Astatine

Pop into Game and buy a copy. And hopefully not have to go to work afterwards

According to Game, the UK release date is the 11th. ... I think I shall book a holiday. (w00t)

I'd jump out of the window

Someone will notice and post it sharpish in any case

I'd rather KOTOR2 not be too hard. Why? Because I don't believe the overall game design is very good at supporting it. You only get to control one character, and have a couple more in the party who are controlled by an AI. That character, himself, quite possibly doesn't have all that much scope for changing tactics during combat (especially if a Guardian). So hard combat runs a high risk of turning into a frustrating experience in which you reload lots of times until you get good rolls, because there really aren't very many different tactics to try! The Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale series could do hard combat, because they had an order of magnitude more scope for tactical play: you controlled six characters each of which had lots of different options during battle. That made the hard battles in those games interesting, fun and rewarding, because thinking about and planning how to overcome the challenge got you through. I'm expecting as good for Dragon Age and as hard. (That's also why Throne of Bhaal irritated me -- for the final sections at least they appeared to give up on making monsters "properly" tough and instead made them immune to magic and lots of other things, thereby largely breaking the tactical play that had worked so well up until then. Although I think the entire ruleset was starting to crack at the seams by level 30 anyway.) KOTOR1 was too easy in most places, though. (With an exception or two. The "wrong sort of Consular" could have a frustrating time against Malak... grr, scrounging Bioware pan-immunity again...) Actual numbers like how many levels do you get, I'm really not very bothered about (what is a "level" worth anyway...?) If it makes sense story-wise to feel really powerful, give us lots of levels. It made sense in KOTOR1. Though I still don't understand why The Exile should be more powerful than Revan (wonder if it crops up/is explained?)

PCI-Express x16 is not really any better for gaming than 8x AGP because that bus was almost never a bottleneck. It's needed for doing work that requires fast texture uploads, like rendering scenes to disk, but games tend not to do things like that That said if you're buying a new motherboard now get a PCI-Express one because that's the way things are going, it's more future proof.

If you do, could you post them? I'd be interested to see if a, er, "more hardcore ruleset" works. Besides, with a bit of playtesting from some other people here it's more likely to come out well balanced (of course it'd run the risk of being deleted, since LucasArts appear to frown upon anything remotely related to "modding", but that's no reason to not try ) And where did your cute Cthulhu go? I liked that.

Disagree. Level caps suck if they become an issue, because then once you've capped the game starts violating one of the things that simulate the world (and thereby help with the suspension of disbelief) -- that with experience your character becomes more skilled. The overly low cap was one of Baldur's Gate's flaws... I would suggest that the cap should be set above what is typically achieved in-game so that characters don't hit it, but not too far above, so that the devs don't have to waste time balancing unused levels. What you mean to say is (if I may make so bold), being able to achieve level 50 (as opposed to level 20) sucks, and as for that I'll reserve judgment until I've played the game...

I'd quibble about that, on Xbox it might be less likely that the game crashes or doesn't install for whatever Windows or hardware related reason, but it's also less likely to keep up a smooth framerate with high quality graphics... " *nitpick* *pedant* *irritate* Sorry, bad day at work... I'll hide now. :ph34r:

Hope so. The main issues I have with consoles are that (1) it's a completely closed platform so there's bugger all you can do if it goes wrong -- on a PC even if you're using closed source software like almost games are there's often a way of jiggering with it even if you run into an unpatched bug, and (2) the consoles' graphics quality and so ons tend to pander to the lowest common denominator and I'm a GeForce 6800GT-owning snob So about the same arguments as everyone else here. Blimey.

I see I made myself incomprehensible, as always.

The Xeon is a dual processing enabled P4 with a different socket. Some Xeon CPUs have had a slower FSB than the matching P4 CPU and more Xeons than P4s have x86-64 support enabled (not an issue here since there are next to no x86-64 games). Otherwise, typically they're the same. The Xeon MP is a multiprocessing enabled (4+-way) P4 and has a 2MB Level 3 cache (like the P4 Extreme Edition), typically also has a slower FSB than the P4 and is really expensive. Compare Xeon (not Xeon MP, that would be silly because of the price gap) to equivalently priced Athlon 64 and for gaming and many other tasks the Athlon 64 will usually work out faster.

A mana system doesn't allow wizards to "spam spells" if you judge the available mana quantity so that you can't cast any more magic with it than you can with a D&D style spell slot system (in fact, with a mana system the total amount of magic castable per day should be somewhat less to make up for the fact that it's more flexible and you're likely to use more of your available spells than in a spell slot system). (Note that I refer to "amount of magic" rather than "number of spells". Clearly your average mana system will allow you to cast many more low-level spells than, say, the D&D spell slot system will; however, those many low-level spells are no more powerful than a single high-level one that costs the same amount of mana unless your ruleset is broken, so it hardly deserves the label "spamming"). What mana systems do do is seriously reduce player frustration (and therefore increase the fun factor) for most people. Having no appropriate spells to hand in many situations despite a perfectly reasonable spell selection, and having lots of wasted spells at the end of every day, is very annoying. My gaming group has played D&D with both the standard spell slot system and with the spellpoints system from Unearthed Arcana and these days we won't even consider starting a new adventure using the standard spell slot rules. And we reckon the spellpoint system in Unearthed Arcana is reasonably well balanced. Must give the recharge magic system (as published in the same book) a go at some point, though.

Really? What is neutrality? Neutrality isn't necessarily indecisiveness. There are several ways a "neutral" (on the Good-Evil axis) character might go, because of course that axis comes nowhere near to fully describing them. One might believe in order above all else (and thereby pick a path and single-mindedly force it to a conclusion, for the sake of ending the war). Another might truly not care, and decide on the flip of a coin (it could be argued such a character is actually "evil", but I would suggest not so long as they truly follow the randomness of their coin-flipping and believe in this philosophy). Yet another might believe in embracing change whenever it comes, whatever its form, and thereby favour the Sith in KOTOR1 (soon to jump ship, I'm sure), on that principle. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you join a side, whether by conviction or the toss of a coin, you are taking a side - thus, you are no longer neutral. So what do you call a character who fights for the "Evil" side, then turns coat and fights for the "Good" side for whatever reason, then turns coat again and fights for the "Evil" side for a reason similar or otherwise to the first, and so on? Your definition of their "Good" or "Evil" nature does not simply flip from one to the other as often as they change sides, does it? You form an opinion on them. Your opinion of them may very well be "Evil", but does this make them as "Evil" as the Grand Villain, even though whilst they fought for "Good" they did many good deeds and saved many lives, whilst the Grand Villain continued to only bring slaughter and destruction? In fact, can their "Good" and "Evil" actions cancel each other out? What net difference is there between this character and a "Neutral" bystander who does nothing? (A cold viewpoint, yes, but an attempt at being objective and that's the point here...) Well dear me, what a sweeping statement. "Neutral", in the implication of the thread above, is the word for what falls in the centre of the "Good"-"Evil" axis. You've just gone and redefined it. If there can be degrees of "Good" and "Evil" and it is possible to pass from one to the other, then that passing must be through a middle ground -- a "Neutral". That's the definition that's been used up until now and I'll stick with it. What's different between a Jedi, and someone else? Well, a Jedi gains power from the Force, which flows from their "Good/Evil" philosophy. That's it. Does this give them obligations? No. Their society might give them obligations, as might their personal beliefs, but they are as free as anyone else is to reject both. To oversimplify and categorise, that is a "Lawful/Chaotic" decision, an axis orthogonal to "Good/Evil" (and therefore which does not affect it). I believe that the Jedi who stands back and does nothing to prevent Evil or to prevent Good, is as "Neutral" as the non-Jedi who stands back and does nothing to prevent Evil or to prevent Good (whom you described above as "Neutral"). What exactly constitutes "fighting the dark" anyway? I'll go out on a limb here. Look at the role of Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back and (to a lesser extent) in Return of the Jedi. How much fighting of the dark side does Yoda truly do? Superficially, none. Yoda trains Luke in the Force (although not completely). Yoda also attempts to prevent Luke from going to the rescue of his friends and from confronting Darth Vader, which Luke does anyway, to the good of all concerned (except perhaps the Stormtroopers killed in the crossfire). Why? Through his visions he sees (or believes he sees) Luke's chances of success and judges them slim, and he simply calculates it would be better for Luke to not go, and attempts to prevent him from doing so. The "light side" cannot truly be considered to enter into such a decision. A similar calculating decision made by the PC on Kashyyyk when answering the authorisation system retrofitted to the relic about what battle tactics to use earns the PC dark side points if he chooses the option to sacrifice some lives now in exchange for the best odds of an eventual win (with resulting net saving of lives), which is basically the same tradeoff as the one Yoda made. Yoda's done nothing immediately, personally active to fight the dark side. We've seen how strong he is in the Force in the prequels, and in ESB we see him raise Luke's X-Wing from the swamp; he wasn't a gonner right away, and he could have gone with Luke to Bespin for the rescue. He didn't. Was Yoda really "fighting the dark", then? Were Yoda's actions "Good"? Were they "Neutral"? Were they in fact "Evil"? Can there really be "Neutral" Jedi? It appears to come down to the nature of the Force, which strongly pushes in one direction or the other. The "neutral" Jedi is balancing on a knife-edge because of it. So I'd say -- yes in thought, usually not in deed, and it's interesting to try

Really? What is neutrality? Neutrality isn't necessarily indecisiveness. There are several ways a "neutral" (on the Good-Evil axis) character might go, because of course that axis comes nowhere near to fully describing them. One might believe in order above all else (and thereby pick a path and single-mindedly force it to a conclusion, for the sake of ending the war). Another might truly not care, and decide on the flip of a coin (it could be argued such a character is actually "evil", but I would suggest not so long as they truly follow the randomness of their coin-flipping and believe in this philosophy). Yet another might believe in embracing change whenever it comes, whatever its form, and thereby favour the Sith in KOTOR1 (soon to jump ship, I'm sure), on that principle. One thing I noticed in KOTOR1 is that Bioware has a bit of a tendency to equate "Good" == "Lawful" (as in, the definition of "Lawful" out of D&D). Take the Sunry murder case for instance. Deliberately letting him off was considered an "Evil" act by the game and I was most dissappointed in this (it was a "Lawful"/"Chaotic dichotomy not a "Good/Evil" one, ironically the sort NWN -- whose alignment system was capable of describing such, unlike KOTOR's -- lacked chronically) -- the only time I completed this one as a light-side character (couldn't be bothered on later replays, it was too laborious) my character deliberately let Sunry off, in defiance of the law, and earned dark side points from this action, out of the belief that Sunry was fundamentally a good person and that what he had done had furthered the cause of Good and of the Republic. Those "Good/Evil" and "Lawful/Chaotic" axes are orthogonal (why shouldn't they be?) "Grey" does exist as a state of mind. The problem in the Star Wars universe is that part of its spirit is that the significance of the "Good/Evil" axis is huge, in comparison to other traits of personality, and strength in the Force appears to be derived from hitting its extremes. The "Grey" Jedi should have a hard time of it because of the way the Star Wars universe is. A lot of interesting plot material could be derived from thinking about what those "Good" and "Evil" extremes really are, since they directly grant power to the characters who believe in them...

Don't worry, we won't spoil you, but evil people will... :ph34r: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> *hides*

This thread is scaring me away

*flicks into thread and sees something that looks sinisterly that might look like a spoiler* *looks away* (As a result, I haven't actually read what you're saying. This is not going to stop me posting, my ego is far too big for that ) Jolee only pretended to himself that he "saw grey" / was traditionally "neutral". He was a light-sider in denial. His character wouldn't have had such charm without that, but at the same time, it was very dissappointing at the end for a dark side PC. I would both love this as an option, and be horrified by it. Y'see, whilst it makes total sense, part of the essential... StarWarsness... of the Star Wars universe is that there is no grey, only light and dark. It's sort of a paradox, something to contemplate on in a similar way to the paradoxes and nonsenses that the old lore of many earthly religions indulges in... perhaps that's partly why Star Wars is so cool? Whether or not it should be included in an official game is, I suspect, a moot point, because I'm sure LucasArts would veto such a thing. A mod I'd be intrigued by. I'm not sure whether it's a good idea. I was going to run a Star Wars pen-and-paper campaign in which I would explore this very issue but my gaming group didn't want to play Star Wars. *stops writing drivel now*

I'll say Baldur's Gate, because I loved it (still do, though haven't played it for a while -- perhaps should fish it out again...) I shouldn't really be saying anything in this thread though because I've never played Fallout " Not very attracted to the setting and unconvinced by the rabid fanboys' ravings :D so never gotten around to it... Especially liked all the areas of wilderness to explore in BG1. Perhaps partly because so few CRPGs give you freedom and the unknown in that sort of way (apart from BG1, only the Elder Scrolls series I think)...

Actually you can do some pretty neat stuff like perhaps if you thought feat progression for a certain class was wrong you can make it so that it is adjusted to your liking. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Twiddling with a game like that kind of detracts from the experience, I find... It's good to be able to do it, but the game should "work" without going near such tools.

The P4 does give better multitasking performance than the Athlon 64 because it supports Hyper-Threading (which makes it appear as two "logical" processors, so it can take two instruction streams simultaneously). Doesn't make a huge difference though (best case throughput increase is about 20% IIRC). Two logical processors aren't as good as two real ones Hyper-Threading is pretty much useless for games which hardly ever benefit from multiprocessing. Athlon 64s with DDR2 support will be released when it makes sense to do so -- currently there isn't much performance advantage over DDR; when (official, JEDEC certified!) DDR2-800 is on the market, I'm guessing, AMD will release a line that requires DDR2. Back end of this year perhaps. Gaming wise the 3000+ Athlon 64 is definitely a match for the ~3.2GHz P4s (take a look at some benchmarks). And PCI Express motherboards for Athlon 64 are out.

*gets out the bucket of cold water* Doing that sort of thing within such a short time period is iffy. It sounds innocuous but what if it makes one particular battle murderously hard because of a combination of circumstances? Needs testing, and then you've got to re-jigger the balance when you find problems and test it all again, and... Of course, it's far more feasible than Hades's usual "add a better AI" suggestion... Besides, I'm sure they've got a few bugs of the "do-X-and-then-Y-and-then-Z-and-the-game-crashes" type to be getting on with...

DVDs aren't especially much more damageable than CDs. And surely it's easier to accidentally damage any one (or more) of five CDs than it is to accidentally damage one single DVD? ...Oh, you mean you only ever use CDs 2-5 once for installing and then only take out CD 1 in order to load the game with it? Hmph. Doesn't help if you have to reinstall *clutches at straws* Vacuous argument, dammit! The game ought to be on DVD! Because... because I said so! (w00t) "

Nothing wrong with having your own preferences but, how does a moronic comment about the game make it better in your eyes? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Cynicism. I still see nothing to suggest it won't be fantastic. Then again, I've been avoiding any KOTOR2 forum except this one like the plague for fear of spoilers. See no evil, hear no evil... "

Rampant powermongering at expense of everything else. Oooooo... *cough* Scuse me, not sure what came over me there...