GreasyDogMeat

I want to point out that I don't feel that console games = evil garbage that should be gathered in a pile and burned. Some of my favorite games are actually console game ports. I really enjoyed *GASP* Halo! I enjoy the GTA games to an extent and I think Resident Evil 4 is the greatest survival horror game ever made. My real issue and peeve is established francheses like CoD, Elder Scrolls etc. that turn into hybradized dual PC/Console releases. You can look at each series and see the depth decline as much as the graphics increased from their previous incarnations. I also find it a shame when a developer previously catoring to the PC market goes console. So far, none of Bioware's console games have come anywhere near the Baldur's Gate saga imho. I'd love to believe Mass Effect is going to change my opinion. Heck, I seriously doubt it could be worse than Jade Empire... I really didn't set out to dislike these newer incarnations as some sort of anti-console anger or wanting to hate the dev for switching platforms... It is a case of actually sitting down, playing them and seeing what was lost in the transition.

So "crank it up the difficulty" and stop whining. Bah, I wouldn't touch a controller with a 10 foot pole when playing a FPS. I watched someone else playing it. You are missing the point, I'm not whining about the difficulty of console shooters. I couldn't care less about how console games handle things. I'm whining about how the recent rash of hybrid games eases it down for the console controllers, but keeps that ease and 'simplification' for the PC bastard version as well. Keeping it Simple, Stupid is important, but CoD 2 was no where near the game as CoD 1 and it certainly kept things simple. If there had been NO CoD 1 I probably wouldn't have noticed, but when you take something great, and then produce a sequel that strips so many great things from the original and simplifies it... well sometimes things get too simple. Anyway, I just sort of understood Dark Raven's statement earlier and wanted to add my own version of that opinion.

The thing is it was a hybrid release with changes catoring to the console crowd and control scheme. I don't think console players are 'retarded', its that things often need to be simplified for the less accurate console control schemes. I noticed a huge playstyle difference when I watched one of the console Medal of Honor games. The PC versions were lightning fast in comparison. Enemies would spot you and start firing quickly. Things were fluid, fast paced. When I watched someone play a console MoH game... the enemies seemed to take literally 5 seconds to line up their shots and fire. They were slow and ponderous. Why? Because lining up a shot in a FPS game on a console isn't as easy with a controller as it is with a mouse. You basically had to crank the difficulty up to hard to get the same reaction times that you saw on PC shooters. I really don't understand how anyone who has followed a PC series that has gone console... or hybrid console/PC can't notice certain changes. If you really feel these are for the positive, then fine, you probably are actually in the majority. If I sound harsh when talking about this... I hope no one takes it personally. Its just hard as a gamer to see so many franchises that I loved... 'simplified'. Some of the 'dumbing' down that has happened with the 'next gen' console games is a good thing, but some of it is just rank lazy simplification. I recently finished an ancient DOS game called Pool of Radiance, and I'm now working on the sequel Curse of the Azure Bonds. Curse removed some of the extra confirmation dialog, made the battles a bit more fluid and allowed you to automatically cast cleric spells when resting, so you wouldn't have to manually cast them, memorize them, sleep 8 hours rinse and repeat. These changes are awesome and make this sequel less of a chore to play... I don't feel these particular changes 'dumbed' it down at all. The problem is when GOOD complexities are removed. It just seems that console games are far more likely to remove these good complexities.

Again, considering what my comp can run that looks FAR better than NwN 2, I wouldn't call my comp ****ty... especially not for the games that came out at the same time as NwN 2. I will absolutly agree that Obsidian drastically improved their area design in MotB, but they haven't really improved the engine performance all that much... atleast not enough. MotB may run MUCH better than many of the NwN 2 areas but standard NwN 2 still runs horribly in areas like the Docks, to West Harbor and on and on. I even tried Standard NwN 2, patched to the latest, on an absolutly killer Alienware laptop from mid-2007 and while it ran much better than my comp, shadows, even at their lowest setting STILL brought this machine down to the low 20s, sometimes even the teens. This is a machine running demos of BioShock, Crysis and numerous other games at MAX settings. Maybe there is some magic trick or setting to get Neverwinter Nights 2 running smooth in all spots, but I certainly haven't found it yet.

This is another part of the problem, as so many are willing to overlook simplified gameplay... or just don't care. -The CoD 2 healing system removed any thought or tactics. We can't have that on a console. What was even worse is the healing system forced the AI to act less realistic. Instead of engaging multiple contacts they would almost exclusively focus on you. They also became far superior in their accuracy because you now needed ridiculous amounts of damage to be killed off. -The weapon kickback was drastically reduced. Where CoD 1/UO had a feeling of realistic weapon kickback, the CoD 2 guns barely kick when aiming down the site. -Maybe its unfair to also use the expansion as an example, but great multiplayer modes like domination, the bunker mode were removed, as well as vehicles, sprinting etc. -A ridiculous grenade indicator was introduced. Again, console players apparently can't think for themselves that grenades=bad so they need a massive white indicator telling them a grenade just fell near them. CoD 2 only improved on the first games formula in tiny small ways while taking away so many things that made the game feel special and unique. I suppose a more casual (FPS) gamer may not have noticed or cared about these things, but I was really into CoD 1/UO, and it felt like it had rejuvinated the FPS shooter. It was so perfect in every little movement and CoD 2 came along and just screwed that formula up. I honestly believe CoD 2 would have been a better, more immersive game if it had been developed solely for the PC, with a possible console port later. A lot of people feel the same about Oblivion... how Morrowind had so much depth and then Oblivion came along and 'noobed' everything up, trading that depth for graphics.

While I think Dark Raven's attitude is a bit on the extreme side, and I wouldn't be surprised if Raven purchased KotOR, KotOR II or Jade Empire which were also 'x-box exclusives', I do understand the disapointment of how many devs have switched to a 'console first, PC last' approach. Games have really lost something special in recent years with the focus on consoles, ports and hybridized dual console/PC releases. IMHO the console focus killed the Call of Duty franchise. So many things were dumbed down and removed in the sequel, it was hard to believe CoD 2 was made by the same devs. Unfortunatly for me, thats pretty much a personal opinion, as the sales numbers do not favor my opinion. A few years ago I would have 100% agreed with Dark Raven.

Know exactly what you mean. I think it speaks volumes about how good Obsidian's writers are and how impressive the toolset is that I cope with one of the crappiest engines I've ever seen. Even if I disable every single detail and turn textures to low, there are a few areas that lower my framerate down into the high teens. I'd blame it on my computer but I run tons of impressive games/ engines that are as advanced and far more impressive than NwN 2 at medium to high settings with nowhere near the poor framerates I get in NwN 2. The one good thing I'll say about the NwN 2 engine is that it has been extremly stable for me. Think I've crashed to the desktop maybe once. I also think I've been one of the lucky ones with the toolset. Despite numerous complaints on the boards about crashing I think it has crashed maybe two or three times in many hours of work.

Mac release or not I'd expect a second expansion might attract a lot more $$$. It seems to me with the numerous positive reviews of MotB, which IMHO it wholeheartedly deserves, even more people might be attracted to a second expansion. Frankly, I'd love to see Obsidian and other devs that want to work with Obs to go expansion crazy like the Sims series or something. Its not like we have a bright future so far with D&D games unless something gets announced and I suspect NwN 2 is going to be the only decent D&D game out for a looong time so I honestly wouldn't mind seeing Atari milk it as long as possible as long as they maintain some semblance of quality tilesets, new monsters/models & stories. I guess the premium modules will fill this roll, but I'd love to see as many 'big' quality expansions like MotB as possible.

Well, if you take Blue Shift into account, seemingly pretty difficult. True, but Blue Shi(f)t was an oddity in that it was created for a saturn (or some other console) port of Half Life 1 which fell through. Instead of scrapping it they decided to release it anyway as a minor expansion.

Hasn't the KotOR 3 rumor only been about a MMORPG... which of course is the filth of the RPG world? If KotOR 3 is going to turn out to be an MMORPG... well, no interest from me. Wouldn't that just stink if the whole wrap up to the KotOR series story was jumbled in a MMORPG? I shudder at the thought.

I'm disapointed Gearbox is doing this. I haven't really liked any of their games so far. Well, except for the Half Life expansion Opposing Forces but really, how hard is it to make a decent expansion to already good game?

The Brave One with Jodie Foster. Starts slow and gets overdramatic in places... but the ending was pure awesome.

Damn, I watched Jaws quite a bit when I was kid. You know, these things always happen in 3s... Heath Ledger, Roy Scheider... who's next?

I'm honestly not surprised. I wouldn't be surprised at this point if they put (thier own) babies out in cradles rigged with explosives in the hopes people would come over and pick the baby up triggering a blast.

I'd like to see something like MGS3, where you needed specific items to heal specific injuries. Of course this would only work in a game in which survival is a major component, not FPS which constantly has you in combat. Uh, maybe we are playing different games, but I also played CoD 4 not too long ago and a gunshot sends my aim reeling up when aiming down the site... I'd deffinitly call that more than a little shake. A near miss would be a bullet wizzing by your ear or something... not a jolt that sends my aim and screen up and down making me miss shots and produces audible thud sounds. Its one thing to not be worried about an animation not playing that shows you apply the bandages in a kit, its another to pretend something that happens is not happening. I suppose it is an issue of how much you let something affect you, but for me the CoD 2/4 regen system is the lamest and most unrealistic system of healing I've seen in any game period. Even Halo 1, which I believe introduced health regen in FPS games had a health system that required med kits and used regen for the shielding system. I watched a video of Far Cry 2 recently and I think it has one of the best healing methods I've seen in a FPS. I wish I could find it to link it here, but basically depending on how you are injured you need to use a specific healing method, very similar to what you mention in MGS3. If you catch on fire you pat it out, gunshots require removing the bullet and bandaging etc.

Well, many actions in FPS are glazed over and don't show an animation at all. Even in CoD 4 when you are supposed to plant C4 on an enemy vehicle, it just magically pops on the vehicle. We assume as players that he actually reached out and placed it, but we dont see it. I can look at the old style health kits the same way. Also, I can't look at the regeneration the same way, because when you are shot in CoD 2 or 4 your character violently wretches back, like they have been actually hit by the bullet so I just can't 'imagine' this as near misses. You've been hit big time. My personal preference would be for a combination of health kits and regeneration. It could regenerate small portions of your health, but serious wounds would require med kits or an on field medic to heal you. I think Chronicles of Riddick did a great job with the whole health kits vs regeneration system as well as MoH Airborne. I just can't except the complete and full health regen over a period of seconds... its ridiculous unless you are playing a sci-fi shooter with energy shields or something.

You can do that in CoD 1, it's just that the gaping chest wound wouldn't close itself up until you run over a first aid kit. It's not a realism issue, as health that regenerates when running over a box or pressing a button is no more real as health that regenerates automatically after a few seconds, and as such the fact that it's a military shooter is irrelevant. Oh, and what did you mean when you said the US campaign was a complete rip-off? A rip-off of what? It was only 4! missions long, and most of those missions were extremly short. The original CoD and even the sequel gave you 3 nations to play from and gave you a decent amount of time with each. Each CoD has given a certain army the glory. In CoD 1 and UO the Russians get the glory in the final and most dramatic campaign. In CoD 2 it was the Americans. I can understand the Brits finally getting central spotlight in CoD 4, but that didn't mean they had to short change the American campaign at all... it was a joke. While I believe that the health system of CoD 1 may not be perfect, I disagree about realism. Running over a health kit feels more like you are bandaging yourself... while hiding behind something feels more like super nanites in your body are repairing your vital organs... in WWII. I completly disagree about how you could play CoD 1 the same way. If I rushed into every battle it was far far more dangerous as there was limited health. Another major problem is how it changed enemy AI. One thing I noticed in CoD 1 is that enemies had a more realistic AI. They would fire on you but they weren't all crack shots, and they also fired on team mates. Because of CoD 2 & 4's regen health, they need to put much more focus on downing you and you will see the AI almost exclussively aim at you, and aim better because they need to put more rounds in you because of your magic healing. In CoD 1, despite many standard FPS unrealistic issues, it felt more like I was playing the History Channel, but in the sequels it feels more like I'm playing Die Hard, and I just didn't like the change at all.

I wouldn't mind regen to a certain point, like the 25-40% range, or a system like MoH Airborne where the health bar is split into 4 parts that regenerate, but are will not regen if a bar is completly lost. Full instantaneous health regen is ridiculous and immersion breaking. I remember how intense CoD 1 was. Made me feel like I was in the war. When I played Call of Duty 2 the health regen absolutly ruined that feeling. The strategy and tactics I used in CoD 1 were pointless now. Charge in, go nuts and then hide behind something and that gaping chest wound would close itself up. Like I said, its fine in a sci-fi shooter with energy shields etc. but it is lame in a military shooter.

I was disapointed with CoD 4, though no where near as disapointed as I was with CoD 2. For me, CoD 1 + United Offensive was the pinnacle of WWII shooters. It did nearly everything right in both single and multiplayer. Every CoD since has mucked up the formula, and removed numerous awesome extras in the UO expansion. The American campaign was WAY too short and a complete rip off, which I wouldn't have minded except I bought the game based on the demo, which was from the American campaign. CoD 4 still has the lame tension/realism breaking health regeneration. I really really hate it. It belongs in Halo, not a military shooter. The multiplayer is a helicopter/air strike spam fest. It makes sure that the first team that aquires one of these abilities continues to dominate. There really should have been a better way to implement these abilities. Yahtzee mentioned it as well, but the rap at the end of the game was... horrendous. I was almost tempted to ctrl+alt+delete out of it, but I'm glad I didn't as a cool final bonus airplane shoot out mission starts at the end of the credits. Loved the references to the movie 'Airplane' too. On the positive the game has some absolutly fantastic moments. I absolutly loved the Chernobyl defense sequence. For those who don't know, don't shoot the dogs feasting on the dead russian in the pool room. During the final battle when the guns start blazing, the dogs will rush out and start mauling the Russians, as they walk through the claymore filled grassland... as I sniped them. It was beautiful.

Oh oh, I remember that fight! First you fought some lame dude that called himself Tyranithraxus.. and the game didn't end. I was like 15 years old or something and could not figure out what I had done wrong. I think it took me THREE YEARS to find that bloody hidden room with the real Tyranthraxus! And once I got in there it turns out all the evil aligned characters in my party betrays me and joins up with Tyranithraxus.. It was like.. 15 against three. Best end fight ever! Unfortunately Curse of the Azure Bonds is not even half the game that Pool of Radiance is. Secret of the Silver Blades isn't nearly as well done either, even though the interface becomes better the longer the series continues. Pools of Darkness was OK though. You should try the Dragonlance series too. I used to love that as a kid. They were mostly about fighting hordes of really deadly enemies with your band of Knights. Still good games though. They also happened to have the best box-art ever in the history of mankind. I can imagine this game was truly brutal playing it when it first came out. I have the luxury of Gamebanshee to help anytime I get stuck. Of course, didn't Pool of Radiance come with a 'clue book' back in the day? I remember the years it took me to beat Kings Quest 2 and Space Quest 1 way back in my Tandy 1000 days. I got held up for months in Space Quest 1 due to typing an improper command. It was 'Put Jetpack On' instead of 'Put On Jetpack', or maybe it was vice-versa... been a long time. I absolutly intend to try the Dragonlance series after I complete the Pool of Radiance series. I'm going on sort of a retro-replay phase, trying out all the old SSI D&D games I missed. The hardest part isn't so much accepting the older graphics, but getting along with the interface which requires you jump through a million hoops to do something as simple as pass items between party members.

Finally beat Pool of Radiance. The last fight was nasty tough, not so much because of the dragon Tryanthraxus, but because of a hoard of lvl 8 fighters protecting him before the battle. I finally beat the encounter with only 1 surviving character. Now to import to Curse of the Azure Bonds.

Ever since I took the Star Wars equivelant of one of these and was labelled Jar Jar Binks I stay well away from these.

I absolutly hated this movie myself. Unlikable characters, completly unbelievable situations and events. The ending gunfight was beyond ridiculous. Supposedly the main character had a prosthetic leg and he was running a marathon, leaping off buildings, duck and covering like mad. The only positive for me was the setting, the costumes and camera work. Really felt and looked like the 1800s. As someone who misses the old over the top action movies of the 80s like Robocop, Predator and all those crazy Schwarzenneger flicks I'm really looking forward to Rambo. Especially after this 'R' rated trailer... (WARNING!! Very gory) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8M1KiXWWTxg.

I agree with you Fischer. Requietat in pace Does that also include the part about jews being lying bastards who should be wiped out and 9-11 being a good thing... or no comment?