Blodhemn

I just started to put some time in this game after putting it on hold for a while, and wow I can't even get passed the "Intercept Surkov" mission due to a desktop crash when I goto open the elevator. I don't know what it is, I mean I used to get the occasional crash but in several spots surrounding Moscow I'm hit with just a lot of crashes. I might have to restart the game, I'm not sure. It absolutely sucks because I was loving this game, now I don't know if I'll be able to finish it. Sucks that you can't even enjoy a rare game that sparks your interest.

Iirc... it switches to turn-based once an enemy becomes aware of you, so eg. if they face you it'll switch much sooner. However pressing enter/return turns on turn-based immediately. So if you play a sneaky character, you sneak (what was it? F1? F2?) up to the guy and before he reacts you press enter and then use your action points to attack him. Also I played a 10AP sniper most of the time, so I could get into cover in real-time, press enter, step out of cover, shoot, then hide back and got a free attack this way to start the fight. Now I haven't played it in a long time, so anyone - feel free to correct me. Thanks. So sniper is the best, slightly quicker way to get through combat then, and I take it that sneak was one of your tagged skills?

Yep, seems that way 80% of the time. I've tried out Fallout 1 and I'm not really understanding the combat and in general just walking around is odd. Does it actually halt your progress every time an enemy comes into your range up until the point to where it's standing next to you or am I doing something wrong?

So I take from that, ME3 is improved in the action element, bigger backgrounds, more variety in battles at the cost of party interaction, the characters themselves and "exploration".

F it. I picked up Deus Ex and Fallout 1 & 2. Hopefully one day I'll get around to playing them.

Is the game even that good for all this fuss about the ending? My bro says practially all of the missions are short and there's a ton of decisions made in the game that he didn't agree with. The worlds aren't even bigger to offset the lower than ME2 rez textures. From what I saw the game looked like a parody with some of the cheesiest dialogue/digital acting known to man and casting an African sounding guy as a Prothean - wouldn't it be much better if the Prothean spoke in some strange dialect with subtitles added? The failed "mysterious" ending seems more like the icing on the cake from what I can gather as opposed to the iceberg itself.

Lol - sounds like another loose BSG ripoff Bioware did if that's the ending.

I've been watching this game being played a bit and is it just me or is this installation of ME the cheesiest thing yet?

What a joke. Deus Ex is enjoyable for it's game play, story and dialogue. AP is a tedious game with good dialogue. Also AP boss battles are worse then DX:HR. The reason DX:HR bosses are so heavily criticized(and rightfully so) is because the rest of the game is so much better. Looks like a **** game that only fanboys could enjoy. Funny coming from someone like you. Are you a child? Not a child but me brain hurts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxSbOQBde58

I didn't realise the two games had anything in common. Wait, I still don't. Nothing? Seems a fair bit to me - crappy tactical shooter mechanics tacked onto an RPG with your stat based upgrade system that tries to do everything but isn't great in anything, and oh yeah, embarrassing boss battles. Alpha Protocol does do one thing pretty great though, the dialogue system, including it's decent characters. Deus Ex looks like a similiar experience with weaker character interaction, the sole thing that makes Alpha Protocol enjoyable. I dunno, I disagree with everything you say here. The two certainly play completely differently. And I actually like them both. If gaming's become such a chore, maybe you should pick up knitting or zumba. Or I could pick up you and body slam you.

What a joke. Deus Ex is enjoyable for it's game play, story and dialogue. AP is a tedious game with good dialogue. Also AP boss battles are worse then DX:HR. The reason DX:HR bosses are so heavily criticized(and rightfully so) is because the rest of the game is so much better. Looks like a **** game that only fanboys could enjoy.

I didn't realise the two games had anything in common. Wait, I still don't. Nothing? Seems a fair bit to me - crappy tactical shooter mechanics tacked onto an RPG with your stat based upgrade system that tries to do everything but isn't great in anything, and oh yeah, embarrassing boss battles. Alpha Protocol does do one thing pretty great though, the dialogue system, including it's decent characters. Deus Ex looks like a similiar experience with weaker character interaction, the sole thing that makes Alpha Protocol enjoyable.

It's got pro's over DX and con's over DX. But IMO AP is better. Of course countless reviewers and gamers disagree. Well I think I'd be disagreeing with them. I'll take a game that does one thing great over one that does many things but isn't great at any, and almost fails at a few.

Agreed there. I'm not sure if I'll ever buy a big game title again until one of those select few come along that are worth it(which is what I've been doing for the last few years anyway).

Is Deus Ex anything more than an over hyped Alpha Protocol? I still need to finish that game, and the characters atleast seem a lot better than what I see in previews for Deus Ex.

I've just gotten Hard Reset so far - kind of nice for what it is, straight shooter with good gunplay in a Blade Runner setting. It's pretty shocking that a budget title such as this, one which I've yet to see a fellow human character in game, can feel more alive than most AAA titles.

Just tried playing the Steam version of Bloodlines and it's a bitch to get running. A "cannot find steam" error is what I got from launch, then after I fixed that issue I can't run the game with the "-console" command. What a pain in the ass and I know the cracked version has none of these issues.

Anyone play Wings of Prey?

Yeah, same feelings here more or less, but not so much sad as I need to start replaying the games of which I actually really like for a change.

My point was that the Witcher barely had any change in armor or weapons throughout the whole game. So it felt very pedestrian instead of "special". New Vegas has a lot more of the unique/personalized weapons that also are worth extra coin. I liked the Witcher, but for me the armor and weapons were something I didn't really think twice about in that game.

That is a bit too much micro managing for me with the armor. There is a problem with the way loot/money is managed in RPGs but I liked the way New Vegas handled it. The game rewarded you for exploring with unique weapons, something few games do, plus there was something useful to be purchased with the game's currency, i.e. the implants at the medical lab. The Witcher's armor and weapons were more of a non entity, they felt very general and bland just like clothing on your back. The fact that you only change armor a couple of times in the game didn't really make it more special to me.

Personally, if there were some actual interesting dialogue going on then the quests would all feel more part of the main world. Look at something like Bloodlines - yeah the game is much more story oriented, however all of the dialogues are so well written that all of the side quests feel like they're part of the story too. With a game like Fallout, it's just too big with too much filler material and also that's simply not the style of game they were trying to make anyway. So basically, I prefer a writer who can write memorable characters and dialogues in whatever situation they may be, main quests/side quests/static dialogue.

I used to share your cynicism, but then I played Arkham Asylum, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love a Tie-In Game. You're right that tie-ins are usually lousy cash-ins, because they typically try to get by on IP alone. Good tie-ins are successful because they have a great alignment between theme and gamplay - in Arkham, Rocksteady nailed the gameplay of CQC and stealth. The greatest accomplishment of Arkham Asylum is that your character will perch deftly on a gargoyle wearing tights and big ceramic bat ears and you don't feel like some fiddly furry creep - you feel cool, and you feel lethal. Based on the Game Informer article, the new RPG seems to be RT hack and slash running on Onyx, which (like DS3) runs a very real danger of becoming generic gameplay with a tacked-on theme. I could see this as worrying. But this IP is kind of built to make use of traditional RPG tropes and perhaps surmount them. You mentioned earlier that Obsidian may as well make a Jersey Shore or Big Bass game, but the difference between those IP's and South Park is that South Park has its own developed universe and metaphysic - it even has 'lore,' or whatever term nerds use to designate the fake history of a fake setting. It also has elements important to storytelling - an often editorial worldview and real honest-to-goodness themes. Among those themes is the role of imagination - more specifically, how imagination is often willfully self deluding, self aggrandizing, and ego inflating. And I'm sorry, but how is this not characteristic of nearly every RPG you've ever played? There's a reason why Avellone refers often to ego-stroking and power fantasies as recurring design goals. RPGs are often about elevating the scale and stakes of the game, chiefly to accommodate the expansion of the player's ego as s/he trivializes former challenges. The twist in South Park - and this is potentially rich for both story and gameplay - is the opposition between the "power" of a person's imagination and the powerlessness he or she feels in reality - there are inevitably moments where characters in the show come down from their fantasies to face the indisputable bummer of real life. Consider for instance the episode where the boys are playing ninja: they're drawn as these massive muscle-bound anime characters in their fantasy - until a goddamn throwing star ends up in Butters' eye. They're once again themselves, small and vulnerable and in trouble. I honestly believe there's more freedom and potential in this franchise than in, say, Star Wars, D&D, or Warhammer, which are so hemmed in by 'canon,' prior world-building, and fanbase expectations that their settings are downright claustrophobic. But then I was one of the people who looked forward to Alpha Protocol, so maybe I'm just biased against swords, lasers, and laserswords. Very good post..

I'm not sure about that completely, I mean they managed it with the movie, and that probably has a similar development cycle to a video game. It just might not age well as a game, meaning if you don't play it when it comes out it might not be all that relevant. It solely depends on what subject is touched on. Something like Team America can be relevant for years and years to come due to our stupid American foreign policy which has been going on for years.

Yep, that's true. What's good on paper can just outright suck or simply fall flat in it's video game implementation too. So, a good balance of knowing what you can do + a fresh source of ideas seems like a good thing. Plus, I'm not so sure how a designer can be that inspired to create really engaging stuff from this type of source material - so again, the people who are passionate about it, Matt and Trey, giving it a little spunk, seems like a good match.