Humanoid

If it wasn't because I had gotten SR3 dirt cheap ($8 or so?) on a previous heavy discount sale, I would have felt robbed. Haven't managed to get it to run properly yet because the stupid piece of software zealously insists that my Saitek 52 Pro flight stick and throttle is an xbox game pad and will not let me use mouse and keyboard only as controls. Stupid, stupid stupid!... No, I'm not going to unplug and replug my hardware just for playing one game. Did the same thing, and got the same problem with my CH F-16 Fighterstick - indeed worse because it insists that my stick is being maxed out on the Y-axis while I'm not touching it, so the player character is permanently gazing at the ceiling. Not clever.

Ex-WoW guildie threw me a beta key for this, so while I have no real interest in buying this (or any other MMO for the foreseeable future, really), I was bored enough to give it a try. Character creation feels like the Sims, with more customisation of appearance than any MMO I've tried, and about on par with the likes of Bethesda's single player games. There are also a set of background questions, which while relatively shallow in absolute terms, appear to personalise the main questline to a degree. Think roughly like Mass Effect's sole survivor vs war hero vs ruthless option; at least as far as I can tell to my limited experience - only up to level 8 currently. It's a shame then that the gameplay proper leaves me cold. Combat, at low levels at least, is doing nothing for me as a Thief: it's more or less leaving autoattack of your "free" cost ability on, and using the most damaging ability when the resource bar allows it. The story has been absolutely linear (and for the thief, out of character) so far, and there's some pretty cringeworthy dialogue. I'll probably try one more class before this beta weekend is through, but at the moment I have to say I like it less than I did TOR, and I didn't last even one month with that.

Hardly a new development, but due to region coding blahblah, even 50% off Steam sales on new releases are almost always still substantially more expensive than just importing a boxed UK copy - which tends to limit me to older releases where the price control has lapsed. Even something as comparatively old as Skyrim is still 50-100% more than what I'd pay for a brand new release, let alone something like Max Payne 3 (not that I'm interested in any shooters at this point). And on that note, have just bought my first title of the sale, which is just Simcity 4, which I already own sans expansion pack. Given what else has come up so far, not optimistic of being able to peck at anything else.

Waited until today too, though since I'm sure I'll never end up playing the game it's essentially a donation - I don't do the horror genre. I'm all touchy-feely/irrational like that.

The respective failures are of diametrically opposite nature though - was it the lead gameplay designer as opposed to the lead writer in the DA case? Not something I've followed, and at any rate, I despise the storytelling in DAO more than that of any other of its Bioware stablemates.

It's still on my desk, waiting to be installed, someday. Probably after my holiday and after the Tour de France. Then I'll have a wholly new, fresh batch of dad jokes to relate. But yeah, in all seriousness I probably should get it done before X-COM is out or I might not end up playing it at all this year.

I can see it now.... two bitter foes engaged in a duel to the death, each waiting for the other to pop their head out first from behind the chest high wall. And waiting. And waiting.

Since on both prior import occasions, the default Sheptard actions assumed for all the major plot decisions have been the jerk ones, one can reasonably then assume that the "fourth option" here is the canonical one.

Can't be worse than the original PC port - I remember for some systems it was literally unplayable prior to a patch because all the important default key bindings were bound to the keypad. Which meant a lot of laptop users had to force-terminate the game because it couldn't accept any input. Vaguely remember also that the non-Glide 3D option was impossible to get working properly so I was stuck with the software renderer. In hindsight I'm surprised I stuck it out to the end, really - but I haven't played any of its sequels since then.

I thought I may have had an older picture (no stalker, honest!), but the only thing that comes up is this pumpkin, dated 2002, with the filename BIS_sawyerpumpkin.jpg, and another related one.

Thanks for the people making me feel young - my first, as in first paid by me instead of my parents, was as late as an Athlon XP 1600+ with GF3-Ti500 graphics. That was store-assembled. I subsequently built an XP1800+ as the "family" computer (learning to do so by disassembling its predecessor), put the Ti500 in it, and bought a GF4-Ti4200 to plug into my machine. The motherboard PCB was a lovely shade of purple, more manufacturers need to use purple PCBs.... Before that, sort of mine (as in I was the primary user) were a P3-600 + TNT2, a P200MMX and a DX4/100. And before I could safely call dad's PCs were a monochrome DX2/66 laptop, a 12MHz 286, and some IBM compatible in the late 80s I know next to nothing about. That PC I suppose could be taken as a valid answer to this - I remember some of the games on it: Alley Cat, Winter Games, Pole Position, etc; and I know my older cousin installed and played Pool of Radiance on it, but I was too young to understand it back then. The longest lived out of those machines was actually the P200 which survived from 1997, which got repurposed to be my DOS gaming machine from '99 until the maturation of DOSbox in the mid noughties - I know I ran it alongside a Northwood P4 at some point.

I had been playing Might and Magic 7 a fair bit for about two to three weeks, it was more fun than any game with as questionable balance, encounter design (or lack thereof), interface issues and terrible visuals (even compared to its peers from a similar vintage) has any right to be. In the end I had to put it away near the end (as so often happens to RPGs for me) because it kind of devolved into mindless blaster spam against hordes of thousand-hp foes. That said, I three weeks is a far cry from the perhaps 30-60 minutes I put into it back in the 20th century (and about 5-6 hours into MM6). Haven't had the motivation to pick up anything else since then, unfortunately.

Eh, I dont know about that. While I agree that there is much less "community" and you do run into a huge pile of tards in LFG I think LFG/LFR is an adequate tool to prevent people from hitting that wall. I mean, I dont have to be your buddy to down bosses. Although I do wish raid finder didnt stick you in those lower difficulty raids. If SWTOR had this tool from the beginning I would probably still be playing. LFR obviously wasn't around back when I did the experiment I described, but I don't see it doing anything at all socially - it merely advances the effectively solo play experience one more step before encountering the same wall. By that note though I'll have to admit my experience with LFR is minimal - I did it for the first two to three weeks of its release but left it because it was neither fun (partly because of the anonymous nature of LFR and partly because Dragon Soul is a terribly designed raid) nor necessary to fuel normal (and subsequently heroic) raid progression. I did not use the tool at all for my last three or so months of WoW. Admittedly my last month was literally just logging on for a raid twice a week, bang my head against questionably designed hardmode bosses and logging out straight after, and doing absolutely nothing else. Was good to get heroic Spine on literally the last day of my subscription though.

Being spinoffs of a kind from Ultima 6, that's a fair assessment. A new starter should certainly start with U7 then if left wanting more, go back to U6 and only after then explore the chronicles.

It's valid for certain elements - in the sequel for instance I personally couldn't quite follow the first part of the prologue for example with the Nilfgaardian ambassador and what was going on: I had no idea what Nilfgaarde was (not that it was mentioned apart from the equally meaningless term "black ones" used) and had simply assumed the guy was part of the kingdom's clergy or whatnot. No help to be found in the printed documentation: I had the artbook, the game mechanics manual, and a game guide, but nothing of the actual world the game is set in. Origin was a great example of providing supporting material to help understand the game world, and I would prefer that path be taken more by modern games. Wing Commander for example had the famous "Claw Marks" manual that read like an internal ship newsletter and provided background on your future wingmates, foes, and the game in general. Crusader had that cool supplement, which purported to be a WEC dossier on the chief resistance operatives. Strike Commander had the excellent "Sudden Death" merc magazine conceit. These were all relatively small, nothing like the massive Maxis manuals which had a lot of dry reference reading: Simfarm for example had what seemed like an exhaustive history of real world farming techniques. But they were invaluable for getting into the swing of the game world - very apt for the company motto of "We Create Worlds." The nature of the printed word also makes it a vastly superior method to provide backstory than say, DAO's codex system which is more of a distraction when you're busy trying to play the game. This is a relatively rare case I suppose where segregating instead of integrating story from mechanics is the superior design. Maybe it'd even be a good opportunity to include a novel or two.

While I have no personal interest in returning to the game, I think these two moves - the server consolidation and the server-restricted group finder tool - are both very good moves: the latter of course requiring the former to work. Inevitably, the WoW comparison is made: WoW has resisted closing any servers (theorised to be for PR reasons above technical ones) and instead have created the region-wide group finder, and soon will implement shared zones amongst servers. These have been short term solutions that unfortunately have reduced other players into essentially more erratic and volatile NPCs - people that you'll likely never encounter again after the next hour. Which means yes, I'm partly agreeing with the fringe that argue that the group finder has/will destroy the sense of community in MMOs - but only insofar as the WoW implementation of it does. Now, I'm personally happily retired from all forms of online gaming at the moment, but I can only the imagine the case now, that if I was a fresh faced new starter on WoW, I would in all likelihood level solo to the level cap, grind the group finder tool to get a decent set of starter gear, then hit a brick wall because I know essentially nobody on the server. I know this to be true to some degree because I tried an experiment a couple years ago, creating an alt on a a well-populated Oceanic timezone server, and did just that. Social butterflies may find different of course, but I'd bet that a decent sized proportion of current players are having an experience like that, and thus don't have terribly much incentive to stick around. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those who claim the old days were best and that everything new is junk - but I certainly do believe that without the circumstances that were around back then, in terms of the way group finding encouraged to network and build a reputation (I know, that old "MMOs are like jobs" cliche), I would not have played for the 6+ years that I did.

Absolutely, play at a level that's "fun" - it's not dissimilar to Diablo 3's difficulty really: I don't play it personally but it seems silly to me that people complain about the highest difficulty as if they needed to play at that level to enjoy the game. In the case of Civ4, I could play and on occasion, beat up to Emperor difficulty (not with any regularity, and also bearing in mind I haven't played for over a year now), but at probably a 10% success rate. Further, by that point it no longer feels like an empire-building game but just ceaseless micromanagement, and I wasn't particularly enjoying it (or the long long losing streaks ). In the end, the vast majority of my play is just at Prince level because it's where I have the most fun playing in the style I prefer to: alternate phases of conquest and consolidation before employing air superiority to win a delayed conquest victory. I play the occasional game on Monarch but usually don't as it's probably too harsh on mistakes for my relaxed ways of playing (I lose more often than I win still).

I recommend Sisiutil's starter guide, but only after playing a couple games unaided first to get a feel for the general game concepts in isolation. Note that Noble is the "balanced" difficulty level, i.e. neither you nor the AI gets any specific bonuses. My own personal advice follows, but again, probably best to wait a couple games before applying any of it. - Civ/Leader selection for beginners: Try to pick at least one expansion/economic trait: i.e. one of Financial, Organised, Charismatic, Expansive, Imperialistic. Then consider starting techs. Agriculture and the Wheel are the most generically useful, and Mining and Fishing are probably the biggest traps if you're unlucky with terrain. Also consider starting with a Civ that gets an early unique unit/building. This gives a leg up over Civs that get late ones such as the Panzer or F-15, since the game is often over by the modern era. - Chopping. Cutting down a forest tile grants 20 production, or 30 after researching Maths. This is a huge benefit early on and is essential on mid-to-higher difficulties, learn it early and do it often. - City placement. Having a tile that can produce at least 4 food is considered almost essential early game. Sure, endless fields of grassland might be appealing in the long term, but early on, relying on farmed grassland for growth is just plain too slow. This means a flood plain or a special food resource like fish, wheat, cows, etc. The exception to this rule is to try to grab essential strategic resources quickly - early game this means horses, copper, and iron. Do *not* however, build the city directly on top of a special resource. Once your core cities are built, specialise heavily, e.g. science city, military production city, and so forth. - Civics: Don't think that just because you've researched a nominally more advanced civic, that it's more powerful and should be used. More likely, doing so will bankrupt you. A lot of people tend to be reluctant to take up Slavery for example, but sacrificing population that will probably end up unhappy anyway is a much better deal than it might look. This act is generally referred to in the Civ community as "whipping" and is an almost essential technique. - Research. There is no "best" research order, what you should research is directly related to what kind of starting terrain you get and what's needed to improve it - e.g. Farming if you have wheat nearby, Animal Husbandry for pigs, etc. Once food is done, then a safe bet is to go for Bronze Working, to enable chopping, Slavery, and also the Axeman rush on your neighbour(s) if you're so inclined. Religions are easy to found on easy difficulties, but I suggest not getting into the habit because it flat out won't work on higher-than-neutral difficulties. - Diplomacy. Leaders generally behave like the commonly-accepted real world traits of each. Gandhi will never declare war if you're above neutral with him, while Montezuma might be your bestest buddy ever but still backstab you at any moment. Isabella will have a fit if you refuse to adopt her religion, but Stalin couldn't care less. Mao will get annoyed at your Democratic government but Lincoln will love you for it, etc. - Automated workers are stupid, don't do that - at least not early on (it's always sub-optimal, but the lazy can get away with it in the late-game). Don't spam roads like in earlier Civs, instead build them towards specifically required places only. 1.5 workers per city is the commonly accepted rule of thumb. - War. Axemen rush is probably the earliest possible war option in general, unless you play a civ with a unique warrior unit replacement. This only remains viable while your foe is mainly defended by warriors and some archers at most however. Once that moment has passed, you'll start having to worry about combined arms instead of a mad rush - which generally means catapults, and a lot of them. 1/3 to 1/2 of a typical attacking stack in the mid-game are siege units. Example: - Once your opponents get Longbowmen, it may be time to consider shutting down the war effort and instead focusing on advancing to the next era. The medieval era is absolutely the hardest era to conquer in, as defensive units generally outgun any firepower you may have. Instead, bide your time, then blast them away with cannons and riflemen. Huayna Capac of the Incas is the strongest leader *by far*. It's estimated that using this combo roughly lowers difficulty a whole notch, and you will find that he's banned from competitive multiplayer games. Trait analysis, spoilered for space:

I wouldn't be surprised if they made the trial version of TOR indefinite though. I don't think there's really any reason to restrict it anymore to guest passes and free weekends - it's not like they've got a shortage of server capacity. When I did the trial weekend thing, I only had time to really sample one subclass to the level cap, and it turned out to be one I didn't enjoy - so there's good business reason to allow anyone to at least try to find one that they find enjoyable without having to rush them.

Civ4 only got good after an expansion (or two, some may argue) so I still hold out hope for it, with the first expansion due later this month. But yeah, Civ4 Complete is probably the best bet for now and should cost next to nothing. Alpha Centauri has a lot more personality though, contrast with Nimoy's narration in Civ4 it's a world away (in a literal way, too). The downside is that the technology tree, being sci-fi based, is a lot more abstract and less 'natural'. In addition, some might say Brian Reynolds' passion for philosophy might come off as pretentious, but I enjoyed it. Its stablemate, Master of Orion 2, is also probably worth trying. Going back further, there's also Master of Magic and Colonization, but that's getting close to the original Civ time, in all its EGA glory. The ones to avoid are Civ3 which I didn't think was any improvement on Civ2, and the rival Civ:Call to Power series (which arose over a trademark dispute between Microprose and Activision over the original Avalon Hill wargame of that name). Some random reminiscing: I started with the series when Creative bundled the first game with my Sound Blaster, along with a few other legacy Microprose titles such as Railroad Tycoon, F-117A Stealth Fighter 2.0 and Silent Service 2. In a way I'd say that was the dawn of my life as a PC gamer: sure I'd had access to the family PC for year, but aside from a few casual games like Tetris I mostly gamed on my NES. That Creative bundle changed my life!

Only ones in the list I don't already have on my account are WC4 and U8 - and I have multiple boxed copies of both. Will buy them anyway though, beats having to user-mod WC4 for the DVD quality movie version and U8, well why not. The expansion thing is a bit weird though: LOAF on wcnews.com claims to have contacted both EA and GOG: "EA tells me there's no problem with GOG including the mission disks. GOG tells me EA won't give them permission. I have literally yelled myself hoarse at these people. (And maybe it's telling that GOG apparently doesn't realize they're already selling Privateer and Wing Commander 2 with the speech packs?)" Sounds like there's a communication breakdown somewhere there. EDIT: Back in the 90s, WC1-3 were rereleased in a compendium called The Kilrathi Saga. It didn't come with the expansions, but they were available to download free from EA's FTP. I remember grabbing them through dialup. I have heard some people have had success adding it to the GoG version.

I would have thought that Larian being Belgian would, if anything, cost more per head to run than Obsidian. Heard somewhere that Belgium is the highest-taxing country in the world?

The Essence ST/STX (the difference is that the ST is PCI and the STX is PCIe, otherwise pretty much the same) also has a headphone amp so it's the absolute best option for both a headphone setup or a 2.0/2.1 stereo setup. It does however require an add-on board to do surround. But yeah, it'd be the first thing to cut if you wanted to reduce the overall cost. As for stereo speakers, I'd recommend a quality set of powered speakers, such as: Audioengine A5 (or the smaller A2): http://audioengineus...e/Audioengine-5 Paradigm Shift: http://www.paradigm....ers/index.shtml Aktimate Mini: http://www.aktimate.com.au/

You sure you want water cooling? My take with my own personal biases: http://www.cyberpowe....aspx?id=435127 The only recommendation I would really really push is to get the Crucial SSD in lieu of the other options, it's the best reliable option there is. I'd also strongly suggest the PSU upgrade if only because I have no idea how good their own-branded one you listed is. The rest is me going nuts for a quiet build as per personal preference, and adding both the best sound card option and big IPS screen because of my crusade against onboard sound and TN panel monitors. [*]Case: Antec P183 V3 Advanced Super Mid Tower Black [+35] [*]CPU: Intel

CPU and GPU upgrades aren't an either/or. Sticking with both the i5 + 670 is plenty sensible, and either pocket the excess or get a better SSD. Further, I would personally never recommend a Sandforce-based SSD (of which the Force is one) both from personal experience and wider feedback on their questionable reliability. Either go with the Marvell controller based ones for best value (Crucial m4, Corsair Performance, Plextor M3, or the discontinued Intel 510) or with the dearer Samsung 830 as the best of the best. But yeah, backing the 3570k, or even 2500k if the price difference is more than say, 20 quid. Ivy is only a single-digit percent improvement on Sandy Bridge at the same clocks, and they clock more or less the same due to Ivy having inferior thermal interface. I don't think there's any reason to go for the 680 either, if you need more than what a 670 can offer, then better to save for another 670. I also don't think upgrading the RAM latency is worth anything to this architecture - if there's any difference, it'll be closer to a 0.1% than to a 1% gain. Memory frequency is also a tiny, but slightly bigger gain, in the event of DDR1866 being available for a similar price - again a sub-1% improvement.