Hell Kitty

Then explain what makes a "true" Fallout game, and why Beth's FO3 isn't one. In pretty much every discussion in internet land about DX3, there is at least one person who'll say "It might be a good game, but it won't be a DX game." Why? Because as a fan of the original you now have the right to determine what makes a true DX game? What if what you think makes a true Fallout is different to what they think makes a true Fallout? Which Fallout is the true true Fallout? There are 3 numbered Fallout games and 2 spinoffs. Like it or not, they are all Fallout games. Just like there are 2 Deus Ex games and soon there will be a third. "True" is just a label people apply to game or games in a series they prefer. And when that preference could be down to any number of things (it's the first in the series / it's the first one they played / it's the most important / it features x, y & z / it's the prettiest / it's the most awesomest / whatever), then arguing what makes for a "true" or "proper" game is ultimately a pointless exercise. "This is what I'd like most in a Fallout game" doesn't really have the authority of "This is what makes a true Fallout game".

Saw Star Trek today. Good sci-fi action adventure stuff. I think I may be in love with Karl Urban.

An unskippable cutscene, even a slightly interactive one, is still an unskippable cutscene, and AC is pretty much the worst there is at that. I was going to say this is the most annoying thing about the game, but least I can do something else during those scenes (like switch the monitor over to PC and post on internet forums) but what has frustrated me the most is when doing those "saving people from gang of bullies" tasks, and when you complete them and the camera locks on to the person while they ramble on and then for a second you regain control of the camera and then you lose it again so the camera can focus on the group of monks or vigilantes or whoever and oh god it makes me want to punch someone. I agree that the investigative portion of the game can be tedious, but I enjoy the combat and just running around the cities too much for it to get to me. Plus, I didn't have the same expectations you did (being able to enter buildings, dialogue with NPCs, thievery), so that probably helps. I guess right now I'm most interested in finding out just what the game is going to be. The Dark Project in a modern setting that ISA was working on before they closed? A sequel in which we play the girl from the end of DS all grown up with Garrett as mentor? A reimagining of the series? Whatever it is I hope they put back the Victorian stylin' of 2 that ISA took out of 3. Did you ever see that old concept pic of modern day Garrett? People freaked out that he had a gun, which I thought was odd considering Garrett carries a bow. Kinda like when people moaned about having a dagger in DS claiming it went against the character, the same character that carried a sword.

That sounds over the top to me, especially since it is probably repeated ad nauseum throughout the game. From the videos I've seen she just seems to do a lot of stabbing, nothing that wouldn't be out of place in a war movie, and it's hardly surprising given the character is an assassin. She'd have to start ripping nazi spines out to even begin to approach anything resembling Mortal Kombat.

The combat is loads of fun. I don't know why people have such a problem with the sci fi stuff. Thankfully, though, how much I enjoy a game isn't dependent on how many people whine about it on the internet, so yeah, I will have fun!

I didn't mind DS, but it was a pretty huge disappointment for me. Like DX:IW it was clunky and kinda ugly with tiny levels.

Thief was always pretty light on the steampunkiness.

Assassin's Creed is a completely different type of stealth to the Thief/Splinter Cell approach. I'm currently replaying it, and once you get to the actual assassinations I think it's pretty fun scouting and planning both your approach and escape. Anyway, the development of Thief 4 has been a pretty poorly kept secret, and I hope once they make the official announcement we get some juicy details, as opposed to the teaser they released for DX3.

Were did you get the idea it features Mortal Kombat style killing moves? Funny, I thought that part was the least important part of Hurlie's post. I think there is a big difference between a game that at least tries (and perhaps fails) at being respectful with a serious take on a story, and one that just says "**** it" and features over the top comical violence.

Were did you get the idea it features Mortal Kombat style killing moves?

Widescreen monitors are almost always 16:10. If the choice to force 16:9 (which is the format of almost all new TV:s today) isn't consolitis, what is your explanation for it being 16:9? Sorry, I was thinking just of widescreen in general. Including 16:9 resolutions but not 16:10 is on the same level as all the other stuff mentioned.

Because the people behind IW have nothing to do with DX3? It's using the Tomb Raider Underworld engine. Also, Thief 4 will be announced on the 11th of this month.

Obama wants to destroy America with the Socialism.

I was asking about L4D, as I've only played the demo on PC. As for the Orange Box, yes I've played both the 360 and PC versions, and as I already said they are the same game. Unlike your mates I don't have a problem with the controls, I don't find them unwieldy at all. If your mates play the PC version with a controller they'll have the same problems. You're describing a difference in the experience, not a difference in the game. Like if you play on a decent PC that runs the games smoothly and with all setting at max, you'll have a difference experience to playing it on a crummy PC that suffers from lag and with all settings at min. The experience is different, but the game is the same. If you have a problem playing using a controller, then perhaps playing with keyboard and mouse will be better for you. If you think the game is boring after playing it on console, playing it on the PC won't make it exciting because... wait for it... it's the same game.

Well I was interested in both DX3 and a possible Thief 4, but now that a stranger on the internet has whined about it I've totally lost interest.

That's like saying Left 4 Dead on the 360 and PS3 is the same game as on the PC. What's different about them?

Eidos Montreal has heavily hinted that their soon to be announced second project is a new Thief.

I don't know, I've never kept track of the amount of times people lie to me in any game. Anyway, F3 is full of dishonest, untrustworthy folks. That's simply not true. Whether or not a player feels bad about anything depends on the individual. It should be up to the player how they interpret events, the game shouldn't try to force them to feel a certain way. It has been too long since I played, only just restarting now. Have you played F3? Er, you've completely lost me here, having one what? A good artist will never need to tax the engine, they'll work within the limits they've been given.

I have heard really about things about the 360 ports, especially the controls. I don't know if he would still have gotten sick of it, but the PC version is superior AFAIK. Also, how do you get sick of Portal, it's only 6h long? What "really bad things" are those? I've played HL2 and EP1 on PC, and part of HL2, EP2 and Portal on 360. It's the same game except for the controls, which are fine unless you've never played an FPS with a controller, but then the issue is with the player and not the game. Honestly, if you don't enjoy the game on one system, you aren't going to enjoy it on another.

The issue here isn't a lack of detail. Take Rhedd's head for Morrowind as an example. They looked a hell of a lot better than the default heads, yet they had a lower poly count. There's no reason for a single head to push an engine to it's limits, you just need a good artist.

That's how F3 works, the [Lie] tag is applied to the players own dialogue options, that Planescape did it first is irrelevant. In one of the first (if not the first) dialogue options you have, Amata asks you if you were surprised regarding the birthday, and the player has the option to lie and claim they knew about it all along. If the player can lie to others, why wouldn't they assume that others can also lie to them? That's easy. Being lied to in the game works just like in real life. The NPC tells the PC a lie, and unless the PC has a reason to believe the NPC is lying, then they can choose to take them at face value. When the PC arrives at the so called slaver compound and finds it to be an average town full of average people, only naive, lazy or stupid players will continue to believe the lie, everyone else will start to suspect that things might not be what they perhaps originally thought. If the townsfolk are immediately hostile and the PC kills them, they didn't die because the PC believed the lie, they died because the PC was defending themselves, and thus the player has no reason to feel bad about the situation. Then what happens? The choice the player has to make in this situation is "do I want to get involved?", and by getting involved they are putting themselves in a position to discover the truth. This is a pretty common situation in RPGs. I was merely pointing out that there is no clever AI involved in what you're asking for, it's really basic. If the game keeps track of player actions, either on a reputation screen the player can view, or completely behind the scenes, then quests can be offered or denied based on past actions. For example, an NPC might deny you a diplomatic mission as they don't believe you're up to the task based on your history of violence. But it's impossible for the AI to determine if the player can be lied to, because the game can't determine your reasons for choosing a quest.

What's wrong with playing Portal and HL2 on the 360? It's the same game. Do you think if he'd played them on PC he wouldn't have gotten "insanely sick" of them?

The player is introduced to deceit in the very beginning of Fallout 3. Some of the first dialogue options you have include lies (options with the [Lie] tag), and we quickly learn that the Overseer cannot be trusted. Why would players then go out into the big bad dangerous wasteland trusting everyone they come across? In any game I play, if I am able to communicate with an NPC, even one I'm on a quest to kill, then I will talk with them first. I've played enough games to know that if I just kill them I might be missing out. For example, maybe I can make them a counter offer. Also, your example doesn't actually require clever AI. If the player has bad karma, then the quest-giver tells you the truth, "I want you to kill some people for me, you up for it?". If the player has good karma, the quest-giver lies, "Won't you please rescue my daughter from the horrible slavers?".

Due to laziness to do proper porting form 16:9 TV view to all PC monitors types. Thus, "consolitis". Um, you do know not all TVs are widescreen, right? The same problem exists for both PC and console users. If you don't have a widescreen monitor(PC) or widescreen TV(console) then you'll be forced to play in a letterboxed mode. It has nothing to do with consoles or porting, and everything to do with developers believing that the only true way to experience their game is in widescreen. Thus, not "consolitis".

All the old Lucasarts adventures.