Tigranes

But who are the 'naysayers'? I certainly wouldn't identify my own, mixed, provisional opinions with that of many other 'naysayers', even if I am overall skeptical. I think in the face of Bethesda's hype, especially after they proved themselves capable of great exaggerations with Oblivion, a small degree of skepticism is simply an intelligent move. After that, just how much 'naysaying' or 'automatic negativity' there is going on depends on the individual. You keep saying that rn, and you probably explained yourself before, but I still don't really get that. For me, what we know is nowhere near enough to make an informed conclusion. But I don't know anybody who's doing that. What we know is plenty to make provisional, reasonably intelligent guesses. I mean, we can get technical and bring out the "we won't know 'till we know" stuff, but is that really a general law that you would employ so stringently all the time? I rather suspect that what itches you the wrong way is how negative reactions seem so formulaic, immediate and final - I know I'm guilty of that as well, but let me assure you that I do consider all this very provisional. I am always happy to be mistaken when the game comes out and turns out really well. Again, I'm probably failing at some basic level here, but I don't get "you'll all play anyway" arguments either. Isn't that a bit like saying child porn happens anyway, so why cry about it? I don't like negativity for negativity's sake either, and I don't like to just say Bethesda is a load of crap and will never ever produce anything good, or that FO3 will be as bad as, I don't know, BOS (now that would be an accomplishment). But I think just like very few people (and no, that doesn't mean all of Codex or NMA) will flame *anything* that is called FO3, some others imagine a lot more 'naysayers' than there are in reality. Edited since I sounded a bit confrontational. Probably still do. But I need sleep!

Well, it *is* minimum wage work.

Yeah, but I think what he means is, because there are often only a limited number of answers, the game may not be able to pick up on that. e.g. there is only one 'Aggressive' option in a given situation: it doesn't really distinguish whether you are stepping up, having previously pretended to be meek, or you're still going full force - something that, in a traditional BIS/OE system, is accomplished with simple turns of phrase. I feel that like Mass Effect, you are usually going to be able to get the general result you want and say the general things you want, but subtlety and inflections suffer from this change of system. It's just a pay-off thing: they must have decided that in context of the game they want to make, they can accept this in return for what I suppose might seem a more visceral and cinematic experience. I never really felt that way, but that's probably just me.

Alright, Diogo Ribeiro did not move this turn but seems to have won: but second place is very close, and the final shoudl be worth it. Germany [] - Spain []

The forced sub of Villa did hurt Spain as Torres has been a 'nearly man' for all of the tournament - but it got Fabregas on early, which is what won them the game ultimately. Aragones has no idea how he's supposed to use *any* of Xavi, Cesc and Iniesta, so in the first half they were all stranded, but they sorted it out in half time with Cesc sitting back as he wants, Iniesta coming inside more, Xavi making the occasional forward run - elements which produced the first two goals. Marcos Senna was excellent again, and along with the other midfielders really choked off the Russians. Rather disappointed that the Russians couldn't adapt their game - Spain has a very superior defence to Holland on any day and tend to be more resilient, and they just couldn't cope with that.

At the same time, I am Legend is mentioned

Pfft, go for American midlands and Canada. You get crazy places like Mountain Island Town. Certainly, some knowledge of etymology and linguistics is very handy for making up pseudo-authentic names.

mkreku's post appears from the depths, and slots right into the top of this page! While he is talking to Patrick, got to agree that this is a relevant question to ask (never did get to try SS1 unfortunately, so I can't say too much here). rn: I've seen many. I mean, yeah, anecdotal evidence from both of us, but I've seen people who purchase for what might seem incredibly trivial, surprising or weird reasons to us. e.g. impulse buy of some random wrestling game after getting into wrestling. "Why this one and not others?" "There are others? I justp icked up the nearest one." e.g. buys Spartan: Total Warriot because "I saw that big walking stone statue and that was cool" (note: only appears for 2 minutes in one level and doesn't do much). Buys sports games because this one has better pixelated faces and confetti & stuff in the stadium. Doesn't buy MOTB because it looks 'blocky' and '5 years old', compared to Stalker. All these examples from different people. And hell, about 10 people that bought HL2 just because of the gravity gun & ragdoll, "DID YOU SEE THAT GUY BOUNCE AROUND I AM SO GETTING THIS GAME". I won't go out and judge these people's decisions, but to pretend that this kind of market force is negligible... doesn't sit with me. Anyway. Video games are not inherently incapable of producing great stories. Especially since 'video game' defines a very wide and varied range of interactive media, unlike film or novel. But without such rash predictions, yes, so far, video games have had piss poor story, 90% of them. The only saving grace, I think, is that that's not really that far below books or films produced these days. Does the latest action flick from Hollywood really have a deeper story than Doom 3? Like, would you give any of them more than two out of five stars? What about the hundreds of formulaic "COOL GUNZ" thriller novels, the even greater mass of trash fantasy, 'modernist' contemporary fiction that talks about casual sex and antisocial emos all day, etc? Of course, if I had to pick a medium for story in general, I would pick those media over video games right now. But there isn't some massive, inevitable gulf.

Come now, everybody knows that bears wander onto the road during lunch hours and play Calvinball. Of course, but why can't you do this in any other level? I mean, let me make it clear: I don't see it as a big deal either way. I wouldn't cry if we did start at level 1. And that's because I think in terms of a CRPG in the NWN2 engine, almost everything you can do as level 1/2 you can do as level 3, and level 3 is not as frustrating - making that frustration a pointless one. But sure, this logic can be applied inversely: it wouldn't be a big mistake to start at level 1. I just think this was done so that more casual gamers can get into the game. The Electron engine and NWN2 as a franchise encourages you to look around everywhere, try out everything, and fight in a head-on frontal assault: I think it would have taken a lot of work to change this so that less familiar players find themselves engaged in good level 1 activity without being mauled left and right.

Fair enough.

Games now offer neither more nor less in general: that really only stands up if you start comparing a very small section. The examples Patrick give are fine: equally I could summon familiar arguments about how we can't have truly epic RPG worlds anymore - the KOTOR / ME 'planets' were pathetic - and we can also talk about whether some of the 'clunky' or 'silly' things that Patrick says went away, aren't actually desirable. But that's a big can of worms. What I was really trying to say before is that what games offer now is, in general, a very different type of experience guided by different design logics than, say, before ~2001. Which is why there is still value and delight to be had in these older types of games. Get with the times? If we had a different kind of industry, and games like Fallout, for example, were still being made using new technology but using older types of design logics, do you think they would flop? I don't think so. If we had a kind of industry that was able to grow, cultivate and maintain these various kinds of games, I think the consumer demand would justify such a decision. But of course, you can't just snap your fingers and have that happen in the world of the market: and now people don't play those games not because they hate them now and they're not good anymore, but because they're not there anymore, and because the market's discourses have trained them to believe that what has been a stylistic metamorphosis was actually a linear technological advancement.

So we should just stop talking or doing anything and just buy whatever they produce, or leave? I mean, you are right in terms of an instantaneous analysis, but what are you really suggesting in terms of action? I think be they the casual or hardcore gamer, the developer or the analyst, a basic respect and understanding of the motivations and desires of each group is necessary for productive dialogue. Just as you point out quite rightly that there are reasons the industry is going in the direction it is now, nobody's going to be able to summon away people like us with magic. That said, I really do have to say that it's a poor way to champion the cause of older games by mentioning archaic puzzles that take you three years to work out. I was never one to enjoy those kind of things (KGB is killing me right now with its codes). It's a push-pull rope play between indulgence and pointless punishment, but go too far towards indulgence and what you are doing is breeding a market that expects ever higher levels of such indulgence. Just like in real life, iconic cries of 'freedom', 'choice' and 'buyer power' don't always mean good things.

The German team I wouldn't say is 'awful' - they are pretty good, and with a very clinical pairing in Podolski and Schweisteiger, it makes up for a total lack of skill, effort or committment on the likes of Ballack. Its just that their weak points, really, their broken limbs (lack of defensive cohesion, Ballack, Klose, Gomez) are not punished enough and they keep doing just enough that makes them seem undeserved. Got to give kudos to Turkey though, with the likes of Emre, Servet and Nihat on I think they really would have won.

Well, I suppose you're trying to prove that taks knows more than everyone about self-control. No need to go bombastic. I fully expect to be shut down for whatever I say in this thread because god knows I know nothing about what the hell goes in these things. But I consider myself lucky that after high school, my tastebuds grew sick of them and can't tolerate them more than, say, two or three times a month. I mean, just looking at it from a layman's point of view, if you ever had a choice, why would you choose McDonalds? Do you really think it's going to be 'more healthy' or 'just as healthy' as a proper meal? Heck, in New Zealand, a decent McDonalds meal now costs nearly as much as a lunch-menu in any other restaurant. I can get myself a big pack of Sushi or a Vindaloo with naan or whatever for nearly the same price. I saw that fast food still seemed relatively cheap in the US when I was over there, but really, one eats it because either it's cheap, or because one likes the taste enough to justify the health consequences. But there's no denying that it's a poor substitute. The only question is to what degree.

Yes, I'm playing it right now in fact and I love BG's low level gaming. But exactly what part of that do we miss out on, by starting on level 3? So if I start as a mage, I should run away from everything, including a family of gibberlings, until I get enough story XP so I can start fighting things? I mean, yeah, I wouldn't mind that if that was the case, but equally I wouldn't mind anybody leaving that part out. There are stupid encounters everywhere, but not many of them involve either (a) both sides sitting there missing each other for 30 minutes or (b) running away from everything. Now, what would be interesting is if a game like the Elder Scrolls started you off like that. You're just a babe and you can't really take on anything, you've got to sneak around, use tools and whatnot, i.e. drop a big rock from above rather than try and fight. But the IE and Aurora/Electron engines have always been strongest at frontal assault and are based around tactical combat rather than rogue/guerilla swashbuckling.

Yep. As I say, I didn't know what kind of inflection you meant, so I resisted attributing you to any single one. Of course, immersion is not just a linear scale of things - immersion is rarely just a technical apparatus with calculable effects. The specific kind of immersion your examples strive to achieve are not possible with older technology, sure, but that is not the only kind of immersion. Not saying newer the game, the worse it is (hah), just saying its more of a stylistic and cultural difference rather than a linear progression. Why doesn't it make sense? Without going too much into it, much of both technical and stylistic aspects of video games have become lumped into one big 'progress' package, and a certain amount of it is expected of every new game nowadays. Meaning not only a 'basic requirement' to have, I don't know, x amount of pixels, but also gimmicky physics, bloom, etc. There is a cultivation of audience desire in the sense that a certain 'touch base' of technology has become a basic requirement and a potential ace-card for market success. This is the case in every mid/late capitalist industry, and it should be no surprise that it's coming fully into force in this one. How is that a problem? Certainly if you compare, I don't know, Ultima I with MOTB, very few of even us would pick the former (bet you somebody will prove me wrong), but since the turn of the century, and not just in RPGs, I think we've seen both great jumps and advances that have been supported by technology, and great things going into obsolescence when they need not have. There is no "more technology = better games" equation at work: there is no law saying "games have to evolve". That's like telling Charlie Chaplin to get with the times and be remade in colour with orchestral theme music and soap drama camera cuts. They are all a product of their particular circumstances and have their merit: the task of every period is not to forget and shelve away the previous unique periods, nor to employ the ridiculous PR phrase "build on former greats", but to recognise the variety. Yes, it is the market as it exists today that makes this difficult: yes, what I say is naive and unrealistic to a degree. But cynicism and realism has its limits: just because something is a 'necessary evil' doesn't mean you have to forget that it *is* evil. (Not saying new=evil, just using that phrase). Anyway, I am hoping for a more 'dry' graphical look in AP, once lighting and everything is in place. It's good and pretty to have bloom and shadows and whatnot everywhere, but not in every damn game. I'd appreciate a more dry and cut look, and using bump mapping and detailed models rather than whitewash lighting to achieve 'realism'. Probably bleeds computers even more that way, though.

Don't worry, the TVs around the world were cut for the third and fourth goals anyway

Well, uh - everybody gets 1 point! With Turkey though, we should have realised it would be a crazy score. Will update after the next semi.

Volo hits the back of the net! It's 2-1 and they are ahead!

But you didn't complain when NWN2 OC levelled you up like twice for getting a fur from the chest. Right? I fail to see how it is different here at all, because surely they will let you level up the way you want. In fact, it would have been exactly the same as that if SoZ was a new game - but its an xpack so they won't include a tutorial to justify it, 'sall. I hate things like forced companions as much as you do but "freedom" is never an absolute and unconditional virtue in video games as well as society. It's about understanding what boundaries and limitations on player freedom is desirable and benefitial to the overall experience. Starting at level 3? Hardly think it will be missed, once we're up and playing the game.

Well, I wouldn't mind so much if the stories were actually any good. I run away from blockbuster Hollywood....and there we have blockbuster Hollywood. Thanks! Immersion really has become the key word. They are essentially aiming for an experience where you wander gaily through a universe which has been specifically tailored to fawn over you and provide you with tourist spots and 'cool' experiences, where you can indulge in various juvenile 'cools' (which aren't necessarily bad, we all love them, but how much priority should they take...?), while a suitably explodey and blockbuster Hollywood story unfolds. It's not about actually influencing anything, it's not about having consequences, and it's not about allowing the player to actually create anything. That illusion remains, of course, what with conversation choices, items, 'crafting', whatever, but let's not kid ourselves, they are fast becoming relics, those that remain standing while what they signify has already given way to a different form of experience altogether. SoZ looks like it's trying to, at least partially, resist that wave, though.

We can't, it just means that the level cap of the entire game, including toolsets and mods et al, remains unchanged. For PR purposes he would never say that the cap has gone DOWN, anyway. This really has no practical consequences on the "~15" estimate for SoZ main campaign. I hardly see level 3 as a problem, as others pointed out, NWN1 (and 2) OC levelled you up once or twice easy as pie to congratulate you for finding some furs in a rug and stuff. Level 3 still delivers, in CRPG terms, a very similar early-level experience, and I think it's just nitpicking. Seems like they promise a lot, i.e. improvements on every core area of the NWN2 experience - we'll see. Party Conv. System will need to be seen to be believed.

DSotSC had always been quantity over quality, in any case - which is really why it was one of the first big BG mods to be released. I ended up playing it in a really rushed munchkin way and I guess I was hoping I'd be wrong. We'll see - I can just choose not to follow up on it. The BG1 UB and misc. quests additions are good enough. In that case, fair enough. I suppose they translated it themselves or something.

rn: thanks - always on the lookout for great games I missed (i'd have been 4 when that came out). Will give it a try later tonight.

The development of technology has widened the various methods available to us for immersion, certainly, but technology = immersion is definitely untrue, and it would be just as nonsensical as 'games need to evolve'. I don't know what inflection rn was aiming at, though. Even worse, with more technology and the cultivation of a market for that technology comes an economic obligation to use technology.