Hell Kitty

My own alt has lost 12 fights in a row. I think I'm gonna give up on that one. My pupil for you is KittyBangBang, and she won all 6 fights. The whip is an AWESOME weapon. KittyBangBang whipping Aristes' ass. I particularly enjoyed this fight.

PinkHairedGirl was badly beaten by Hummelgumpf and MariaCaliban (man, some of my hits didn't do any damage at all), but I crushed Oerwinde and his little dog and now I have the sabotage ability, which apparently lets me break enemy weapons with each blow.

All players will be jedi katana wielding asian ladies?

So, MC is the fatty who complains that McDonalds should make healthier food, but still eats a cheeseburger for lunch every day?

So, most people like burgers, most people like Bioware games, therefore Bioware is McDonalds? Genius! Or utter rubbish that shows just how pointless such a comparison is. Fast food is served and prepared quickly at a low cost. A game like IWD2 is a better fit as "fast food" than any of Bio's titles. Use of a popular setting, developed at a low cost in as short amount of time as possible. So there are no studios that produce five star games? This is nonsense. All five stars means is quality, and just because something is expensive or exotic something doesn't mean it's a quality product*. Anything and everything can be given the label five star if it's judged as being high quality. *Although people will often confuse a high price with quality, just like gamers often confuse what they like with quality.

So you'd prefer steak from a gourmet restaurant to a burger from a fast food chain. Okay, that's a popular analogy but it doesn't really clear anything up. What is it that makes a game a steak rather than a burger? What is it that makes a company a five star restaurant rather than a cheap burger joint? Is Bioware really the McDonalds of the gaming industry? Wouldn't a better fit be the casual game studios that make small, cheap, easily consumed games with minimal system requirements?

http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=61335

NotEnoughSun didn't win a single fight. Did steal Hurlshot's dog though.

RPG Elements!

I would like to inform Gfted1, Hurlshot & Mamoulian that I wear the pants in this foursome. Also, my character beat your characters. The best bit was when Gfted1 dropped the little knife, pulled out an even bigger knife, and still lost. (Thanks Jaesun!) Oh, I have a student called Pithy Opiner. I made an alt: http://notenoughsun.mybrute.com

http://pinkhairedgirl.mybrute.com/ Pidesco beat me, how humiliating.

Yeah, and when everyone has their own definition, the term becomes meaningless. I've always assumed it meant to appeal to as many people as possible, and simplicity would be a part of that (being able to play something straight away as opposed to needing to read a 100 page manual before starting), but I don't think simplicity necessarily means sacrifice. For example, an RPG features 50 different skills but for the sequel it's cut down to 10. People will complain that the sequel is dumbed down, simplified for the masses, but what if the 10 skills of the sequel were all important and all had a drastic effect on the course of the game, while the 50 skills of the original were mostly fluff that changed little? In Deus Ex a skill like swimming is worthless compared to a skill like computers, but what Harvey Smith came to realise with the failure of the sequel is that people really like having lots of different choices, even if those choices don't actually change much. So which game is more appealing to the LCD, the seemingly simple sequel with fewer options that change the course of the game, or the apparently complex original with far more options which do little to change the game but are meaningful in how the player sees their character? Being an elitist means believing yourself to be part of a superior group, it doesn't doesn't mean you actually do anything important or worthwhile. Yep, that pretty much describes so-called elitist gamers, though whiners is really a more appropriate term.

The reason I got a 360 was because a number of components in my then high-end PC died all at the same, right out of warranty. I've had to send the 360 back once because parts died, but at least I had the option to do that, whereas the dead PC parts were junk. The 360 has all the newer games I wanted (and a number of exclusives, like Dead Rising) while my downgraded PC is for older stuff (although my cheap ass video card does a lot better than I expected).

Who exactly is the lowest common denominator? What is it about a game that makes it for the lowest common denominator? Meshugger's definition seems is about being bug-free, which is certainly not the way most people use the term, and probably rules out a hell of a lot of PC games. If a game is bug-free and simple to use, then it's aimed at the LCD whether it's an FPS like Call of Duty or an arthouse game like The Path? The term results in knotted knickers because it's typically used as nothing more than criticism of a product without bothering to go into specifics, because in reality people are just complaining about stuff they don't like. So called "elitism" is when people assume they aren't actually a part of the so called LCD, just that they sometimes lower themselves and indulge in the same sort of thing the LCD does. "I don't actually like Baywatch, I just watch it because it's so bad it's funny." Or perhaps you watch it for the same reason all the others plebs do. It's like there's a sense of shame associated with enjoying something popular, a shame associated with being part of the huge group of people, when in reality people aren't the unique snowflakes they like to think they are.

Man, this game grabs a hold of my special places and just won't let go.

Man, if you think Gothic 2 is "super old 3D", you would have loved this: I do know what you mean though, as I recently started Undying, and a bad theatre set with cardboard buildings and characters is a pretty good description, and I find it much easier to get into old 2D stuff I've never played. I don't know what I would have thought of Thief if I had played it for the first time today. Assassin's Creed as a failed remake of Thief is a bizarre description, being that AC and Thief are both stealth games in the way Baldur's Gate and Final Fantasy are both RPGs. AC isn't really trying to do anything that Thief did. The stealth of AC is much closer to Hitman than Thief.

My last impulse buy was The Darkness. Turned me into a Starbreeze fanboy.

Only in your dreams. There is nothing to modify, as no game using the engine was ever released. They'd be starting from scratch with an engine they know nothing about and for which there would be no support. People pick games to mod based on what they know they can do, like The Dark Mod team using the Doom 3 engine. Actually, something was released, that Fallout 3 tech demo thingyamybob. I'm sure there are loads of people working on modding that thing right now!

This doesn't make any sense, obviously it was possible to use the engine, being that a game was being developed with it. No one is going to release anything just to satisfy your curiosity. We're lucky enough to get editors for games that have been released, but for games that we never even officially announced?

I agree with this. Surely stuff like The Witcher and the Gothics belong up there with the Elder Scrolls and the Neverwinter Nights. Stuff like Drakensang is what would be niche, if that's even the right word. Anyway, I'm kinda with Jaesun, I'm not terribly fussed when it comes to medieval fantasy RPGs, which is what most western RPGs tend to be.

You can't mod nothing.

There is a bug in Thief 1 & 2, where you would suddenly die for no apparent reason. Whenever that happened the scream Garrett would let out was enough to almost give me a heart attack.

I imagine it's more about not wanting a Spore like backlash from the enormous Sims fanbase.

Did Fallout 3 suffer for lack of player character voice? It's hardly surprising (or unreasonable) to compare Bio's last game with their next one. Oh, and having now read the article, the "new" thing seems to be her response to the game "being touted as a "new" take on the fantasy genre". Though the article isn't nearly as cynical as your response to it.

Huh? What idiot Hollywood writers of yesterday are today considered visionaries? If history is anything to go by what we have today will be seen as lame or viewed through rose coloured glasses.