Ivan the Terrible

Am I the only one who, every once in awhile, pulls up the Editor just to listen to some of the ambient music? Especially from Hordes of the Underdark. Great stuff, very atmospheric.

You people are nuts.

Learn something new every day. I never skipped the tomb, so I always just assumed that little dialogue with Lothar was a way to force you to visit it if you hadn't been there previously.

He's talking about the Nameless One's 'tomb' beneath Sigil, so no, you must have passed it. And you can't skip it, so far as I know. If you just get the Bronze Sphere without exploring, Lothar just sends you right back there to get a 'skull' from your own tomb. The only way to proceed is to let yourself die several times (with the appropriate key in hand) to let the maze know it's you.

Whatever you do, don't listen to these blasphemers. Some people just can't appreciate a good story. <_< But then, as has been said, definetely don't start out with Planescape: Torment, either. Try Fallout, if you're not into Fantasy. Best non-Fantasy RPG ever made.

Wow... I had completely forgotten that game.

Yep. Most of the traces of 'humanity' which have manifested themselves have been hardly the stuff redemption is made of; vanity, hate, cruelty, vengeance, sadistic glee. None of those qualities would probably be associated with the Overmind or the Cerebrates; they existed only to assimilate lifeforms and spread the Swarm, and weren't really overtly 'evil' anymore than a virus is 'evil'. By comparison, Kerrigan acts much more human, but not in a good way.

Gonna have to disagree on this. I enjoyed it a great deal. Again, all this Warcraft III bashing is throwing me off. I really enjoyed it; what's with all the hate? Uhhhh....no. Check the storyline in the manual again. Officially, the Orcs defeated Azeroth in Warcraft. The remnants of that country then fled across the ocean to Lordaeron, where all the various nations and factions of that region aligned together to fight the Horde. Then, owing largely to Gul'Dan's betrayal, the Orcs were put on the defensive and eventually beaten by the Alliance.

But the whole point of blowing up planets is to let everyone in the Galaxy know, 'if you mess with us, you're next.' In the Star Wars EU, I believe it's called the Tarkin doctrine; set a few examples, and rather than having to set up expensive garrisons on every planet in the galaxy you can have rebellious planets eating out of your hand by the sheer terror that your new weapon might be used against them. 'Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station. If the Death Star was suddenly destroyed, ala Episode IV, then I could see a sudden drop in support for the Empire....but so long as it exists, it should serve as a handy encouragement for loyalty to the Emperor.

Still better than other company's 'the good guys won BUT A NEWER AND NASTIER THREAT SUDDENLY APPEARS FROM NOWHERE AND LET'S US MAKE A SEQUEL!'

I find it entirely unlikely she'll ever turn back. That's what made both Kerrigan and Arthas interesting villains; there was no Darth Vader-style redemption. They seem to actively enjoy what they've become.

She may not have finished him, but I think Kerrigan got vengeance aplenty.

At least you got to use the Death Star, before some punk blows it up. <_< <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey, at least they got to blow up Alderaan before the Death Star went 'boom'. But seriously, what's the point of having the power to destroy planets if the result is, not fear and submission, but virtually every system in the Galaxy suddenly turning massively against you? If Rebellion weren't already a crappy game, that aspect of it might have been annoying.

The tragedy of Rebellion is that it did a very cool concept badly; I'm glad that Lucasarts is willing to give a Star Wars grand strategy game another swing, and if done with the Total War series as a model I'll definetely be looking forward to it. Maybe this time, when I use the Death Star, the whole freaking Galaxy won't turn against me. <_<

In order to find that Duran dialogue, I searched the Internet and found this.

If you mean Michael Chu, it's possible. Not that he would tell us.

I don't think it has to be a contradiction. All you'd have to do is suggest that some Xel'naga either weren't there to be absorbed or somehow escaped the Overmind. The majority could be killed off, but all we really have is a suggestion that there are no more Xel'naga left. Besides, the description fits perfectly. A group attempting to breed the perfect race, uniting the best elements of the Xel'naga's two greatest experiments....if it isn't them, there must at least be a link, as the goals sound too perfectly matched.

It's entirely possible that it's being worked on right now and they just haven't announced it. After all, World of Warcraft is finished, so the only game they have officially under development right now is Starcraft: Ghost. Blizzard has a track record of making new installments in existing series before trying radically new stuff. As such, I would wager Starcraft II won't be too far off.

Yep. Sounds like Xel'Naga to me.

Don't forget about Duran, the Terran/Zerg guy, if you got to the secret level following Brood War Zerg Mission 9 (SPOILERS!): [ The entire dialogue just reeks of foreshadowing.

Geez, so much abuse for WC3....It entertained me, at least, though admittedly I'm one of the rare few that usually sticks to single player. And I can't imagine how they wouldn't make a Starcraft 2. The note Brood War ends on is blatantly set up for such.

Good for you. What does that have to do with anything beyond your terminal failure to understand what we're arguing about? So, in other words, you would like to see the gaming industry set up on the model of remaking the same game over and over because it's more profitable. Hey, the games may be mediocre and all the same, but if the company making it is turning a profit, what could be wrong with it? I take it you would also like to see independent film studios devoured to make way for the latest Michael Bay crapfest? After all, the guy makes much more money for the studios than, say, Martin Scorcese....therefore he must be a superior director. What other conclusion could you reach? Your choices: 1) Buy an EA Sports game. 2) Buy a Sports game with make-believe football players that has a snowball's chance in hell of beating out the NFL-sponsored game. 3) Buy nothing at all. In short, if you have the desire to play an NFL sports game, then you have no choice. Period. Sorry, but I like imagination and originality in my games. Neither describes the majority of EA's product line-up. I'm happy for you that you find a different roster in the same game a transcendent step in Football gaming evolution; I don't. Well, congratulations. That justifies your complete failure of self-interest completely; you may now continue rooting for a turn of events which does not work in your favor without shame (or reward, for that matter.) It doesn't make you immoral; it just makes you an idiot. That's fine, if you're viewing things as a laissez faire capitalist. So why are YOU looking out for their best interest instead of your own? Again, in a system where everything is based around enlightened self-interest, your cheerleading for a group that wants to limit your options seems more than a little foolish. Crappy games? No. People would stop buying, you're right. Games that are technically good, but uninspired, take no risks, and marketed only to the mass audience? Much more likely. As a consumer, you are failing in your role spectactularly if you enjoy the idea of your options being narrowed.

It's the same game, every year. Slightly updated, and yet released as a totally new product. It's a beautiful set-up, business-wise, but it's hardly the model I'd like to see the gaming industry develop upon....and setting aside Sports games (for which a new game for a new year makes some sense), how many expansion packs has The Sims had now? Who says they need to copy anyone else? Did Westwood need to copy from another company in order to make dozens of crappy Command & Conquer rip-offs? Milking a profitable idea until it's bled completely dry can happen in-company, you know. Precisely what is their motivation for providing you with a bug-free game when they dominate their market? Games released early make more money, and if people want to play them then they (meaning, you) will wait for the patches anyway. That's what a monopoly is, Volourn. You're celebrating the fact that you have no real choices. That's beyond stupid. Meanwhile, many, and I mean, MANY other game companies can not only compare, but make far better games in other every other genre....and you're apparently happy that a slew of crappy sports games allows EA the power to snuff them out whenever it pleases. After all, if they had only had the sense to stake out their own unimaginative, reliable money-farm rather than concentrating on making new games with new designs that take extra time and money, they'd still be in business....right? Then why are you whining about how people are selfish for worrying only about the consumers, of which you are a part? Yes, they're selfish; that's the way the whole freaking system works.

No offense, Volourn, but if that's your attitude, you make a really lousy capitalist. The whole point is that you worry about your niche, and out of the competition and drive for advance of individuals arises greater quality and efficiency. I'm sure EA executives are touched at your heartfelt devotion to their well-being, but since you're a consumer I would assume it would be in your interests to figure out how you get a better game rather than how EA keeps it's market share.

Do you like it so much you'd like to see the same tried-and-true game (or a bazillion expansion packs for said game) released over and over rather than seeing new ideas? Do you genuinely enjoy the triumph of copycats and easy-to-develop mediocrity over inspired but niche-market games? Are you looking forward to waiting through three patches (if you even get more than one) for the next game which is released early because selling an unfinished product to consumers is more profitable than waiting until it's done? If so, you're EA's model customer. You're also a dyed-in-the-wool sucker. Primarily because you don't understand the comparison. Other game companies can't do the 'release the same game with a new year' gimmick; that's precisely the point. While they may have better games than EA (and many, if not most, do), they lose. Does this improve the situation for the consumer in the slightest? Nope. Waiting for the Almighty Dollar to rescue you from mediocrity in gaming is idiotic, because there's far more efficient ways to make money then to release a detailed and inspired game when it's actually finished.