Hell Kitty

I played a melee Toreador character, but then I cheated to get through the end. Of course, I'd have probably cheated anyway because the end is a great big pile of poop. Edit: problem solved.

The PC version of Fable isn't a sequel, it's the Xbox version with extra bits. As for the vision of Peter Molyneux, I think he might be going blind...

I remember reading that your good/evil actions in Fable can be countered simply by donating to an evil/good temple. Haven't tried Black & White. I always wanted to, but there is no demo and I was put off by so many negative comments. It seems to sequel hasn't really improved much either.

The last game I pirated was Morrowind. It resulted in me buying Morrowind and it's first expansion. I think this is an example of a time when piracy doesn't equal "bad".

One must think if they are to come up with tactics. I'm not saying it's rocket science. I read an article about Deus Ex, in which the devs stated that the reason they allowed the player to choose which ending they wanted in the last 20 minutes, was because they didn't want to "punish" the player for the actions taken over the course of the game by giving them an ending they weren't happy with. This is a problem I think with many games, the need to keep the player happy no matter what. What's the point in thinking if you can win no matter what you do? That's what I want from thinking in games, it's not about being intelligent, it's about being creative, solving problems by looking at the characters and environments and the tools I have, and coming up with ways to use them together, rather than trying to find the solution the devs want me to. One example of this is in Deus Ex 2 when I used a barrel to block the door, trapping Sofia Sak and her bodyguards in her office. I love adventure games, but I'm not interested in seeing how clever the devs can be in creating fiendish puzzles. I'd also like to see choosing different paths/actions that have both a positive and negative effect. For example, do I go aid a fallen ally, which would lead to a failed mission objective, making further missions much more difficult, or do I sacrifice them in the name of success, making for an easier game, but losing their expertise which would give me access to otherwise inaccessable areas, etc.

I replay most games at least once. My favourite games are the Thief games, but I know them so well that they seem so damn easy, and it feels kinda pointless.

A complaint I often see from gamers today is that there aren't enough games that make them think, but what exactly is meant by that? Thought-provoking stories that leave them pondering after they finish playing? Puzzles that leave them stumped for hours? What are some examples of the type of thing people are looking for, from both past and present games? One of the dumbest things I've heard recently is that the reason Halo only allows you two weapons is because Xbox doesn't have enough buttons and this is an example of dumbing down. The opposite is true, as an FPS that limits the amount of weapons the character can carry makes the player think more than an FPS that allows you to carry every weapon in the game and allows you to access them at any time. If a game like Deus Ex was to be remade, rather than having a bunch of quickslots in which to put all your weapons and an inventory that pauses that game when you access it, I'd limit the weapon selection to primary, sidearm and perhaps melee, and not pause the game in the inventory screen, that way the player would have to think more about the weapons they choose when entering a battle. This is the kind of thinking I want from my gameplay, but it's not something that's generally given any credit.

There are lots of criticisms that PC gamers make about console gamers and consoles, most of which I think are nonsense. My argument is that "buying a console supports the graphics-first design philosphy" is one such nonsensical anti-console criticism. Buying a new console is no more supporting the "graphics-first" design philosphy than buying a new video card. It doesn't matter what console or video card makers think the future of videogames, what matters is what the consumer thinks, and a consumer who thinks graphics come first will favour the PC over the console.

If they can afford to buy the latest console at launch then they can afford to buy a quality video card. And of course while they can only afford a console, their rich friends probably have the latest PC hardware which they can afford to upgrade constantly. When new PC video cards are released ever few months, compared to new consoles released every few years, the PC will alway be the domain of the graphics-first crowd, both consumers and developers alike.

I think there is definitely a bigger focus on graphics with this new generation of console than past consoles, but that big focus has been there on PC for ages anyway. I suppose buying a new generation console in the first year ot two of its release could be seen as supporting the "graphics first" school of design, much as buying the most powerful PC video card could be seen the same way. The difference between buying the latest console versus buying the latest video card however, it that if you buy the latest console, you will have a bunch of games at launch that can only be played on that system, whereas buying the latest video card at launch is more for bragging rights, with previous generation cards running the latest games just fine, hence the "PC is the domain of the graphics whore".

Since when do poor people buy the latest consoles at launch? Just how well off are the "poor" people in your area?

Sony and Microsoft, or Nintendo and Sega, were never the ones claiming the PC gaming is dying, it was typically the pro-PC crowd doing the "woe is me" thing. See the "consoles have been a constant poison to the PC industry" comment earlier in the thread. No, these two games could have been so much more had they built there own engine from scratch (as Harvey Smith later wished they'd done) instead of taking apart the Unreal engine and reuilding it as a piece of crap. Better design decisions and maybe some better talent, I mean they couldn't get the water and goddamn flash bombs to work. The best developers make great games no matter the limitations. If anything, the problem is formerly PC only developers are moving into making console versions of games for the money (perhaps out of necessity) without really having an understanding of console gaming, so we're left with a messy PC game shoved awkwardly into a console. That seems an odd comment, even if it's not particularly serious, given that PCs, with the ability to constantly upgrade, have always been the domain of graphics whores. Sure, the new consoles may be capable of better graphics when first released, but that never lasts. With todays high speed internet, people can play all the lastest PC games without ever buying a single one. You can pirate console games, but it's far more troublesome. I think the ease of piracy on PC is a problem, but I think the console market is much bigger than the PC gaming market due to the ease of use for people who like to play games now and then, but aren't really into gaming as a hobby and wouldn't consider themselves gamers. Anyway, as for the Xbox 360, I see the new generation of consoles as being the same as the last. I have a PC, PS2 and GC, and I never got an Xbox because there was nothing on it I was interested in that I couldn't get on PC or the other consoles.

I don't do multiplayer. Of course speed would handy in multiplayer, but it's irrelevant to what I was discussing.

I played through AoE2, AoM and RoN without using shortcuts. I can't say I ever felt the need to build a barracks 2 seconds faster.

Only little babies who cry for their momma rely on keyboard shortcuts. But seriously, there is no reason not using keyboard shortcuts would make the game any harder, unless you were really, really slow with the mouse. Or perhaps I'm just not giving my mad mouse skillz enough credit. Of course, the point is that more keys doesn't equal good mental workout, not how difficult one finds a particular control scheme.

If by "turn for the worst", you mean "turn for the best", then, yes.

Two can play at that game. *pulls down pants* Er, I'm confused... or am I?

Member number counts more than post count. ...n00b. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Damn Straight, noob. Kids today don't respect their goddamn elders. I've got a good mind to put this Schmarth kid over my knee and give him a good spanking.

I think that in all games the complexity should be in the gameplay. Flight Sims would probably require loads of keys, though. I can play games like Age of Empires and Rise of Nations, or Baldur's Gate and ToEE entirely with the mouse. The options are all in the interface icons and menus.

Han Solo the Clone Trooper is Sidious/Palpatine and he used his Force powers to turn Luke Skywalker gay, you filthy spamming noob.

What about big breasted men? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course, the red-headed fattie in F.E.A.R is what make the games so great.

I always thought people make too much of this change. Sure, it's lame, like replacing all guns in ET with walkie-talkies, but it's not like it changes the entire nature of Han Solo.

So do I, but what does that have to do with the amount of buttons pressed over the course of the game? How does 16 buttons and two analogue sticks on a PS2 controller translate to two alternatives to every problem? Lots of buttons to press does not equal lots of options. For example, look at Thief 2 for example, I press W to walk forward, S to walk forward slowly, F to run forward, X to move backwards, and A & D to move left & right. On top of these you can hold down Ctrl to "creep". That's 7 keys to move different ways. On a potential PS2 version you use one analogue stick to perform all these movements, with the speed you move at dependant on how hard you hold down on the stick. That's 7 keys on PC version one analogue stick on PS2. Can the PC be said to offer more options than PS2, because it requires use of several keys to move whereas PS2 requires only one stick? Of course not. In a PC RPG, the controls may be set up so pressing F1 displays inventory, F2 displays Character Screen, F3 displays Spell screen etc. A console doesn't have enough buttons to offer a single key for each different screen, so instead you press one button like Start and scroll through the different screens. More keys doesn't not equal more options.

What do you mean by a "richer mental landscape". A complex control system doesn't make for a complex game any more than a simple control system makes for a simple game. And of course, a complex game isn't automatically a good one.

LGS doesn't include piracy as a reason for their demise because they have no way to tell what effect it had unless all the people who downloaded a copy of their games called them up and said "If I didn't pirate your game I totally would have bought a copy, suckers!". Maybe it had a big effect, maybe not, no one knows.