Tigranes

Yeah, two screenshots from a tech demo and some vague PR-lines doesn't really count. I guess if DA is on track, we will start to see the PR machine really get into gear this year.

Considering NWN1 took 5 years, Dragon Age 5 years isn't really that worrying I think. Its just that we got more PR/info on NWN1 back then; it was still a hell of a wait for anyone who remembers it (and the Bioboards back then).

While I fully agree with the general sentiment.... ....surely this comment should, at least, raise the cynic's eyebrow.

Which, really, is what most (good) DMs/designers do, isn't it? I think it is sensible to pick only one or two settings within the FR setting (e.g. Thay/Rasheman).

Yeah, one day he will be stabbed by rabid fans for cutting the glorious Scouring. But you know, if he put it in, there will be people saying "what was with that lame ending", so... I saw King Kong, but I no longer remember the original, so I guess it's sort of pointless. I thought it was a good movie as it is, considering I wasn't interested in King Kong anyway to begin with. Now it's going to be interesting what del Toro does with Hobbit. But we all know we can't rest easy until we find out if MacKellen's back.

...Good to know. I don't mind big changes to FR, and it's not such a bad idea, the Spellplague. And if an author/DM wants to avoid it I'm sure the setting allows for pockets of anomalies where practically, spells and magic still does work.

...Good to know. I don't mind big changes to FR, and it's not such a bad idea, the Spellplague. And if an author/DM wants to avoid it I'm sure the setting allows for pockets of anomalies where practically, spells and magic still does work.

I think that's about as good as you can hope for, at least in video game writing, so far. Flashes of brilliance covered in a very consistent level of good that makes it both memorable later on and enjoyable at that moment. Torment too had its flashes of utter brilliance, but even those who liked the writing will say some of it was comparatively filler-ish. On IE graphics - well I don't think I'm qualified to say. BG2 was my first real taste with computer gaming and it's come to define my perspectives, and I spent my highschool years (early this decade) looking at all these exciting new 3D games come out, except 3D was still new and it looked all jaggy, blocky, and horrible. I'd maintain that, as a personal opinion, the best of IE games continued to be preferable to early 3D until, for RPGs, the era of Jade Empire, NWN2, Oblivion. 3D has its obvious advantages but I think it took a while for those to outweigh the problems they took years to overcome - so much jaggy, so much blocky, so much generic. Even now I think they hold different appeals; in most well-made 3D graphics I marvel at the special effects and the lighting/shadows, or just the way I can be immersed in a 3D environment; in 2D I look for the handdrawn touches that give it character, like looking at moving paintings. But I accept that this also has a lot to do with opinion and formative years, and for some 2D is simply out of the question now. (Every time I play Fallout and other mid-90's games it takes me a while to get over the graphics jump.)

Oh, indeed. You're probably right. My point though is that it clearly gives an impression of an aged and jaggy game. It's been pointed out to me, too, that the shadow are... well, lacking.

Hey Starwars, this is quite different from NMA's reception isn't it? I think even treating F3 as a completely new game in a universe where F1/2 never existed, several large flaws loom over the screenshots, some of which may or may not be rectified by the final game: 1. Quality I don't know much about graphics tech so I'm not going to comment about that, I'm just commenting on what can be seen: individually, not much seems wrong and you can find some neat stuff they've put in there. Put together, it doesn't feel consistent, and its quality seems, indeed, like a PS2 game. Notably, I would point out the greasy sheen on the supermutant in second to last picture, and the flatness of the power armour in the last picture, both legacies of Oblivion; how, just like in those games, Bethesda's graphics department appears to have a problem in making characters look like they belong in the environment they've made. Apart from the super bloom (or NightandShape's accurate corrections on that matter), I think that really makes the eyes go 'huh?'. 2. Direction The art direction is, as I said before, very very obviously 90's postapocalypse as opposed to 50's. I wonder if Bethesda is doing this on purpose. Leaving aside the fact that this of course makes things look very un-Fallouty, this makes the game's look very generic and swamped by other games which have explored such settings already. Whereas the 50's postapocalyptic setting gave them an opportunity to create a game that would be very unique in the way it looks and feels compared to the Rainbow Sixes, Deus Exes, Stalkers and whatnot, they have chosen for some reason to throw away this advantage. What I fear may happen is that this will then come together with some clearly 50's objects like the Pipboy, and end up an eery and unbecoming juxtaposition. 3. Special Effects One thing that hasn't been mentioned this thread much: the special effects suck. By that I mean all those projectiles and gun effects. I have no idea how they look in reality, but what they've effectively done here is make a bland, low-colour-intensive environment, throw in flat glossed characters, then a few firecrackers and giant laser beams all together for a very disconcerting end result. I don't know why every burst of gunfire has to create a sfx larger than the person's face, and the laser beams are big enough to hold up a Greek temple. Now I'm sure that in early/mid game at least you won't be blowing up cars with nuclear weapons wherever you go, but it's still overdone and adds to the central problem that we can identify from the screenshots - a lack of a clear direction and the consequent loss of cohesion and immersion. Of course, this is all speculative and they're not done yet. Hopefully, when we seem some gameplay videos, it'll be more encouraging.

The whole thing looks a lot more like Resident Evil / 24 Days Later, rather than Fallout (keeping in midn the huge differences in graphics, yes. It's all about feel), but if one gets past that, I think they did a lot of work to really put signs of decay everywhere they could. The screenshots are way to trigger-happy with Bruce Willis hollywood action chreography, but hey, they're screenshots, that's sort of inevitable. I'd say the weakest parts are the design decisions on characters and monsters, and the strongest areas are the environment itself (e.g. look at third from last shot with no characters; it looks the best IMO.)

You just threw your arm to the test monkeys there, Steve. Been too busy to have another lesson yet so still no clutch for me, but this thread has lessened my apprehensions a little. We will see what actually happens in 24 hours.

Considering I got my undergraduate with A average and missed 60-70% of the classes, I'd say it really depends on what kind of classes your university gives and what kind of person you are. Most of our lecture notes are posted online, and most of our lecturers in undergraduate just read out the lecture notes with very small ad-lib; students raise few questions; few are answered satisfactorily. I'm someone whose strength is the ability to understand things and get the big picture very fast, so I usually end up knowing what he's saying before he's even halfway done. I'm weak in other areas, but they tend to be ones I work on myself. And the time I take off class (and the 2 hours of travel), I usually spend researching things appropriate to my degree. So it really depends. Today I played some tennis.

Hahahaha. Now watch him get fired.

Hah. Classic old trick by Fox. Why must EA come on Fox? It wouldn't work anyway. Fox would just set them against psych experts who write books on dating, ask loaded questions then cut them off before they have had a chance to answer, and conclude the 'investigation' without presenting any facts whatsoever; it seems their own 'journalists' are too busy being celebrities to actually look things up themselves. Once again, it is the nature of such things: we are disgusted by their antics, but we are not surprised; we can do little, and nothing seems to change; we move on, we forget, and it happens again with new victims.

It's like you two are related, isn't it? I personally think its a good and sensible move to make a particular type of item only be conducive to particular type of enchantments in a way that is partly intuitive. (e.g. boots often give movement/speed bonuses.) It's been the trend for some time and it also makes equipping out your character more fun, IMO. I also like what they've done with the Rings. I agree that in terms of magical dependence it's a lateral move if anything, and a downscale would be appreciated, but ah well - that's really another question. I wonder what happens to Cloaks, though? Surely they don't fall under Armour.

Yeah, well, it's bloody hot these days, it's unbelievable. Lots of people out too. Anyway, rather anticlimax-y; I didn't even touch the gearstick. The lesson guy seemed to favour a 'push pull' steering method I had hardly seen before, so I spent an hour running 8's and double 8's in a parking lot.

Maybe, finally, EA's buckets of cash and corporate suits will do some good. I continue to be amused by that psych person's books though. They're the kind of stuff you use in Monty Python skits.

See, driving is a big chore for me and I have no interest in cars at all; and there are a huge amount of auto cars around here. I would have thought it'd be better for me to learn auto, get familiar with cars and drive around for a while then do manual. Too late now though, the lessons I understand are already scheduled for manual. Whoever's the instructor's going to have a hell of time with the most clueless guy ever. Well, first lesson in a couple of hours, but thanks for all the info guys, I'll tell you how it goes.

It's a very strong letter for these kind of letters, and the fact that it went public shows it too. I do hope an apology is 'extracted' from the no-doubt unwilling. By the way, the bit about vidgames stealing audiences from TV? Gold. Low, but gold.

So, after like years of procrastination I finally got my learner's license a few months ago. (Nearly failed that because I read the book while playing Witcher.) But my stepdad is a bastard and booked me for manual lessons, even though I have an auto car waiting for me. Problem is, I've never ridden a geared bike. Or paid attention to cars, ever. Or used manual in racing games. I have no idea why you have a clutch (I found out what a clutch IS 10 minutes ago) and what the hell you have to do. I've driven an auto for like 2 hours, so I know the very basics of that and can drive slowly in deserted suburban roads. But that's it. Can anybody explain this stuff for me? (also, is it better to start out with manual now or later? I'd have thought you'd want to be comfortable with auto first if you're clueless like me, but I'm not sure.)

Oh, Sand.

It's depressing, but it's not surprising, *at all*. Not one of it. By the way, I love the names of those date books the psych "expert" has put out.

Neither, but anything with Raccoons has to be better than Silent Hill.

Got to run, but: