Llyranor

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/suprem...ew_6134783.html SUPREME COMMANDER

Well, there goes any reason to even remotely consider touching this game.

Marry me Hades!

You can get it for 20 bucks on Steam. DoDS is pretty much freaking awesome. The gameplay changes I find are all for the better. I like the new class balance much more, which promotes more integrated teamwork. Rifle grenades and ironsights make the rifleman my favorite class. Smoke grenades, deploying MGs on any surface, etc, all great features. Firefights are much more immersive now, thanks to: 1) Gameplay changes, making long and close range combat much more engaging 2) Godly sound (no ambiant crap, if you hear MG fire to your left, don't go out in the open in that direction) 3) Source engine really adds to immersion. <3 ragdolls. This is, of course, just a bonus. DoD was already pretty much my favorite online FPS, so this really adds to it. There are only 4 maps so far, and the British haven't been implemented yet, but the dev team is constantly working on fleshing out new content. I just wish dod_charlie was among the included maps

Screw graphics. I want to be able to make functional maps out of the toolset that won't take me years to do.

I bought them a few months back. They were definitely decent, and worth getting if you're desperate for RPGs (given the drought). It was pretty standard Bioware fare. I was fairly disappointed overall, though, to the point where I haven't bothered getting Pirates.

Because people played the demo and realized it was crap? I was looking forward to this game, until the devs dumbed down the nexus building system because 'it was too difficult for our testers to graspt it'. The demo was just the icing.

Wow, no scans yet. GJ dragonshard.

Team-based FPS games rock. <3 Day of Defeat. <3 <3 Day of Defeat: Source.

By not implementing combat at ALL in its default state. It'll all be more abstract and using the conversation system as its main interface (like I said, a unified interface for combat/stealth/dialogue). The point of this is that the focus isn't on how many points in Str or whether you have Power Attack or not, but instead focuses on the storytelling aspects of combat, with statistics and rolls being done in the background. Effectively, you will prevail not because you have good numbers, but because you made good *choices* in combat. This ensures as well a much more dynamic combat system, rather than focusing on the standard attack and special feats or whatever. Basically, I'll be implementing combat as an additional storytelling device rather than a gameplay mechanic, and thanks to the 'unified interface', there won't be an arbitrary segmentation between different approaches (you can fight while some of your allies are sneaking behind, all while negotiating with the enemy all at once, for example). And it's turn-based

Of course, only it'd be a covert system working behind the scenes, NOT like standard DnD character creation. What I'm saying it that, since you'd be defining who your character(s) is(are) *in-game*, as opposed to making a main protagonist from a character creation screen outside of the game, is there a need for a distinction between the 'main' character and others who you would help define as well? Do players feel an inherent need to identify with their own customized avatar, or can they identify with various characters *whom they will roleplay anyway*?

In a sense, you may be right. I'd rather have good narrative than full voice-acting.

Hmm, quick background. In testing out multiple approaches to storytelling for my NWN2 mod, I've throw away the default combat system and opted for an unified interface for diplomacy/combat/stealth in order to convey them in a manner that enhances roleplaying/storytelling, rather than just making them gameplay mechanics that have little relevance. As such, I've ditched the DnD system and instead am making my own combat system, which relies on the conversation system of NWN2, allowing for more interactive battles (throwing tables, talking during combat, etc). The point is that, in doing so, I've thrown away the core of character creation from the game. As such, the actual character creation process would just consist of aesthetic changes (race, gender, appearance, etc). This has led me to recently think about whether the concept of a main avatar that the player creates was required or not. An idea I'm thinking about right now is to use multiple perspectives to tell the story. This wouldn't be a "I'm such a good cutscene director, watch my cutscenes of non-protagonists" manner, but instead in one such that you would actually be roleplaying these characters, making decisions that would alter the storyline, either aiding or hindering the 'protagonist'. I'm taking some influences from Fahrenheit (Indigo Prophecy), where playing the killer covering his tracks then as the detective investigating the murder scene was *very* cool. What if you played some army dude who commanded an army to attack a certain city, then the perspective would switch to one of the enemy soldiers who had to defend the city, for example? Effectively, the focus would be on storytelling and roleplaying, but not in the way it's portrayed in most RPGs nowadays. You wouldn't be roleplaying YOUR character, you'd be roleplaying the story. Some of you may find this unacceptable, but consider whether this may benefit storytelling. In the average RPG, you play the main protagonist. Basically, you're invincible. You can do no wrong. Messed up a quest? Reload. Sure, it makes you feel like a big shot. What if you played characters from BOTH sides of the conflict. If you roleplay one character into defeating the other, then you haven't lost, you wouldn't need to reload, just continue playing. It allows for a more dynamic method of storytelling rather than the protagonist just crushing everyone before him/her, and it allows for multiple viewpoints into a certain story, rather than a one-sided one. Considering that in this mod, all you would gain from the initial character creation screen would be aesthetic customization, do you guys think allowing a main protagonist is still necessary? In making one of the characters in the game the 'protagonist', players will already start off with a bias towards this character. What do you guys think? (Granted, I'm still working out the mechanics of character customization in-game, and the extent to which the characters will be customizable. So, depending on this, having a main protagonist being 'more customizable' might work.)

Hmm, what would people feel about a game with current graphics (like, say....... NWN2) that would feature text-heavy narrative/storytelling (a la PST), and yet using the more modern engine to reinforce storytelling even more, via more fleshed-out cutscenes, all *without* compromising the textual part of it. Just for the sake of the argument, let's say the game didn't have voice-acting, relying on text to describe the nuances of dialogue. For example: 1) IE engine: The guard looks at you grimly. "What do you think you're doing here? Get lost!" he utters sharply before prodding you in the gut with the pointy end of his spear. - "I think that's the point," you interject. "I *am* lost. Hahahahahaha, I guess I better get going." [Run away.] - "I was hoping you'd restore my faith in humanity. I guess I was wrong," you mutter dryly as you walk away. - "No offense, but you're a freaking moron," you state nonchalantly. - [Lit him on fire.] "Oops." 2) JE: "What do you think you're doing here? Get lost!" - "I think that's the point. "I *am* lost. Hahahahahaha, I guess I better get going." - "I was hoping you'd restore my faith in humanity. I guess I was wrong." - "No offense, but you're a freaking moron." - [Lit him on fire.] "Oops." This is all you'd get. The difference is that you'd VISUALLY see the body language, actions, animations, etc. As well as voice-acting. 3) 1+2: You get all the narrative from 1), AND you get all the visual crap from 2). Only, instead of having voice-acting, you'd have the narrative from 1) to replace it. So, instead of having current graphics SUBSTITUTING old-school narrative, how about making them reinforce each other? I think that'd work. I'm not convinced that current engines would TAKE AWAY from oldschool RPGs intrinsically, it really depends on the FOCUS of today's RPGs. The engine is not to blame.

Seems like Aftermath will be sold at around 12$ US on Steam. It should be around 1/3 the length of HL2. <3 Steam.

Annah's theme - PST

That's the spirit :ph34r:

Chapter 2 will come out in early 2006.

New cool interview http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?si...=thread&order=0

Info sminfo, I want Magical Volo. Bad.

Isn't that my job?

25 minutes of new music by Jeremy Soule

I love assault mode in UT2k4. Gold.

Excuse me? Some FPS are mindless. Some RTS are mindless. Some RPGs are mindless. Blaming one genre for another's flaws only makes you look biased. Then again, some FPS allow me to participate in largely-organized teams and execute coordinated tactics via reliance on teammates. Voice communication is a boon. "There's a MG in that location, I'm pinned down." "Cover me, I'll flank them." "Clear that spot, there's a sniper, throw a grenade there." "At 3, we all burst in at the same time and overwhelm them." Real-time by itself does not make a game mindless, first person does not make a game mindless, shooter games by themselves are not mindless. Mindless FPS are mindless, "twitch" games. Many FPS are not. Some RTS allow me to plan massive war efforts with my allies. "Help me defend this strategic point." "Go assault their back while I'm distracting them." "Bring in some AA, I'll lure them out." "Blow up that bridge, break their offense." "I'll sneak my army through that forest." This is not mindless. Some RPGs provide me with rich and deep immersive roleplaying experiences. Others are crap. That does not make RPGs crap. Twitch gamers don't suck, lollipops suck. You, sir, are a lollipop.