alanschu

I see that "irrational" applies to more than just a game company

Yes, it was my idea! Patent pending!

Too bad that Freelancer-ish game doesn't have a demo I'm currently splitting my time between Oblivion and the trial of EHM 2007.

This one was a pretty good read.

The article was taken from a copy-paste of Wikipedia, to preserve it if it were to be deleted from wikipedia.

Hopefully. Our B-Squad was able to beat Calgary's A-squad, so it's all good. In fact, Calgary gave up 6 goals (including an empty netter) last night as well, and they are typically regarded as having excellent defense as well as the best goalie in the league.

We've both made up our minds that we aren't going to believe anything the other person says. Never mind the fact that you were arrogant enough to claim "victory" a mere 8 minutes after your latest post. As for you giving me the link, thanks I guess. I didn't ask for it with any intent to pick it apart or anything, but to just look at it. Yes I did want the raw data. Sorry if you were expecting me to comment on it, that wasn't my intention. My intentions were purely to acquire information. As for your most recent link, something I noticed:

Why on Earth would you think that? If you'd prefer, we could go back and forth repeating our points until the cows come home, but I figured on saving the moderators the hassle of any further examination of this thread.

Wouldn't CCCP have had their eyes on the situation with the moon landing, and been able to show that it was false at the time?

The FMVs I always enjoyed the most were the Square ones. The final video for FF8 was like 10 minutes long.

I made sure to say "typically"

I do enjoy CS:S. I played some Halo MP on the PC and did enjoy it, but I found BF1942 to be a much better MP experience, and started playing that instead.

If you're not there, it'll draft the highest ranked guy available. You can also set up your own draft order if you want. But hey, you asked, and didn't give any kind of condition on what type of pool you wanted in. I don't care much for the "pick one from each group of 5" method, so I guess it's different strokes for different folks.

Co-Ops are typically easier because when you die, it's not game over. I don't know what it was like in Halo, but many of the coop games I have played make it so that the players respawn on death. Then this probably wouldn't be the case for Half-Life 2, since the single player only version of Half-Life 2 was a cheap version, sold for $19.99 IIRC. Maybe a bit higher. I got the boxed Collector's Edition, which gave me multiplayer via Counterstrike: Source. I also got Half-Life Deathmatch for free once it was available, though it didn't grab me as much as CSS did.

Did the OP assume that FMV meant "live actors?"

It may or may not have been. I think that it may or may not be a good way of doing things, as the players turn during a turn based game may or may not be a time when the CPU is more idle than otherwise.

Kor, I'm in the Yahoo Public 62960 http://hockey.fantasysports.yahoo.com/hockey/62960

This is the game that has me wowed for landscapes at the moment:

Chess is fun if you're matched up with someone of similar skill.

A bunch of things, better balance, imo too Heavy bombers are gone, territory divided a bit differently, etc etc. Lots of tweeks. IIRC, artillery are added. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did they put anything to replace heavy bombers? Heavy bombers is why I won as the Axis that one time.

Hmmm. I don't know what version I played. What's the difference between the two?

I have heard a really interesting "bidding" system that helps balance the game out. Basically, all 5 players make a private bid about where to place additional axis units. The two players that bid the lowest get to play the Axis powers. The kicker is that all 5 bids still get placed. So if you bid 20 additional tanks in Eastern Germany, you'll probably not get to play an Axis power (since your bid is high. What is that, like 100 IC or something?). As a result, you don't bid too aggressively (or you'll screw yourself), but you don't typically bid too low (otherwise you'll screw yourself). The only real problem with it is that you don't get to really pick your sides. But I have had some interesting games after doing it.

Well, with respect to the Soviet Union it was either attack them before they are ready, or wait until the Soviet Union is ready and fully militarized after its purges, and decides to attack Germany on its own. As for the Western Front, it probably would have been better to actually attempt Sealion, rather than the Battle of Britain. All the BOB really did was strengthen the British Resolve, and decimate the Luftwaffe. Had those resources been spent actually attacking, or maybe even more to the Battle of the Atlantic instead, things might have gone a bit differently in that regard.

Not surprisingly, there's a hefty amount of bias in that article. What, the Myths against Turn Based combat are all bad and bash TB. There isn't a single myth about Turn Based combat that makes it seem better than it actually is. Now lets look at RT. Oh wait, all the "myths" about RT are about how better it is. No myths at all about how bad RT is? The same goes on for the other two. The myths are about how great it is, no myths about its faults. Only poor TB is picked on unfairly. I suppose it is possible that there aren't any myths, but it seems a bit convenient. I know it's the RPG codex and they are typically TB fanboys, but they're painting TB as too big of a victim.

Depends on what you consider "turn based." To me it just seemed like KOTOR and NWN and Baldur's gate split the turns into 6 second segments to give the illusion of real time. Given how spells and attacks and whatnot still mention "turn" (how many attacks per turn. How many turns a spell effect lasts, and many turns in a round, etc.), the combat mechanics are still handled through turns.