uses an alphabet… not ideograms at all, although the letters are arranged into syllabic blocks that superficially resemble Chinese characters. Japanese uses a mixed system: a subset of Chinese ideograms supplemented by a syllabary, which is used to add the grammatical elements which Chinese doesn’t have.

    SuchViolentStorms: “Literal” languages? All languages are equally literal, or non-literal. Did you mean “alphabetic”? The way you write a language is unrelated to the language’s syntax, which is the issue here.

    As for Google Translate, it is constantly evolving, but unlike other widely available online translation systems (babelfish etc), it uses mostly statistical techniques… it derives translations by correlating thousands or millions of pairs of bilingual texts. So it does better where it has a bigger training set.

    And, yes, languages that are relatively closely related to each other, and/or of similar syntactic type (order of words in the sentence, for instance) are going to give more intelligible translations by today’s crude automatic methods. I’ll just note here that Japanese and Korean are similar syntactically (whether and/or how they’re related is a matter of intense debate). Chinese is not basically related, historically, to either, at the time depths accessible to linguistic reconstruction; and syntactically it’s a completely different type. Typologically, Chinese has more in common with English than with Japanese or Korean.

Comments are closed.