Pop

Well that's one thing AP will have over the Witcher.

I'd be surprised if that ever happened. Presumably developers want to keep the profit margins on consoles that they've lost with PCs. If I can run a disc on both my 360 and my PC I'd imagine 360 piracy will skyrocket.

Nah, the Sega PR VP thought it was not polished enough for public showing. But there was even less presence from Gearbox than there was from Obsidz, so who knows what the reasons are.

D3D should also be headed to XBL soon.

Plenty of games have overland maps, but the only game that has a overland map in which you can see monsters and other entities roam around in "real-time" that I can remember is FF. Most games either have an overland map that you walk around in and hit invisible encounter triggers or a map in which you can see potential encounters but is governed by turns. I don't really like FF at all (which is the only reason I wouldn't call your post condescending), but it's the only reference point I can think of.

I'd point you towards some Josh posts about the unsatisfactory nature of poindexter combat in this type of a game, but considering the loaded questions / answers you've already made up your mind. Plus, I'm lazy.

It certainly appears on its face that in many ways AP is very similar to ME, but on closer inspection the comparisons don't really add up. The combat looks a lot more dynamic, the only similarity in the dialogue system is the "cinematic" touches, the engine looks similar but is probably quite different. The only things I can think of that AP will definitely have in common with ME are the style of character progression and the unlimited ammo.

That does look like a Final Fantasy overland map. Or... Axe Battler.

It's good that they're trying to shy away from the 3 JBs thing, because it's becoming the EXTREME of AP.

Gee, that sounds plenty special.

Is it bone-crushing?

I don't think Bethsoft has tried to restrict access to any VB documentation, even though it's legally theirs. It's still up at NMA.

Well the article itself is quite skeptical. Isn't that what counts?

Ever read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7070201743.html That's not really... an argument? Is it a big revelation that the gaming PR industry tries to sway reviewers? It's the path of least resistance. Game development isn't punk rock. Neither is medicine for that matter. Drug companies will send you to Europe to drink free sangria and attend the Opera if they think it means you'll buy their product. This can be a problem, certainly (though even if you say no, they'll still foot your bill) but if you're looking at any old doctor who prescribes any drug as a shill than you're being not just a bit paranoid (or, more likely, you're in denial of how how the system is supposed to work) If you're going to comb through a reviewer's travelogues, go ahead, but unless you can find a guilty pattern of sycophantic behavior you've only got circumstantial evidence for dishonesty.

Really? My understanding was that Bioware wasn't going to distribute their version of UE3 until after ME's development had finished, and AP's version of UE3 was an in-house creation.

I don't know if we ought to expect a public demonstration. Just about every game that's gotten a developer walkthrough at E3 is due well before the end of the year. Obsidz is a few months behind.

If Adam Sessler is the guy from G4, I'd say yeah, he's probably sincere. Those guys are, well, you heard the other guy seriously suggest that PC gaming is not even merely dying but actively dead. Todd probably could've just jingled his keys and gotten some oohs and aahs.

It's probable that these are high-settings shots. Maybe it'll run on mid-level systems.

Yeah, some probably could've predicted that WoW would succeed but not on that scale (save for the fanboys, of course). It's been a long time, but Everquest was once the king of the MMO hill and what people thought of when they thought of MMOs. They had academic studies published on the "virtual nation" of Everquest. If WoW were to be measured in the same way it would rank much higher than Everquest ever was. WoW is, as I said, the iPod of MMOs. There might be better products out there, but WoW's got an iron grip on the culture.

I hope that's not all we get.

Judging by the scaled back servers of existing games and cancellations of numerous in-development MMOs over the past few months, being the Carls Jr. to WoW's McDonalds doesn't really appeal to most investors. Continued existence =\= success. Hellgate:London and Mythos will likely still live on in Asia.

Character models look much, much better than before. Looks like there might be some friendlies in combat. Nice that we'll be getting akimbo pistols / subguns. With the unlimited ammo it'll be like Rise of the Triad all over again. That last shot looks pretty good. Physics are nice. Can we get somebody in here to bitch about how it's not turn-based? Thanks. Also, Logo.

Giant Dwarves.

It's not a little bit presumptuous to assume that the failure of Flagship had anything to do with the quality of their product. The quality of the game likely had nothing to do with it. Flagship threw their lot in with the MMO market. That's only slightly less risky than releasing an mp3 player against the iPod. Age Of Conan is the only MMO to have any real success opposite WoW, and that's mostly due to Europe's collective boner for "dark fantasy". But I suppose thinking in terms of the quality of the game makes the world seem harmonious in its own little way. Now let's all get back to our pissing and moaning about the awful yet popular Bethesda catalogue!

Apparently calling 1-888-4-VAULTTEC gives you some sort of (coded?) message relating to Fallout 3.