Shadowstrider

I don't understand any of what you said. You asked what the difference is between a real studio and a bunch of modders. The difference is pretty big. Then you ask if it is a professional endeavor... You go ahead and think about what you posted. I'll be here.

Wait... are you serious?

HAHAHHAHAHAHAH... wait... are you serious? Let's go with top 5. Money. Professionalism. Not making press releases for a mod using a game that hasn't been released yet. Experience? (I have no idea who is on the team, so...) Not "planning" a mod, and then putting out a "casting call" for characters.

Exactly. This game was originally announced on the PC, and that is all that matters. Who cares on which console it's released on? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Me, and just about every console player in the world.

No, not really. Everything is easier with more players, inherently. A cleric can buff a fighter into a beast that is nigh-unkillable and then heal him as needed. This allows a fighter to fight as if he is 2, perhaps even 3 men for a time, and the priest can fight at a diminished capacity if needed. Really, though, there is more to designing for multiple players than simply the difficulty of the monsters, or the number of monsters. Go try to play Rerturn of the King on Xbox with a friend in coop. The game is more difficult on some levels because of camera fencing. Issues like that are what make it difficult for production, not really design.

Getting 2 things balanced is harder, more costly, and more time consuming. I want all my games to be 50+ hour epics, but I'm realistic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's not particularly more difficult to balance for 2 people, or more time consuming. Costly, maybe, but not for the reasons you mention. There are two people playing... so put another creature on screen. That's a pretty simple solution. There are a slew of other ways, but those are top secret. So secret that if I told myself I would have to kill... myself.

Why must you wound me so?

Fun is not the same as memorable. I remember the time my dad yelled at me for skipping school, but that was no fun. People buy games for fun, not for memories. If they could foresee their memories they would be some kind of augur, and would never have fun playing any games. Just because something is memorable and fun does not make it more fun. Also, you suck at MP experience. I remember much more about Halo nights with 15 other guys than I do about Half Life's story.

What? No. I'm saying, thank you for posting a link to an Oblivion article!

Free press! LAWL. Dance puppet!

Link plz.

It's the opposite, actually. Multiplayer is the long term fun, single player is short term. Games are all about fun. You can't distinguish multiplayer from singleplayer and then say "Half-Life 2 was better." You have to judge the entire product. That said, even with the co-op and multiplayer, Half-Life was a better game. An awesome multiplayer and coop mode can move more units than a groundbreaking story. Why? Because the game is more fun, and provides better value. If I have 2 games, both 49.99, one has multi+coop and the other is solely single player, both games got 8.5+ average scores from critics... I'd go with multiplayer.

There is a reason that Halo and Golden Eye are regarded so highly among the masses. Half-Life 2 really didn't add anything immense to the FPS genre either, at least nothing that mattered, nothing that made your average guy stand up and take notice. The fun of FPS games is predominantly multiplayer and the ability to talk **** to your friends. Half-Life 2 was a game. Halo was an experience. Is Half-Life 2 a better game? You bet your ass. Problem is I can't sit in front of my big ass T.V. with a beer on my right, and 3 friends on my left.

My 360 will see a lot of use when this, Gears of War and Assassin's Creed are released. I feel sorry for my thumbsticks.

Depends on the game. If it's a game about choices (RPG), then I would mostly agree. If I'm playing Zelda or RE4, tell me a good story. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, even to my strong dislike there are exceptions. I don't mind it in Fallout, in the opening movie for example. I don't mind it in an ending sequence. Icewind Dale did a lot of things right and a lot of things wrong, the cutscenes were among the strong points. I was more referring to it in the context of movies that cut away and take liberties with your character. They do this in Final Fantasy games and it bothers me. I actually got into an argument with several folks at Bethesda about cinematics the other day. I'm sort of surprised how varied the reactions were. Editted for having SFS.

I actually strongly dislike any sort of cutscene or movie. Anything that takes control from the player is bad, in my opinion. I hate it when I'm playing a game and come to a pinnacle time in a story, only to have the control taken from me and watch my character react in a way I would not have him react.

http://www.n-sider.com/newsview.php?type=story&storyid=2440 Tells you how many bones you'll have to drop to play with your wii.

$4000 dollar kitties need love too.

The suspense of waiting in Fallout was, quite literally, killing me.

You know what's funny? This thread. This thread is very funny.

60 hours is what I like to call a light week! LOLLERSKATER!

^^^LOL! Spoiler!^^^ Saw it opening night, I had free tickets. Weren't bad, but weren't great, either. It's a good popcorn movie.

Perfect! When can we see this in full production?

Also, it says in my contract that I get a battle scene with the entire mod squad and Chuck Norris. I win.

If I'm in this, and I'm not saying I am, but IF I am... I need the following: A lightsaber. A hook hand. A pegleg. A black hood. One lady for every hook (1). A private dressing room. Limo service to and from the set. A personal fluffer. Otherwise, Shadowstrider will not be seen in this film.