Hell Kitty

You're the most useless feature ever. Other than that I agree.

Except that's not why the technology exists, its sole purpose is to prevent Alex Denton from killing particular people. None of the organizations that need it actually use it, even though it's apparently common enough to be used in a bar in the poor section of the city. I really enjoyed exploring in Gothic 3, but what killed it for me was that I knew I was never going to find anything interesting. This seems to be the standard for RPGs nowadays. At least Fallout 3 had bobbleheads and unique weapons to find hidden away in the wasteland. Every game needs to use the inventory system from RE4. Every single one. In Saint's Row 2, one of the bonuses I unlocked by completely an activity gave me a bonus for dealing with a particular gang, problem was I had already completely wiped that gang out.

I'm too busy recovering from turning 29 to care about something other jerks birthday.

Wouldn't a character question why they're suddenly better at bartering and talking to people when all they've done is kill supermutants and pick locks? Wouldn't a character question why they look down and they have no legs? And what about their peripheral vision? Nah, a character is only capable of doing what the developer programs them for, and they're generally not programmed to question the rules, or the limitations, of the game they're in. Not really. Hand holding is when the developer does something because the player can not or will not do it themselves. For example the player could find the object they need to progress in the game on their own, or the developer can hold their hand by giving them something like a glowing quest arrow. Hand holding as an explanation for invulnerable NPCs makes no sense, as the player cannot know beforehand which characters are important, and thus are unable to prevent themselves from screwing up the game. Anyway, the implementation of safe zones in DX:IW is fine, in that it does what it needs to do, provides an area to place plot essential characters to keep them free from harm, but the in-universe explanation is ridiculous and ultimately ruins it because it draws attention to the conceit rather than covering it up, which doesn't make for a good example. Bloodlines is a good example with an in-universe explanation, Far Cry 2 is a good example without, IW is a horrible example.

For the Oasis quest, I did exactly what he asked, ignoring his followers. It's the "good" thing to do, and you get a shiny new for it.

I really enjoyed the first Half-Life back in the day, but I'm not really interested in replaying it now. And what CS said about the soldier AI.

I stoled it from yer xbox. http://avatar.xboxlive.com/avatar/[insertGamerTaghere]/avatar-body.png

I've had it for about a week from beta. I haven't tried installing many games (and I only have room left for one at a time, but I haven't noticed too much difference in speed for any of them, but it sure is a hell of a lot quieter.

I thought the whole "[series] is dead" thing referred to nothing good being done with the franchise for x amount of time, not that nothing good was ever done with it. Of course plenty of folks use the "[series] is dead" line to dismiss a new entry in a series because they don't like it.

This is what I mean when I say there is no right (good design) answer, and that arguing doing something one way is more immersive* will never get anywhere. I just can't agree with the above. All games have rules that must be followed, these rules need to exist for the player, but they don't need to be known by the character. Far Cry 2 could have thrown in a line about how mercs never attack one another unless on the battlefield in order to give an in-universe explanation as to why buddies can't be harmed in certain situations, but I'm glad it doesn't. That stuff always feels like hand holding and it irks me. I think it's more important that a game allows us to protect a character we have an attachment to, than it is to make that protection necessary. In Silent Hill 4 the player has an unkillable companion, and the amount of damage she receives from your failure to protect changes the ending. In Silent Hill 2, the amount of time we spend with another unkillable companion, for whatever reason (to protect her, to stare at her like a creep) can potentially change the ending. *God, I can't even go to some forums now because anything folks don't like is dismissed as destroying immersion. "Third person? But that's not immersive!" Blergh.

Zoma wasn't referring to to what Japanese look like, rather what they find attractive. The image he posted is a modified version of Faith based on what a Korean (I think) artist claims Asians find attractive. It's the whole "Westerners think Lucy Liu is attractive but Asians think she looks weird" thing. As for the silly people who think every korean/japanese/chinese look alike: http://www.alllooksame.com/exam_room.php (you need to register but you don't need an email, just a username and password)

In mission based games like Thief or Hitman, important storyline characters are hidden away in non-interactive cutscenes, unkillable characters in such games ought to be a non-issue. So like you say, always depends on the game. Discussing "immersion" isn't particularly useful here because what is good or bad for immersion depends entirely on which game conceits you are or aren't willing to accept. So you're first thought on meeting anyone in a game is "I'm going to enjoy figuring out how to kill you"? Duuude.

Gah, no! IW was horrible in that regard. Why does some scabby little bar possess weapon-locking technology that the rest of the major corporations don't? Tarsus could have saved themselves a whole lot of trouble. If you're going to have an in-universe reason for no weapon zones then it better be good, like Elysium in Bloodlines, whereas IW is just all over the place. In Far Cry 2 there are certain locations, like factions bases, the bar, and player safehouses, where upon entering the player will put away his weapons, but an in-universe explanation is never given. I'm fine with unkillable characters for the reasons Nightshape has mentioned, so their inclusion in a game isn't an immersion issue for me at all. How it's handled is what matters more to me, like I prefer the way Doom 3 doesn't allow you to attack non-hostile characters at all (crosshair changes and weapon lowers) compared to something like FEAR, where attacks on allies have no effect on them, and characters simply don't respond to your actions. If the result of falling off a ledge is always going to be death, is it better to let the player suffer the consequence of their (possibly accidental) action, being a reload or respawn, or use an invisible barrier and save them the trouble? I don't think there is a right answer because either way you'll annoy someone. Personally I'm happy with what's in Fable 2, you need to press a button to jump from any height, and you can't do it if there is nowhere to jump to safely. The players exploration isn't hindered, and they never need worry about a silly accident.

The real question is, does the popularity of Neighbours prove the Tomb Raider series is utter crap? Something we can all ponder.

Diogo wins. Basically I agree that there is nothing that you can actively do, you'll just be temporarily taking your mind off the issue. Time heals all wounds and all that.

I'm glad I got to see that before it gets edited/removed. I always miss out on the fun.

So tell me alanschu, what's it like living on the edge?

When you wake up next to your chosen professional, the implication is that you have indeed enjoyed a bout of sexual intercourse. This is such a non-issue. As for titles and numbers, on another forum Deus Ex fans were saying, based on information released so far about DX3, that it might be a good game, but it won't be a Deus Ex game. Who exactly gets to decide what makes a [insert series here] game/book/film? "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" was alright, but it was no Indiana Jones film". Yes if ****ing was. Maybe you don't like it, maybe you found it disappointing, maybe you have no interest in it, but it is what it is. It's this ridiculous sense of entitlement people have. Being a fan doesn't give you ownership of something. If your ego is so fragile that you can't accept a piece of entertainment without telling yourself that it's not really a [insert series here] game, or that it's just a spin-off, then that's your* problem. Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong and needs to be put into a rocket and flown into the sun along with the people who speak klingon. *That's a general "your", jerks. But if you think I'm referring to you then I probably am. Oh god I've started another page.

Filling in of a non sexual nature is pointless. ~DR PS. Don't listen to Llyranor, Dark Raven dumped him and he's bitter.

Just check out all the pre-release Fallout 3 threads, you'll find loads of Bethesda fanboys in there. Honest.

Right click on the one you want to delete.

If you assume he was telling you the truth, or that he even knew what the truth was, sure!

If Gorion is still unkillable, then I don't get why him showing you how powerful he is (I assume this means he attacks and kills you) is relevant, unless the issue isn't that characters can't be killed, it's how the games handles it. So unkillable characters are fine if they attack and kill you? In Deus Ex main characters would attack if provoked but then all of a sudden they'd stop, seemingly forgetting what just happened. It was ridiculous.

I'm sorry but those screenshot comparisons are useless. Oh, and in another thread Kaftan claimed Saint's Row 2 ripped off GTAIV, when in fact the SR series very much followed on from what was in San Andreas, so it would make sense that what he thought was GTAIV was actually a SA mod. Ha! Oh, and it baffles me that folks on a forum like this can be such huge graphics whores.

If you think every other Tomb Raider game has been utter crap then obviously the newest game isn't going to change your mind. If you think the series has lasted this long while being utter crap than I'm sorry but it appears you are full of utter crap.