Tigranes

Oooh, yes, Kreia was good. I dont' know how I forgot to say that. Perhaps paradoxically, I found KOTOR2 to have a lot of good dialogue moments, with NPCs as well, but the NPCs themselves, when you hold them in regard, didn't really stand up, except for HK and Kreia. Atton was surely better than Carth, who was sort of like a custard muffin made without any creme, packaged in an environment-friendly gray paper bag... the blind girl had a nice concept but wasn't really developed well I feel, same with Go-to, who just became annoying. The chick and the bear, as well. And the Mandalorian. They were all good ideas, and they all had bits of dialogue you can look at again and again, but I don't know. I think it's because I just don't like the Star Wars setting that much, maybe.

In both my playthroughs of the OC, I would actually forget to make him a Monk (playing at 5fps makes you somewhat frustrated and hasty), so I would really only do that at the end. It was cool and quite marvelous to watch him zip around (at 5fps) destroying everyone with his palms, but yes, his story ended up being a bit too Disney cartoon at the end and I see it as a great opportunity for Minsc II spoiled. Again I piggyback Gorth's point, but the fact that inter-party banter between Neeshka, Khelgar and Elanee stopped entirely after the first 30% of the game tells its own story. They wanted to do a BG2, but could only put half the material into it. Certainly, though, I think there is scope for BG2esque modding scene to arrive and shore things up here, adding lots of banter and so forth; pity the toolset put of many people in those first months. For me, neither KOTOR games had very good characters. Carth and even his counterpart (whatshisname) were pretty boring; Go-to was horrible; HK was funny but that's about it, a silly gimmick (a la Cait Sith). And Jade Empire, well. I loved Bishop for a simple but effective concept, Sand, Khelgar were pretty enjoyable too. But other than that, the recent RPGs haven't really had very memorable NPCs and I think that's a pity, as they were such a big part of Torment, BG2, etc.

Just a friendly prune, we'll see if there's life left in the old horse. Regarding Sawyer's post above, and random noob's that I quote here- It's interesting because for the last couple of years I've been quite heavily involved in my local church, but gallivanting around unsure how I really feel towards the actual 'faith' bit of the equation. The rest of the religion I can see myself getting into, but this is a kicker. The general logic from people I talk to seems to be that yeah, because there's a divine intervention involved, it's not a question of me going "Hrm, I guess I'll believe", 'decide to believe' and find myself certainly faithful. We humans don't work like that. The big question is whether the certainty that comes, for many people, from a cathartic event, is actually the complete internalisation of the religious discourse (which others would variously describe as brainwashing or Pascal's logic (Pensees I)), or really Godly intervention. Hard to know, which is why I'm burning my arse on the fence. More in line with Josh's comment, let's look at good old Moses, in Exodus 7: 8-13. Now most of us are familiar with things like God appearning as a non-burning burning bush, the various disasters he brings on Egypt, the parting of the sea, etc. But this particular passage is very interesting because it actually says, NIV version: The key point is that the 'miracle' Moses performs by the power of God, is actually performed by the Egyptian magicians too, apparently. Completely ignoring whether arboreal metamorphosis is scientifically possible, and the rather weak follow-up that "Aaron's one can eat theirs", the Bible doesn't even claim a monopoly on miraculous manifestations for God. It would be pretty damn flimsy ground to claim that God exists because he does things we can't explain, anyway, for me. So if science improves and one day nanobots can imitate this metamorphosis, or we can find synthetic material to make a bush that doesn't burn/etc, are we God, or does that disprove God? I don't think it makes sense to think we have proof of God in that. The question then becomes, what purpose do these miracles serve? And what has to happen for someone to get that 'dead-cert' faith about God? If it really is the divine spark, what are we supposed to do before that? The common answer is "keep trying and God will open the door" or something, but what you have to be careful of is simply training yourself to faith. Pascal was right; get someone to kneel, get someone to go through the ritualistic motions, and eventually, you will instil faith in him; or rather, you will find he has internalised it so much that he believes he has faith, when he may not. A quandary.

Why is that just adding word count? Are you implying that only facts matter? That impressions, opinions, weighted words, and all that, does not influence anyone, and if it does, we are all rational beings that can conceive of all facts objectively without any of that directing us one way or the other? I don't understand this big black line separating 'fact' from 'opinion', and saying as long as facts are right, opinions dont need to be corrected. Uh, of course you can. Journo X was told in game Y, A and B woudl happen. Based on this, Journo X thought game Y would be immersive, and said so in the preview. In the full game, A and B were cut. Journo X thus says, A and B would have made Y immersive, but without it, it is not quite as immersive as I told people in the preview. I think you are getting away from what I was saying. I wasn't talking about their opinion 'just' changing; that is indeed their individual flight of fancy and there is no point getting into that. I am saying, if a journalist formed his opinion on the basis of certain promises by devs or certain things seen or implied in their demos, and these promises, implications or hopes on which the journalist based his opinion and preview are no longer the case, then of course his opinion may change; and of course he would do well to inform everyone else, who might well have gone through the same process as him. Am I showing you better, now, how it's not just about 'facts', or the journo randomly changing his mind? Besides, if done right, it's not about 'accusing' devs or 'taking them to the task'. Everyone understands that not all features may make it in, or features can change. It's not about saying "Bethesda why did you take this out". I mean, let's say: Samsung was making a TV, and said their TV would come with a Super Remote Control with 60 buttons. Based on this, a TV previewer (heh) said this TV, in his opinion, is the greatest TV evar. Samsung, due to unforeseen technical problems, had to cut it down to 30 buttons. The TV previewer, having used this new downsized remote, is now of the opinion that this TV isn't actually that great. Then of course it is their job to correct their original statement about the greatness of the TV. This is not a question of whose fault it is, who to blame, whatever, at all, though you seem to think I am saying that. Let me clear that up once and for all - it's not about that. It's about informing customers, and that extends to more than just 'bare facts'. It extends to hopes, implications, promises and suggestions. Why wouldn't it?

Vegemite is a horrible, horrible piece of horrible made by horrible people with horrible children in a horrible place. Also, I maintain that Australia's GDP is largely irrelevant, since being an Australian is a natural disadvantage in any international occasion. Anyway, if I can dig up old bones, I found this by random noob interesting: Are you implying that more than a belief that one has internalised unto himself, faith has a specific divine element that makes it clearly distinguishable from other kinds of beliefs? If so, how would you tell?

Yeah, I played a few hours of Gothic 3 and loved it, but it was so unplayable on my crap machine (also, that was 1.00 that would CD-check every 50 seconds and freeze), I'm waiting till something like next year.

Don't be silly, we're gamers. We all sold our souls to the devil the moment we went "Dungeons and what?".

Huh... a preview and review's entire raison d'etre is to inform the public about games. If, at any stage, they informed the public incorrectly, then that is their job to correct it, irrespective of whether that error came from themselves, the devs, was inevitable, or whatnot. I would have thought that to be a very common-sense kind of argument. I suppose the language I used didn't help in that case, but come now. If I told my friend about this great new game that is coming out that will allow me to throw bananas at monkeys while riding a hoverbike, then the game came out and I played it, and it turned out that, well, you were severely limited in your stock of bananas and the monkeys are just 2d pixels that didn't really respond to the banana-throwing, the next time I meet my friend, wouldn't I tell him, "yeah, it's still there, but..."? Isn't it a very normal thing to do?

Korrrrgan. Arr.

Wasn't intended to be dramatic, sorry - I don't mean this in the sense that Journo X is worried about Oblivion having this and this problem, but this paragon of free speech was censored by the evil editor and the corporate suits that have paid him, oh no! I mean it more in the sense that maybe, everyone in the press was so busy being happy happy about Oblivion, there wasn't, as a whole, enough looking back and taking a minute and saying "hold on, is this really in every way better than Jesus' second coming?" Certainly, I just had a look back at some of the reviews/previews from 2005/6 and that is what it feels like. Fair enough, but respectfully speaking, I think the rest of the paragraph ran away from you a little bit. If I'm wrong here, feel free to lambast me. I believe a reviewer should take it upon him/herself to, based on his/her personal opinions and experiences (it doesn't need to be an encyclopaedia or a scientific dissertation), explain what kind of experience is actually provided in that game package and what can be expected by the consumer. After all, nobody has any problem when a reviewer says, "this feature is great but is plagued by bugs", "this game is great but the company has a horrible self-help forum", etc. To the core of things - Why should a review reference its own preview? Because a preview was a provisional assessment of the game that gave the consumers particular expectations about a game! I find this very natural. By releasing a preview, you have given customers certain expectations about what this product will be like. Now, in the form of the full game, you have more accurate information about that product. If things you said in the preview are no longer salient, why wouldn't you address these discrepancies to set right the customer's expectations? You can see how this is a bit different from what you were saying I said. I didn't follow Deus Ex, but if the devs said you CAN choose a female JC, and te previewers helped inform the world of this fact, if you failed to actually talk about this in your review it would be very silly! Reviewers shouldn't backtrack about every little thing, but when, unwittingly, their previews have helped create an impression of the game that they realise now is no longer accurate, of course they should try and correct it. That was very long-winded I know, but it seems I didn't make myself clear enough the first time, so maybe now it's overtly clear. You can see how I'm not advocating one strict way of reviewing a game. All I am asking is that reviewers be aware of what effect their journalism has, and take a reasonable amount of responsibility for that effect. This can be done no matter how positive you are about Oblivion, or how negative about it. This can be done by both a Codex review and a Gamespy review. 'Calling out' the dev is very important to the consumer, I would say, because they need to know if what they read in the previews is going to be what they are getting, or if that mental image they developed of that game is not quite the same. Final note, just to be safe: of course I'm not saying previewers deliberately distort information or spread positive propaganda about that game, or something. Of course previews are going to say some things that no longer hold up in a review, because they are not able to play the game themselves (or not all of it) and games change in development! In no way am I ever implying this. Just hoping that you can see my argument not as some sort of 'devs r evil liarz and so r the journos" tin-foil diatribe. Edit: I must say, though, when I was looking back at some of the actual articles, it wasn't quite as explicit or 'bad' as I had maybe made it out to be; oh, memory, memory. I still stand by my understanding of the situation as a whole, but it'll probably do to imaginatively 'tone down' my previous comments a little, in light of that. Funnily enough, some of the most outrageous complaints about Oblivion (and not complaints by my own standards, but of the community as a whole, or of the journos themselves in FO3 previews) weren't, well... they weren't present in the reviews OR previews. One review actually posted an in-game screenie that showed the horrible 'blurry' textures that really knocked off the immersion factor in terms of graphics, while raving about how the world is real and so forth; one review actually claimed the radiant AI would go so far to close up shops when shopkeeper is dead (he may be referring to the scripted event about Thoronir, otherwise he's completely wrong); the word 'dialogue' doesn't even come up on one review, and so forth. I guess that both helps and doesn't help my case, doesn't it? It's interesting.

Some journos ARE backtracking now (or are able to come public with their grievances). Notably about how generic and repetitive the dungeons and the world was; how Radiant AI was nothing but bull-crock; how despite the beautiful world, the faces were a thing of horror (I didn't mind much, but there you go); how the level scaling made for a nonsensical experience. And certainly, you could say, "you may not have enjoyed/loved Oblivion but maybe they have". And that's perfectly fine. But when Bethesda announces to the world, Radiant AI will do this and that and this and that can happen and it will change your experience, and all the journos buy into it and start spreading the word about the awesomeness, and it turns out to be so extremely toned down some of their cited examples became falsehoods, and problems we had not known about before surface (as they do with the best of games, when they are released), then what reason is there for them NOT to backtrack? There would be nothing wrong with saying "we were previewed X things, and we thought that looked great, so we said it was awesome. Then it came out, and some of those things that were said or understood didn't turn out to be true, and problems we never knew about came up. However, because of Y and Z, I as a reviewer still feel that this game is fantastic!" There wasn't much of that happening the first few months, was there? Definitely, it is an interesting question. FO3 promised substantially improved dialogues and voice acting; promised fuller, real NPCs; promised more real consequences to your actions as opposed to being able to do anything and everything at the same time; better AI than Radiant-Not; so on and so forth. If, for example, the dialogue turns out to be exactly the same as Oblivion, many NPCs are still generic, you can still do everything except for Megaton, and the AI still talks about mudcrabs in the middle of random conversations - so, yeah, if we take the worst case scenario - will the journalists actually call Bethesda up on this?

I don't really understand. This might be valid if raised against, say, a specific minority within NMA, but if you say that to me or starwars, that's really the same as saying, "you can't criticise any game ever, if you don't like it find another game". In none of my arguments do I 'claim authority' over Fallout, or argue that we are 'entitled' to a specific Fallout. I am commenting on what I see in a game and how it is being developed or revealed to the press. It's not like FO3 is a steaming pile of poo-poo, anyway: I see potential in it and it could be a good game, that's why I still follow it and hope for the best. Indeed, it might still turn out to be the shiznits, right? Besides, I am an 'interested spectator/consumer' in the CRPG industry and this is a big title that will, like Mass Effect, influence other titles to come. It's a capitalist economy. In terms of scrutinising Bethesda itself, there's enough grounds for that I think. They haven't exactly been the Pol Pot of gaming, sure, but there are some questionable practices. It's endemic of the industry itself, though, with notable exceptions, so I wouldn't say they're worse than the average. (You know some people are going to just read one of those previews and buy the game thinking it'll have 500 unique endings, though. ) Oh, and back to the original topic: why am I so displeased with the state of most previews/reviews these days? Look at Oblivion! They raved and raved before it came out, when it came out, for months after it came out, then, as soon as FO3 is in development, they switch tact and say, "Oblivion was great but it had this and this and this flaws, they were pretty bad huh? Well don't despair, FO3 will fix it all!" You know, the Radiant AI was a horrible horrible piece of crap the day it came out, the dialogue was standard fantasy fare with nothing to write home about the day it came out, and the level scaling got into ridiculous superpower rats the day it came out. You can say that it's not the journos' fault that the previews built the hype up, because they hadn't played the game themselves either, sure, but that's why they need to be a bit more careful when they write those things. If they believe everything they are told and just repeat it, with the added touch of gush and rave, all they end up doing is writing elaborate advertisements for the gamer, and participating in, for example, the great myth of the 500 Unique Endings that will disappoint some users when they get the game. Hard-nosed gamers who are used to this stuff will exercise their own cynicism and discretion, but casual gamers who don't check everything will look at this 'journalism' and go for it. Would it have been so hard to ask some questions about concrete examples of dialogue, or hold them up for broken promises in Oblivion? If they were fooled once with "Radiantly Crap AI", shouldn't they be a little suspicious when Bethesda claim super AI without really showing it? *shrug* Some of you might say, games journalism has always been this way. Deal with it. I don't see how the longevity or widespread nature of something wrong means we should all learn to just suck up and deal with it. Certainly, I'm not surprised to see these kind of press actions; I'm not going to lose my faith in humanity and jump off a cliff (weeee); but I know that it shouldn't be this way.

Yep. Emil gushes about how you can queue several actions in VATS, then watch while in slow motion your character shoots something's kneecaps, tosses a grenade in a mutant's open mouth and whatnot. Sure, it's 'cool', but if the whole battle system lends itself to a 'cool explodey' every battle, it's going to get either very boring or a thirteen year old's pipe dream. We will see how it turns out in reality, but there is a great emphasis placed on that at the moment. Queueing actions, for one, makes it very different. They obviously don't want you to queue actions then have half of them fail or have you die in the meantime, so in terms of balance... The one big thing we haven't seen yet, though, is dialogue. We've seen basically nothing. So if we see some good dialogue, it would be nice!

Something confuses me here, guys. If I am criticising what we know of FO3 so far, and anticipate it but only with reservation, does that mean I am comparing it to previous games, or thinking Bethesda have betrayed the fans, or I'm using rose tinted glasses? I do do that. I take it for what it is - a spiritual, distant, sequel of a game. But even if I completely ignored that and treated it as "Post Apocalyptic Game Nothing To Do With Fallout", things like bullet-time VATS make me feel I just may not find the game very enjoyable. Which would be a pity, because I would love to enjoy another postapoc RPG. I don't think it's right to link every criticism or worry about FO3 with, say, a Codexian worldview.

Going to work out how I can play the first 45 minutes of football, probably in goal despite being 165cm tall, then in 15 minutes of half-time getting changed, making myself non-filthy, going to church, then doing church practice, then come back, and do an official 'sample run' of the daily online ethnography to be conducted by yours truly every day for the next 10 weeks for my honours thesis. edit: No, it's not Obsidian, though it'd be easier if it was.

Well, we were discussing Bethesda. But if you want me to make it crystal clear: 1. Many many game companies do this, and it is indeed the norm now; Bethesda is by no means the big evil meanie in an industry of nicey nice angels. 2. Of course, that really doesn't absolve Bethesda or any of these other companies from anything; every single one, individually, to a greater or lesser degree, are guilty. Hopefully I've made myself a bit more clear. Of course, anything you want to call me up for, feel free to do so. Anyway, the Bethdevs had hinted last month that the hype machine will start rolling soon and we'll start getting more concrete info. I hope that is the case, give us something to read.

*shrug* Indeed, but I don't think there's anybody here that feels that sense of entitlement. If FO3 turns out to be a veteran fanboy's worst nightmare... (Worst nightmare = VATS is just an excuse to see bullet time high-gore explodeys; Emil Pagliarulo's horrible gratuitous example about what he thinks of 'black humour' turns out to be the norm in FO3, which basically becomes a moderated Postal; abandoned buildings and bunkers are generic loot-pickup points a la Oblivion caves; conversations are still Obliviony...) ...then I will be sad for two reasons; one, it probably won't be very enjoyable or immersive at all for me, and two, it probably will represent a kind of trajectory that isn't good for the industry as a whole. But that's about as far as any 'entitlement' stuff goes.

I thought we didn't like cliches here. I mean, to an extent it's fine and cool - I'm not going to be a paranoid anti-discrimination activist - I'm just saying, it should be in moderation. And considering the time we live in, it might be a good and benefitial thing to not have Mohammed "I'm an arab and I'm a terrorist".

Well, one word says a thousand things. Anyway, I wasn't targeting just Bethesda, not for this, anyway. I'm just sick of 'previews' that regurgitate over and over again, and either rarely criticise anything, or if they do, criticise always along the same lines - its the same discursive pattern again and again. Some reviews are exempt to this rule, but here, I'll show you. FIrst one on the list was Gameshark: 1. Same char-gen / You are Special stuff we knew about before. 2. "Unlike Oblivion, for instance, you're not able to see and do everything in a single play through." Heard this before, only real example remains Megaton. 3. Karma. Old. 4. Companions. Actually, just dogmeat. 5. BOS vs Evil Super Mutants! 6. VATS. 7. So, it's awesome! We can't wait! Notice a) the complete lack of any new details that nevertheless somehow justifies a slew of new previews; it's as if previews come out dependent on press releases of publishers, and not the actual info. Why do this if there's not really anything new to say? All that happens, whether intentional or not, is to keep the hype machine rolling and advertise the game. b) the lack of any criticism or substantiation. i.e. the only examples given to back up very general comments (e.g.2) are still the one or two things shown by the devs. Of course, previewers can't help it if Bethesda can't/won't reveal any more yet, but there is nothing like "we only have like 2 examples so far, but that's what they promise and we will see what else they can come up with." There is no criticism, or apprehension that the kind of crap they gave us with 'Radiant AI' and 'Deeper conversations' in their last game may crop up again. There have never been any comments about the plastic, oil-sheen ugly character models. There are no questions asked about whether super mutants are just 'evil' or there is going to be more depth there. You can't blame a game site for doing hte best with what they are given or trying to cultivate good relationships with the game makers, but I don't like the fact that they schedule their previews to press releases and NOT whether new info has been released, because it doesn't really do much for the consumer. I don't like the fact that they fail to ask hard questions that will very much be pertinent to the game experience at release, and just report whatever they've heard, sometimes with voluntary, additional hyperbolics of glee (to be fair, not really the case in the Gameshark one.) Of course I'm generalising and there are some good reviews, or decent reviews, out there. Finally, I'd like to clarify that I haven't made up my mind on FO3 as a game; that will happen when I've played it. I have some concerns but there is also excitement. So it's got nothing to do with me wanting to bash FO3 or Bethesda. I'd just like to see more game journalists go in there and ask some questions that aren't "why is your game so wonderful", or at least ask the questions to themselves, when they write, and not write if there's nothing but regurgitating of old stuff to say. Now, I probably touched a nerve with my first post and I apologise for that; now I've explained myself properly (as I should have initially), if you want to call me up on things I don't understand, I'll be happy to correct myself.

Right now I'm wondering whether to just not click and give them hits, or compare them and point out how so obviously preorchestrated and devoid of substance they are. It's pretty obvious that Bethesda told them went to release all the previews, and really, what to tell/show them for those previews. Also, considering how the entire game journalism biz simultaneously asploded in fanjoy at the mere sight of Oblivion (and refused to admit its flaws for about 2 years after release)... Are there even any new facts about the game? The glowing ghouls aren't new, but yeah, they make no sense, they'll probably glow like hell and make the game look just like high fantasy, and it won't really make the gameplay better..

Which reminds me, I hope they don't fall into highly stereotypical things - Italian mafia cartels, Russian ex-KGB hard-men, Arab/Muslim terrorists and corrupt Asian/South American government officers...

Just tell me when you're done playing, kids, so I can close the door.

Oh, what the heck, I'm bored, and I have 20 minutes to burn before bed. In no particular order: Planescape: Torment I said 'no particular order', but this is probably my favourite game of all time. If I had never played or known about any of the games I've played in my lifetime, the one that would really give the pangs is this one. It had a very special game-story; by that I mean the combination of plot, characters, dialogue delivery (though too wordy at times), easter eggs, voice acting, music and pacing of revelations. The conversation with the Paranoid Incarnation, and his story of persecution, was amazingly vivid and is the only tear-jerking moment in gaming to date, for me. The combat was thankfully tolerable for me, and the graphics were nice, detailed, and unique. Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn Probably the biggest timesink. It ticked the 'coolness' factor with Irenicus (ah, the voice acting): the story was not much to write home about, but nothing so bad to really irk, and the number of side-quests and areas to explore, and their relative creativity, was astonishing; I still wonder how in the world they ever managed to make such a game. The NPCs were nothing 'super-deep' but were very clearly defined and well-polished, and thus, memorable; and I just really enjoyed the gameplay, lots of magic, buffs and antibuffs. Baldur's Gate Has its own special place I think. Both in its lower-level gameplay and in the setting/story there is the sort of pastoral charm in that game you can't find in BG2. Story is even worse, but ah well. Fallout 2 Curiously enough, I can't seem to go back and play Fallout 1 multiple times like I can with 2. I played 2 first, so that might be the reason, but I really enjoyed all the easter eggs, and while Fallout 1 probably had the more logical and consistent setting, I found it was a little too bleak and bland. This game needed some serious grinding (and gun-resale off corpses) for me to get by, and San Francisco was an aberration, but a definite masterpiece. Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer Only played twice, but going to get a lot more replays once I get a better PC. The fact that I even played it twice (and the OC twice) with 5-10fps everywhere is sort of testament to how much I enjoyed it. Like other entries on here, I really like an RPG when it has a clearly defined, unique setting, and Obsidian played it up well with all the spirit stuff. The NPC quality is closest to the IE era than ever, though still not quite there, and while the gameplay was rather munchkin, I had a lot of fun with it and I don't thin it was as over the top as Throne of Bhaal. Thief 2: The Metal Age This may change once I get around to playing Thief 1. Just edges it past Thief 3 because it has larger levels and is a bit more free-form. Absolutely brilliant concept and still remains very very unique; Hitman and Assassin's Creed are similar, but really poor man's version of Thief. Again you have a very specific steampunk setting; a clear gameplay hook it exploits extensively; some inspired quirky touches, in this case, like the comments made by patroling guards. Lovely game. Medieval: Total War There was Shogun of course, but this one really put TW on the map. A good time period: lots of great periodic touches like the focus on monarchies, titles and assassins. I still find this to be absolutely a superior game to R:TW and M:TW2... mainly because in the latter games, the AI got so poor it would literally destroy the experience. The added complexity of a tile-based strategic map totally destroyed all strategic planning for the AI, and some features actually devolved, such as terrain or titles/dynasties. This game delivers the best tactical warfare experience on the PC. Final Fantasy VII Yeah, yeah, I'm going to get crucified. It was basically my first RPG ever, though, so it'll always hold a special place. If anything the music was great, and the graphics weren't bad either; lots of variation around the world, some very nicely rendered areas/FMVs. The gameplay is archaic by now and I probably can't replay it because of that, but I find that is the case with a lot of 'classic' RPGs. Certainly, I find the combat more playable than the Ultimas, myself, but that's very subjective. Anyway, it had a nice decent story, very high production value, and all that - to the 12 year old it was a dream experience and for me now, I can still look back at it fondly. That's it, actually. There are other games I very much enjoyed, like Arcanum or Europa Universalis series, but these are the games I would have no problem with if you asked me to just sit down and play them one more time. I'd throw in one Romance of the Three Kingdoms game by KOEI, but none of you know of it anyway. In terms of multiplayer, I think I got the most fun out of SNES' Mario Kart. Ahh. BANANA!

I saw both the two-hour call and the actual draw. Firstly, of significance is that the online prediction got the order of the draw right as well as the fixtures; otherwise this would be a no-brainer. Secondly, if you look, the guy just shimmies a bit with 8 balls in a shallow cup and draws them out. It certainly wouldn't be difficult to freeze one ball and heat another, then you would be able to at least separate two teams. Anyway, it's one of those things where we will never know. There are a lot of things to be fixed in football, such as bad refereeing or violent/dirty play, before we worry about what is uncheckable, unfortunately.

rn, let me make clear that I don't have any 'inside information' of any sort. A lot of what I am saying is conjecture. It mainly comes from their statements about how they start small and 'add things on' as different members come up with 'cool' things; how not all artists, or designers, need to have even played fallout for a little bit; and I am simply matching them to what we see in screenies, which I feel to be really really similar to 24 Days Later, but with random 50's things throwni n. Also, yes, Morrowind was a lot better than Oblivion on that. I have to hand it to their architecture and aesthetic style, it was really quite unique. I should have made that clearer - Oblivion is a looot more guilty, perhaps because they chose the imperial country or whatever it is.