Tigranes

I truly hope it does, and that the Witcher has something of a Garrett in him, if only in mannerisms. Unfortunately, the fact that production is apparently *still* going long after the hype machines were fossilised doesn't bode well, generally.

I remember MTW1 where you would prepare a long line ofships from Toulouse to Antioch, then have the Crusade arrive there in one turn. But yes, the more direct you go - even over Byzantium if you can't get a ship - is better, as well as picking high faith provinces to walk through. The problem with Italy is that stupid comp units always block up the passage around the Alps and Northern Italy killing your movement points. I had 2 crusades completely die in that swamp once.

I really really like IWD2, a lot more than IWD1. I believe I'm in the minority with this. I don't know. IWD1's fabled 'atmosphere' never really pulled me in, despite the good music; and I thought while the two games were similar in many aspects, I really liked the dev's 'creative' use of the Engine in IWD2 - not just the exploding kegs, but stupid orcs carrying exploding kegs; the Shaengarne bridge; stuff like that. 3E rules were fun too, and the game had a different feel to it (helped by, say, diff. spell effects and item icons) that kept it fresh. IWD1 in that respect felt a little weatherworn to me (probably the 640x480 resolution and the artistic style). I generally like things to be that way, but somehow IWD2's more 'plastic' look worked out well for me. That said, I don't remember IWD1 too well anymore. Should revisit.

But then, Oerwinde, the 'overland' portion is already done so, so much better by Paradox games or Civilisation. What makes TW 'unique' and a big seller is the fact that it combines overland with strategic battles (and the overland portion isn't as slow-paced and complex). Personally, I'd prefer that EU got itself a proper combat mode, since Creative Assembly have become incredibly, astoundingly lazy (the gap between RTW and MTW2 was like FIFA 2006 and FIFA 2007) and the awful AI really cheats the great game of a great experience.

I have one question, though I hold little hope. Is the AI any less retarded? Difference between mediocrity you can't let go and greatness you can't let go, really, for TW.

Well, that's interesting. Did you manually check the files?

Yeah, 3 general + 3 psych. It's still very, very small. Now, for that number, I expect to see, throughout the game, substantial NPC responses and recognisance of not only your backgrounds but also them in combination, and there be some juicy consequences to your background, i.e. lots of NPC prejudice. And if that happens, the system would be very successful and I'd be very happy to see it there - it would represent new ground of a sort being broken, as well. However, if the 3+3 backgrounds don't really have more impact than we've seen in previous games, then it would be sorely lacking. So I'm not making any presumptions Volo, just saying that for 3+3 number, I expect and hope to see some extensive interaction / response.

I believe Cant reported in the Bioshock thread the same deal; and yes, my AVG also found a trojan in the demo setup.exe. I had assumed it was because I torrented the demo, but still. Firstly, why so many people finding trojan warnings/etc for Bioshock, legit version? Secondly, taking away Kaftan's credibility question, would anyone put it past a copy protection company to lie about their methods? Thirdly, would anybody really be surprised at copy protection installing rootkits? It's been done before.

In which case, 3 is just mindnumbingly stupid. We shall see. What.

Donny eventually stops talking, though, so the reference is misfired. I read it, and while I'm very conscious of their inherent bias (and I say that without negative connotations), the dialogue descriptions are probably pretty on the mark, and it is what I expected - Oblivion dialogue with a bit more talking/choices and everything else a bit suped up. Doesn't make me feel so good about it, but it's not a surprise. Still, I remain firmly in the camp of wait-and-see.

Well, yeah, but is that gonna stop him complaining? I understand the logic but I think 3 is *too* small. For that number, it better have a huge and real impact responses to the PC unlike anything we've seen before. Which would be very nice.

Three backgrounds? And three 'psych' backgrounds that don't even make sense, I mean in the way that they've been picked. Why not 'sheltered officer boy', or 'the brigade punching bag', etc? Surely 'ruthless' applies to everyone, too. I mean, they sound well done and I think you will see them pop up throughout the game, which is good; looking forward to that. But it's really asking for a bit more variation. Not Arcanum's 30, since you can't really make 30 things pop up in dialogue later, but 6 or 7? Why not that? Also, the bit about female Shepard not being a caricature will strike fire with Sand and the other "I wanna create my own character" people. Personally I have nothing against premade characters, but the personality of the female they describe is so ridiculously a caricature.

Yeah. Note that that's an example of bad, not good.

Kaftan, Japanese comics (and I have no idea how Japanese suddenly becomes Asian at some point) are 90% crap, as is American, as is European. It's just that Anime/manga, especially of the bad sort (ugh, dbz) are getting a huge amount of exposure this last decade (which probably rubs you the wrong way). Besides which, I always thought American superhero comics were terrible. Superman, batman, fantastic four, whatever, you name it. I couldn't stand reading more than two pages of them that are supposedly the childhood canons of the American generation, so there you go. I think you looka t it a lot differently if you were exposed to it as a child (no I'm not saying all superhero comics suck foreva for everyone). Bone is probably one of the best comic books I've read, ironically. But there are a couple manga that are really damn good, if your mind can manage to ignore the horrible stupidity of most of their conventions (i.e. random supernatural stuff, "I'm-pretending-to-be-cute" snippets, etc. But then, I skip all fight scenes in any comic books / manga / anime / tv show.). But a lot of time for many peole, those conventions are so in-your-face and stupid, they can't get into it at all. Which is fair enough. edit: I tried to google a Chiyo cooking thing to put on here, but the first page gave me hardcore 10-year-old-Chiyo hentai. Kaftan, you're to blame for this purgatory.

Bone is fantastic. We have some of it in our local library but I could never get a hold of it properly, being in NZ.

While merciless execution of the law, whatever it may be at the time, will always bring down rate of criminal behaviour and is benefitial to society...?

Will reply in detail later, but: The Classic Hollywood Narrative involves a resolution of the romantic subplot either just before or after the main climax; the resolution often involves either sex or some sort of alluring scene; the main climax also involves violence. In some subsets sex comes early and causes the rift, while for example the 'vehicle chase' has become a staple feature in many action films. Doesn't really need to have both at the same time, but the point is that such things have become nearly 'necessary' for many films. I love historical epics for example; but I hate seeing violent encounters in them because they are done so poorly and their conventions encourage a transplantation of action movie / Western hero messages onto the historical situation. Equally do I hate romantic subplots in historical epics (*shudder* Alexander).

The animosity isn't limited to "too bad for them"; it has a direct consequence on the US. But if you believe that no matter the consequences, the law is of the highest priority, then I suppose must agree to disagree: no problemo.

I'm not saying you should trust them. I am saying animosity and distrust on the part of the other country. Even if you should hadn out to some illegal immigrants and deport others, I'm not saying you should then 'trust' those illegal immigrants... I mean sure, there's a degree of trust involved in handing out visas to them now, but that's based on their past history while in the USA; i.e. to an extent they have proven themselves. They're still illegal, sure, and if punishment to offenders was the highest priority in this issue then by all rights we should kick them all out. But my point is that this will simply create huge amounts of animosity and distrust on the part of the immigrants and their home countrymen, which will later cause a lot more problems, not to mention economic downfalls and all that. Basically, everything you say about the law is fine. It's not wrong. But you can't be right on everything at the same time, so you need to prioritise sometimes what is more important, and in this case keeping the law is not the most important thing.

He's picking apart everything you say IMO because he's discussing the subject. I mean, I'm doing the same aren't I? Besides which, if he thinks your argument is pretentious, then he thinks it is pretentious. But if you take it as personal insult, then don't bother replying to him, better than a flame war. Isn't that your personal opinion, though? I would presonally suggest that Bioshock is being way too pretentious for the kind of game it is and it doesn't really strike me. It's like someone who isn't very good at painting suggesting his faces have a million different complex meanings behind them. I think both will achieve a similar effect - a pretty good game that some might consider has 'art-imitation' or 'pseudo-intellectual' qualities. Oh, they did? Well, 50% of that is probably PR, but I wouldn't agree with their assessment either. If I can expand on B), basically the context we are within is that games are not generally considered art or even art-istic by most people, and there is an impetus within certain sectors of fans and devs who *want* to push for an art-istic recognition of games. The problem with Bioware's approach for me is that its technical methodology (i.e. cinematic style) I feel is mistaken and cheapening, and the focus away from traditional styles of video game writing to a movie-style one is frankly depressing, whether in terms of dialogue writing, scene writing or story writing.

Of course my aim is to make a point: and I think I have articulated it reasonably by now: so feel free to reply to it directly. Tale isnt' really attacking you either, though you seem to be taking it that way. I am always interested in well-articulated, reasonable opinions. I don't really think you're being pretentious, either: my use of the word wasn't directed at anyone, you may notice, except perhaps Ebert. Of course, but what I think Tale means is that we don't really know much about what kind of 'message' it could have, if it could have 'artistic' merits in terms of what we popularly think. I mean, all that information you have just listed? Right now they can be the ingredients of a very 'artistic' product that an Ebert might approve of, or just a cheap sci-fi hack that to someone like him possesses no artistic value whatsoever. We don't know yet from that kind of information. Remember, I could just as easily reduce Mona Lisa to "some lady with a weird face" and Romeo & Juliet to "two youths whose marriages are not approved of". I'm not saying you are being reductive: I am saying that what Tale probably means is, that kind of information isn't conducive to judging, say, ME's artistic values. Just so you know, the main case isn't whether games are art now, but whether games as a medium is *capable* of producing art in the future, provided the right social and economic contexts (and whether those contexts could ever be generated). Ebert is saying no, never, as the medium itself is flawed; I'm saying that's a load of crap and we could and probably will see 'artistic' games emerge more and more within the next 2 or 3 decades. Which is why... ...you probably agree with me on the main point. If I get you rightly, you are saying that right now, video games as a medium aren't really art because A) the economic forces are too geared to profit by entertainment, B) the devs and the consumers don't take it as art?

Precisely. And because of this social context, many people then and afterwards began to approach the Mona Lisa *presuming* that it was art, *presuming* it had a deeper meaning and those who did not see it were simply shallow or stupid. What if some 'aristocracy' or whatever determined the same context about video games? Then wouldn't people talk pretentiously (or more than now) about the artistic merits and deeper meaning behind Torment? How the seeming simpleness of platform games represents deeper psychological truths about humanity? 1. How does this derive games of meaning? Is violence inherently not artistic? 2. Films are dominated by romantic subplots, by stereotypical characters, by 'climax' scenes that either feature gratuitous violence or sex or both, and are obsessed with numerous other conventions that could hardly be called 'artistic' by someone like Ebert. Anyway, the Malevich point that Tale made is entirely compatible with your rebuttal, Zero. The whole point is that art is only art in the context that we have prepared for art; and if the same kind of context was made for video games - which is entirely possible - then you will see people who are unaware of this mechanism, such as Ebert, happily warp on about the artistic merits of games.

There's a difference between fun danger and stupid danger. I don't agree that you need to get to 3rd or 4th level to feel 'safe', dependent on the creativity of the players and the DM, but it can be very frustrating to be first level for new players I suppose.

Firstly, my point wasn't that giving amnesty to lawbreakers was good; my point was that sometimes there are more important things at issue than philosophically meting out judgment to all lawbreakers. Secondly, animosity and distrust, however irrational it may be and however right the source may be, can cause a lot more problems than amnesty to lawbreakers in a specific case can.

But the point is, they *can* have a lot to say if and when the developers try and the consumers receive it that way. It is fundamentally flawed to claim that video games are inherently and forever incapable of 'having much to say'. Besides, look at all the 'postmodern' or 'performance' art that is out there: a lot of it I would consider either ineffective, pointless, vain or just not worthy of attention (for me). I would argue that the vanity and pretence has taken a lot away from art in the last couple of centuries, to the point that I consider its apparent 'multiple layers of meaning' pointless and ridiculous. If someone makes some art using, I don't know, twenty litres of cow blood (I'm sure someone did something like this a few years ago, I just forget), then it's some poitn about animals or life or humans or existentialism or whatever.... I don't really think that has a lot to say, and I don't really think it deserves any sort of attention. I suppose you could just say some art is just 'bad'. But that just means there aren't many 'good' video games in terms of 'art' out yet. Still to come.