alanschu

My guess is Pipe Dream, given the minigame in Bioshock

I think this is a bit of a valid complaint, but also a bit of a failure for the player. It's very easy for me to roleplay characters in games like these, so seeing the stars for the first time had me pause to see the stars. Some people might need that text blurb describing the amazement of seeing the stars for the first time for it to hit home I guess. Different strokes for different folks and I know that people probably don't get "into" their character as easily as I can.

Did you play Fallout at all? It accounted for both day and night when coming out of the cave. In Fo3, that moment was pretty much pointless to me, as the previews ruined every bit of surprise it might have had. It's been SEVERAL years since I last played Fallout. Probably 3 or 4. Though it seems I don't remember the little text blurb about how I feel sunshine for the first time. I will remember coming out of the vault in Fallout 3 though. Though I'll likely remember Fallout 1 and 2 more as a whole, since they were more enjoyable experiences. Of course, it's also possible in the numerous playthroughs I had of the original Fallout, that I never left the cave at any other time than during the day. Perhaps they could have done something differently for coming out of the cave in Fallout 3. And too bad for you for reading up on all the previews. It's hardly Fallout 3's fault that someone spoiled that moment of the game for you.

Text only stimulates the imagination. And when you're sitting inside of the world as opposed to above it, you don't want to rely on imagination to get a point across. Compare Fallout 1's "For the first time in your life, you see natural sunlight" to Fallout 3's blowing out your vision as you exit the vault. Same idea requires different execution. I never got to see that effect which is supposed to be so important as the pinnacle of immersion and graphical storytelling in fallout 3, because it happened so that i got out in nighttime. So i have to say i prefer good execution of textual representation, over sloppy execution of graphical representation. I think Obsidian is pretty good at both, though. Wowzers how long did you take in the introduction? Haha. Having said that, it's actually a subtle attention to detail. If the game were to textually describe to you the sensation of experiencing natural sunlight, when it was actually dark outside, then it'd be a bad thing. It's too bad you missed the effect of coming out of the vault in the daylight. I thought it was awesome and something like that beats any textual description at all IMO.

Not that I disagree, but some of the other senses can be referenced with visual and audio cues. If I walk into a kitchen and I see bacon cooking in the frying pan and can hear it sizzling, I don't need a text blog to tell me that the room is filled with the delicious aroma of cooked bacon.

Why do I need a better example than literature? In any case, how about paintings? When you say you demand games to improve as technology, then I have to ask you: What makes a game good?

I understood it. Only because you have to recognize that he means copyright infringement by mentally adding the copyright qualifier in front of it. If you take the literal definition of the word ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infringement ) it doesn't make sense, because they aren't planning on infringing the game (whatever that means...for some reason my mind is in the gutter), their planning on infringing on the copyright. Because if they stole the game from a store and get caught, they'd get a slap on the wrists. If they infringe the copyright and get caught, they'll might have to play a $180,000 fine. Your suggestion is akin to saying that the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder is one of semantics. Strawman argument. Especially given that current definitions of stealing are slowly molding to include theft of intellectual property. Probably because in the context of software piracy, people I don't know why it would have to be a "vast improvement." Or even an improvement at all. Simply because something is old does not mean that stuff after it should inherently be better. Take literature for example. Do I think DA is a vast improvement over BG? Well, I guess that depends. Graphically (or some other way with a more obvious metric) then yes. But other ways are entirely subjective to the person. I think Baldur's Gate 2 is a much better game than Baldur's Gate 1 for a variety of reasons, but I know there are lots that prefer the first one. I see that the Gorth has spoken, so I'll stop the discussion about those that wish to take what doesn't belong to them without paying their due for it and depriving somebody else of their livelyhood in the process. Even if I find it soooooooooooooooooooooooo hard if someone responds

WOW INDEED! Nice to see this face again, even if it's just briefly.

As our esteemed colleague Volourn pointed out, you're the one spinning it. The definitions I pointed out refer to infringement of copyrights. If I take someone else's idea and present it as my own, I've stolen their work (by the very definition I provided). This is what most cases of IP theft entail. People stealing other people's work and getting it out to market before the originator does. Like many words in the English language, they can have various applications. And don't bitch to me about using correct terms, since you decided that using "infringement" was acceptable in place of "copyright infringement." The fact that they still refer to IP theft as, well, theft, makes it not too surprising that people will refer to the act as stealing. The thing I hate is when people sidestep the issue, and attempt to obfuscate it by distracting the discussion at hand (people illegally acquiring intellectual property) and making it a discussion about semantics. Unless you feel the distinction is necessary in order to rationalize copyright infringement in some way, such as a victimless crime or something. I agree with Volourn, DA > BG. But I think it's pretty close

I jammed a Glock 17 my very first shot because I didn't know how to shoot it properly. Snapped my wrists too much and instant jam. It was at this point I realize that the thousands of people I killed in Counterstrike did not prepare me for going on a murderous rampage.

Agreed but I'm equally as much of an ass and can't help it. Cheers

We already know the differences between stealing and copyright infringement. The joys of the human language. If you actually thought that Kelverin was implying that the Codex people were going into the store and taking items off the shelf, or if you were concerned that other people thought the same thing, then you're sorely mistaken. You're the one being the smartass given the "fixed" comment, contributing nothing to the thread. Language is fluid and changes all the time. Check this out: http://www.yourdictionary.com/stealing Don't like that definition? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Stealing Language evolves. When people talk about "stealing" intellectual property, any smart person knows that they are referring to the act of copyright infringement.

Stealing = removing the item from rightful owners ownership Infringing = breaching copyright of rightful owners intelectual property two very different things You clearly knew what he was talking about. And I already know the definitions of the terms and how they are applied chump. So do most people on this board. Besides, "infringing" without the very important qualifier of copyright in front of it makes your sentence make zero sense. So your attempt to be all witty and smart made you look pretty damn foolish. I know English isn't your native language, so perhaps it'd be best if you didn't try to make witty corrections like this, you won't fall on your face. Why bother get hung up on semantics? What point does it prove to show that "Oh, they're actually doing copy copyright infringement, not stealing." Any intelligent person knows what Kelverin is talking about given the context of his message. In a casual environment such as a message board, there's no need to bother typing out copyright infringement to get the point across (because, again, merely typing "infringement" is going to make zero sense. It's not like we're worried about people encroaching or violating the game now. It's the copyright specifically we're worried about people violating).

The joys of the message board is not everyone is on at the same time as you. If you're always hoping for immediate responses to the posts that you make, you're bound to be disappointed.

Haha yeah I thought that too.

Well, they were able to make a very busy Mardi Gras parade for Blood Money, so... why not? That was deliciously well done. I like the corners that they cut to show it off, because they're pretty transparent when playing the game.

With your fix it doesn't even make any sense now. Regardless, it's a semantics battle that isn't necessary. When Kelverin says that they plan on stealing it, it's pretty obvious that he means that they intend to acquire a copy of it without purchasing it. Why get so hung up because he used the word "stealing?"

I may be a Demi-Lich.

You need at least +4 to hit me.

I don't get it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladys_Knight_&_the_Pips

Dammit, I know we've had our differences but that's brilliant. Do you work at Bioware or something? Our differences are nothing personal We both just speak our mind. I respect it, even if I disagree with what you say sometimes.

Unfortunately no.. changing the ini files only makes the computer look for the content of the CDs on the HD, it still needs the disks to verify it's a legit copy - and somewhere along that road it doesn't seem to think mine is real.. I remember getting my game to work with a very, very simple fix like this. Perhaps you bought yours later and it has tighter CD Copy Protection? I may have missed a step or something, but it was really super easy to get the game to run off the hard drive.

Yes and no. The first two Baldur's Gates I replayed a fair bit, even though there's really nothing to be gained from replaying the game. Mind you, I've also replayed Half-Life probably 5 or so times, and Half-Life 2 at least twice. Deus Ex numerous times, though that game is a bit better suited to different playthroughs. I suspect I'm rather atypical. I agree with kitty man. I replay games because they are fun. Same reason why I rewatch movies, reread a book, etc..

I'm not sure what the length of time is on the game precisely, but my job for the first two weeks was to just play the game, and I still didn't finish it. Though 90 hours seems a bit long haha. Granted I was interrupted a fair bit by submitting bug reports and so forth, and much of that took some time as I learned the procedure for doing that. I also spent a lot of time dying haha.

I was thinking: Shadows Rising: The Age of the Hordes of the Narcolich. I like the overuse of "of the"