Hell Kitty

I got four letters from Burke, but the final one said something about freeing me or some such rubbish. In Girdershade(?) I met a crazy woman who just LOVES

Is ridiculous a bad thing? As someone pretty ridiculous, the answer is no. But I prefer interesting and fun to ridiculous and serious. Dear Maria Caliban, Please give yourself an uppercut. Love, Hell Kitty

A really simple and seemingly meaningless choice in Front Mission 3 (want to go to the mall with your friend?) leads to a completely different campaign! Minor characters from one campaign become major allies in another. Stereotypically nasty enemies become sympathetic allies. Of course that's not really a choice and consequence thing as it is an odd way to choose from Campaign A or Campaign B. The original Fallouts are always hailed as the champions of choice and consequence, but like you point out, what you do in one town doesn't affect the others. Major changes don't occur until the game is over. The consequences in games tend to be fairly basic, rather than dramatically changing the story or gameplay. I guess it's our ability to make a choice that matters more then that choice having a huge impact on the game. Feeling like our choices matter is more important than dramatic change.

I think analysing why fictional universes are the yway they are can be interesting, but when it gets too serious it becomes ridiculous. Like on the old Interplay boards, the discussion on why DnD trolls are killed by their own stomach acids. Swimmers bodies are supposed to be all that, but it ain't true of female swimmers. No it most definitely isn't. Oh, and to answer Maria Caliban's question, no I don't know anyone who dresses like that because I don't know any douches. You still look like Clark Kent though, right?

The problem I have isn't reloading, it's specifically when the reloading animation plays as though the character can take all the time in the world, which looks ridiculous when under heavy fire. It's only ever bothered me in a first person titles due to the animations being so in your face. I still don't really understand why repetitive animations are only a problem for you when performed by the player character. What animations from the MGS4 video you watched stood out as being annoyingly repetitive? I think something like this would be less of an issue when actually playing, rather than simply watching. The protagonists arms almost always stay in view in first person games, so surely repetitive animation would be worse in that perspective due to player animations being even more limited, seeing as how the only animations tend to be holding, firing and reloading weapons. I've played loads of both! Though I don't really know quite what you mean by artistic. Earlier you said "I find the characters rather cartoonish with poor facial expressions, which is characteristic to third person games" which is complete and utter rubbish. I don't know how anyone can have this sort of view, even someone who points out they have limited experience with third person games, because the perspective used in a game has nothing to do with the quality of its animations, nor how cartoonish or realistic the graphics style is. Fallout 3 has recently been hammered for the quality of its animations, and Deus Ex is known for rather basic, and sometimes downright silly animations (like characters running while revolving on the spot). Half-Life 2 has fantastic facial animations, but it looks ridiculous when characters have a conversation with me while walking backwards. Older Metal Gear Solid titles have had low polygonal and low res textured models, but they've always been superbly animated. Of course it's possible to find good and bad examples in both perspectives, because as I said perspective has nothing to do with the quality of its animations, nor how cartoonish or realistic the graphics style is. I've always preferred first-person, with most of my favourite games being from this perspective, but I think it was Sawyer who said something along the lines of preferring third-person due to being able to see (and enjoy) your character performing different actions, and I tend to agree with this. It's especially true of games where I can customize the look of my character, which feels pointless if I'm not going to see the end result. I know folks like to talk about how FP is so much more immersive, because it's more real, like you are the character, rather than merely controlling them, but there is something about that I don't get. If you're playing Hitman: Blood Money and switch from the default third person to a first person view, does the game suddenly become more immersive? "Whoa, now I feel like I totally am 47!" Do the assassinations become all the more disturbing because you, the player, are now the one performing them, whereas previously you were simply watching 47 do it all? The same is true of all games with multiple views. Does Thief: Deadly Shadows become less immersive when switching to third person? Does a player no longer feel like Logan Keller when taking cover in Rainbow Six, Vegas? In cases like this "immersive" means little more than "I prefer it this way". My take on the whole controlling my character versus being my character is that no matter how I do it, through their eyes, from over their shoulder, or from high above them, I'm always controlling my character. Some games give me direct control (Thief, in first person, Splinter Cell in third) while some I must direct their actions (BG series). Part of the reason I like the first person perspective is the same as many people, the whole seeing through the players eyes deal. But it's not really like seeing through a persons eyes, it's like, well, exactly what it is, looking through a camera. Which is as close as we're going to get when looking at a monitor or TV. This is why movies and tv shows rarely use this perspective. Pointing out that movies or tv shows also don't have the camera constantly over the shoulder of the protagonist is pointless, because we don't control any of the characters in a movie or tv show. Now if seeing the back of your character is really such a big issue that it stops you from enjoying a game, then third person games are definitely not for you, but no developer is ever going to change their design based on personal gripes like this.

Headfirst had a whole bunch of sequels planned before DCotE even came out. Two for Xbox and/or PC and one for PS2. Their problems weren't due to Bethesda, they simply bit off way more than they could possibly hope to chew. Yeah, as much as folks like to come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories as to why a company isn't making whatever it is they want them to make, it's business.

It's got nothing to do with weapon strengths or weakness, it's that the animation is the same both in and out of combat, and when you have an NPC in your face trying to kill you it looks ridiculous having the player taking their sweet time with a long reload animation as if they don't have a care in the world. Anyway, if the repetition of animations is a problem I don't see why it would only be a problem for the player character, and not for the NPCs.

Huh? That's true of any game, no matter the perspective. In fact the only time this has ever bothered me is in first person games when, in the middle of a firefight the player character takes their sweet time reloading while being shot in the face.

Disappointing.

^ What the hell is that an ad for?

Same. Doesn't help that I sink rather than float. Also moths. I don't know why, I must have repressed a bad childhood experience or something. Also I suffer from social anxiety and loathe situations where I am the center of attention.

In Andale, those , are they part of a quest, or is it just up to the player to decide their fate if ?

Thanks guys!

I think people post trailers of games that they are already anticipating, rather than a particular trailer being the reason they are interested. Personally I'm interested in Alan Wake because I'm a survival horror whore and I'm intrigued by the apparent open-worldness of the game. So far the trailers for AW haven't featured anything that has blown me away. Define "good-looking". Not all games are at the same technological level, and not all games have good art direction. I'd say if you honestly think all games look great, then you are simply easily pleased.

I'm almost at level 14 and I haven't found any other vaults, either. Of course, I haven't been doing the main quest that much. While doing the quest for to find the I got the locations of a whole bunch of vaults from the . I found Lincoln's Repeater, which I am currently wielding. I also managed to find on my own while exploring the information Three Dog would have given me as part of the main quest line. Have you found the lush green trees yet? I still only have the one.

I'm halfway to level 15 and I still haven't found any other vaults. Found all sorts of other interesting stuff though.

I think it's going to cure cancer.

FC2 & F3.

Hah, you couldn't possibly have tried SR2 if you think that. The SR series is quite happily ripping off GTA, but certainly not the latest one.

Yes, that was very funny wasn't it. Anyway, I wasn't trying to offer up some kind of perfect review system, I was trying to point out why I think the idea that "most of everything is crap" is ridiculous. It's like with people, there are those I trust, those I don't trust, and then there is everyone else. I don't trust or distrust them, I give them the benefit of the doubt. Sure, I could tell myself that I can't trust most people, that maybe I shouldn't trust most people, but it doesn't actually mean that most people are untrustworthy. Starting out at 5 really isn't cutting anything some slack, because starting in the middle of the road and taking off points to a minimum of 0 and adding them for a maximum of 10 is really no different from starting off at 0 and only adding points to a maximum of 10. People are so obsessed with the numbers, they just have to mean something in particular. For me a ranking of 5 says there is nothing good or bad about the product, it simply exists, which means uninteresting. My post does no such thing, and claiming I don't know "how the specialized press works" is pointless condescension. I'm not arguing for games journalists, claiming that there isn't a "give-and-take working relationship between journalists and companies", I'm arguing against those who dismiss any and all reviewers who give a top score and accusing them of being sellouts, based only on their own biased opinions. "I don't agree with game X getting a top score, refuse to believe the reviewer is giving an honest opinion, therefore they must be a sellout." Oh, and I didn't need to be careful not to quote your post directly because mine wasn't a direct response to yours. It's one thing to be aware of corruption in any type of business, it's another matter entirely to accuse anyone who operates a particular way of being corrupt when you have absolutely no evidence.

When people list game titles and assign them 10/10, as was done earlier in this thread, that doesn't actually tell me a damn thing about the game. When all I know is the score all I can assume is that it means "I love this game". The same is true of all reviews, professional or amateur, if all I'm going to look at is the score* all I can really tell is how much they might like or dislike that game. Ratings alone are worthless, and that's true of reviewers who only give top scores, reviewers who only give low scores, or reviewers who give a whole range of scores. It's also true of professional journalists, people who post reviews on their blogs or people that list game titles on forum threads. Reviews typically comment on similar types of games, but I don't think scores should be modified based on other games. Obviously holding off on a top score for future games is ridiculous ("This RPG is the best there has even been, but there might be a better one released in the future, so I'll only give it nine rubber chickens.") but how far back should reviewers go when comparing games to older titles? Fallout 1 & 2 will obviously be mentioned in reviews of Fallout 3, but should they also mention Wasteland? What about games that don't fit into one strict genre? Should the ratings for Far Cry 2 be modified based on straight shooters like Half-Life 2 and open world games like GTA4? As for the people who claim most everything is crap, well that's a completely useless point of view. Unless you've actually experienced most of everything you're just being pointlessly negative. For something to be crap I think absolutely everything about it has to be terrible, of the lowest quality possible, which would make for a score of 0/10, whereas it seems people use "crap" to mean "I don't like this for some reason". If I was going to review a game/book/movie/whatever and give it a score out of 10, then everything would start out at a 5. Pros would earn it points, cons would take points away. A score above 5 would mean the good outweighs the bad, a score below 5 means the bad outweighs the good. Folks like to complain about reviewers only ever giving high marks, but their own scales are just as bad, only the other way around. If something like Crysis is considered crap, then what score does trash like the latest Soldier of Fortune get? Everyone's a critic, but I don't think many have what it takes to give an honest critique. * How many people actually read the reviews they are criticizing before calling the reviewer a whore or a sellout based on a top score? Do you feel the same way about reviewers giving top scores to games you love? "Man, what a ****ing sellout, this game doesn't deserve a 10, it's merely a 9! Obviously paid off by the publisher." It's the body of the review that counts, but people seem more interested in ignoring that and focusing on the number, because a top mark means you can just tell they've been bribed. lol

It's much more of a straight shooter than STALKER. I've been running and gunning it, but now that I have a silenced MP5 I've been a lot sneakier. There are weapons stores stores all over the places, and they are all identical, just like the safehouses (heh, another similarity to Boiling Point). If the dealer is in the store, you can get a mission to unlock new weapons for sale. There is a computer in the store that allows you to buy new weapons and upgrades. When you buy a weapon it is placed in your armory which is the building next to every weapons store. They offer an unlimited supply of weapons you've bought, all in perfect condition, as well as ammo and grenades. You can also purchase storage crates, which come in primary, secondary and special varieties. You'll find them in every armory and safehouse, and they act kinda like the crates in Resident Evil, except they only hold one item at a time. Who is your number one, the one that offers alternative mission stuff? The Cuban woman, Flora, is mine. Also, what character did you pick? I'm Hakim Echebbi. I don't think it makes a difference, other what the arms holding your weapons looks like.

No you haven't, this doesn't use the CryEngine. As for modding, there is an editor, but I think it only does multiplayer maps. I'm sure someone will make an extractor for the game files but it's a bit early right now. I'd like it if enemies didn't respawn until you left that region, but so far it hasn't bothered me too much. Turning it off completely would eventually make for an empty gameworld. Anyway, after doing a bunch of missions for the weapons dealer and general exploration ( ) I took on my first mission. My bestest bud offered me an alternative plan, and the whole thing turned out to be a big pile of awesome. I'd like to know if different buddies offer different plans. Seems unlikely given the number of buddies. I've been saved a bunch of times now by my second bestest buddy. Once all the enemies in the area are dead your bud just stays in that area, and I felt kinda bad just leaving him there out in the middle of nowhere, but I didn't have any other choice. Next time you go to a safehouse they'll be there and they'll ask if you want them to stick around, which puts them back into "rescue ready" mode. I assume if I hit 0 life before that it's lights out for good.

I haven't played that yet, I figured I'd get through this and Fable 2 first.

Then I'd recommend FC2, if only because it's something different. I though S:CS started off well but was kind of a let down the further I got.