alanschu

Smith was the Ultima horse was it not?

Uh...nope. Sorry.

Realism is indeed overrated.

I didn't say that most games are financial successes. I'm well aware of how the industry works. His criterion just cuts even more away from the list of "financially" successful games though.

Before the Sims, it was impossible to say whether or not the tastes and trends of their customer base would accept it. The funny things was, their customer base didn't accept it. The big thing about The Sims was that it ended up expanding the customer base. The game has more female players than male players. Yes, they got lucky...but hindsight is always 20/20. The fact taht I had to "rely" on the most successful publishers is because there's a heavy consolidation going on right now. Successful, smaller publishing companies have already been swallowed up by them, and the other big ones are even under threat of being bought out by huge companies like EA. It's a bit presumptuous to say that publishers are always close to financial ruin .

After working with mentally disabled students, I conditioned myself to remove that word from my vocabulary. I don't think it's cool to take any word that defines a special group and use it as a slur. It belittles those people and whoever you are throwing the term at. I have no problem calling someone an idiot. That term is designated specifically for idiots, and so it doesn't belittle anyone other than the person being an idiot. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The term "idiot" was spawned as a classification for people with severe mental retardation actually. (IQs below 25) An "Idiot Savant" was someone that would fall under that classication, but also possessed ability that was actually quite exceptional. These people most typically fall under the classiciation of "Autistic" today. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot for a history of the word.

Nothing like pulling out arbitrary rulings. Not too many games are financial successes I guess.

Publishers haven't got the first clue on where to invest their money, that's why they are always close to financial ruin. Sometimes i wonder why they even bother trying to act like they know what the public wants, given that their buissness strategies are the equivalent of casting a magic missile in the dark (i hope i got the DnD reference right)... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes....EA is on the brink of bankruptcy.....as is Microsoft. Sony's hurting too.....who publishes Square games? Themself?

I put a few points in Auspex, as it's typically cheaper to put the points in there rather than into Wits and Perception. I have them compliment each other so that I can easily get rank 5 in each. As for the weapons, since you can hold a ton of weapons go both! If I had to choose I'd pick the Uzi. Not the Mac-10 though...but the Uzi (Killmatic). With Skill 10 the gun is an automatic sniper rifle.

How can you kill Carth?

Then you should completely ignore press releases until the game is out. This is not a situation that you could not avoid. Welcome to real life people. Things have unexpected complications, and sometimes **** happens.

I was always a fan of the Spec Ops, and the G-36K

I didn't consider the AI of medieval to be any more superior. Furthermore, I'm not sure how not being able to play the Macedonians is somehow evidence that the combat is "dumbed down." As with units routing too quickly....as it would seem that that would work both ways. Fantasy women and basing the Egyptians incorrectly are historical inaccuracies...not "dumbed down combat." I also remember winning entire battles, even against heavy cavalry, with Longbowmen in Medieval. It's been a while since I played both games, but in Medieval, the only "terrain impacts" I really remember are UP > Down, trees = crap for cavalry (and good for ambushes). I probably need someone to remind me other terrain influences of Medieval, but I didn't find them too overwhelming...but that's just from memory. The thing I liked best about Medieval was the setting. I preferred it over the Roman era.

As someone that played CS in 1999, Beta 2.0, I wholeheartedly disagree that it had "embarrasingly basic graphics." I also remember watching the animations, even in late 1999, which were quite well done for the time.

Sounds a bit like the Hidden and Dangerous games.

I'd be very surprised (to the point of outright disbelief...similar to Yst), if these people never used the phrase "That's retarded" when something silly happened.

I knew it. You aren't really the anit-fun.

It's hard to tell if something is difficult before you actually try doing it. Furthermore, other stuff can create difficulties, and if it has a higher priority, other things get cut. Since it's a big deal for you, just don't buy the game.

They could probably even get in trouble for the first picture, given that image is deemed illegal in certain countries.

Anyone that full on expects the developer to get everything into the game that they say they would like is being unreasonable. Unless someone can point me to a release in which they said that they were 100% going to have horses in no matter what, this isn't a broken promise. Furthermore, it reeks of ignorance towards the entire development process. It's a double edged sword too, because we as fans are stupid, and demand information from game designers (often we cite stupid BS explanations like they "owe it" to us, because we bought their previous game or whatever messed up rationalization they can think of). They wanted to have mounts in. They can't do it the way they wanted for whatever reason. Deal with it. It's not like they suddenly released the game with everyone expecting horses in it. They did their job as a developer....they let people know that a feature they wanted to get in will not actually be making the cut. If this is a deal breaker for you, then so be it. But don't get all upset because "they said they were going to but now they are not" because ultimately, it has no real effect on you. All it means is that a game, of which you have presumably not paid money for, won't have mounts. If someone is that upset about it, then he should not buy the game. It's that simple.

Sweet, I saved!

So I am not creative nor interesting??? :'(

Hehe

W00t, my desktop provides entertainmen (w00t)

Ultima VI had riding as well. Ultima VII didn't technically have it, but you could buy a horse and carriage. I found it comletely useless in that game though, and only served as a way to waste my money. Though seriously, who cares about interesting characters or anything...we don't have mounts! Which are essential to my RP experience!