Hell Kitty

And for Sony to come out with Playstation when Nintendo and Sega had dominated the console market for years was a huge gamble. Many others, both Japanese and US, had tried in the past and failed. The Xbox is the most successful US console, but that doesn't mean it success is somehow more of an achievement compared to the Playstation. They're successful because Sony and Microsoft have the clout to make it so. Sony clearly won the previous round, and so far there is nothing to suggest Microsoft will move ahead in this round. I think it will be closer this time, as others have mentioned, but so far there is nothing to suggest any will triumph over the other, and your attempt to paint the success of the Xbox as somehow being different to the success of other systems is just plain wrong.

Whereas the original Playstation was lying dormant for millions of years before Sony revealed it to us.

If $400 is your life savings then chances are that you've got more important things to spend that money on than a PS3. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If $400 is your life savings, it's unlikely you have either a console or a computer. Unless of course you are some punk kid sponging off your parents.

Yes you are weird. I mean, velcro...? Ewww. I have a leather wallet, but anyone who thinks this thing is a status symbol probably also thinks owning a pile of dirt is a status symbol. I agree about the watch. I just wanna be albe to tell the damn time. I don't much care for expensive restaurants, except on special occasions. Of course I'm also not one of these people who whines about how horrible fast food supposedly is, either.

"If you could only have one of these two things, which one would you choose? a) More lightsaber colours b) A more immersive game experience" You think more people would choose a? Of course it doesn't help a is a very specific request and that b is so completely vague that it's worthless... May as well make option b "More fun". Even making the options a) More lightsaber colours b) Time limits gives one specific and one vague request. Just because someone goes to Blockbuster and rents an action movie, doesn't mean they prefer action over drama, and judging them based on the assumption that they do is your failing, not theirs. As I've already said, I don't have a problem with time limits in specific cases, like Fahrenheit, and I think your example of party members getting angry and/or leaving because you aren't doing what they want is a good one. Of course that's a whole different ball game to failure of the entire game due to a time limit, or being forced to end because your character has aged decades of the course of a few days.

My 4 year old nephew recently had a birthday, and he stated that he'd be quite happy if everyone just gave him some money, about $20 each. Would he have preferred to ask for $200 each? You betcha, but he knows what an unrealistic thing that is. Would I like a game in which every decision I made would alter the story People ask for fluff because the chances of the devs adding in things like a few extra lightsaber colours are much more likely than, say, being able to explore a realistically modelled planet Earth complete with billions on NPCs to interact with. You want quest timers in games, fine, but you're going to have to do much more than claim they make for an immerive game, which is as useless as claiming it'll make for a more fun game. Before jumping on the casual gamer boogeyman, people should stop and think about the fact that perhaps devs do think about things like quest timers and whatever else. Perhaps the reason we don't see things like is because devs have thought about it and decided that it wouldn't be a good thing, that it wouldn't add anything to their game to enhance it, that it's not worth the trouble, that it's not technologically feasible. If devs included features based on how many people asked for them, then Deus Ex: Invisible War would have included huge levels and a branching storyline, and Thief: Deadly Shadows would have featured huge bodies of water and rope arrows.

Immersion is in the eye of the I'd prefer developers focus on creating an entertaining gameplay experience. They should include timers because they make for fun gameplay, like in Fahrenheit, not because of the idea that timers may or may not be "immersive".

When I was playing Half-Life 2, in the levels where you drive along the cliffs in the buggy, I had my vehicle flipped over the cliff by those ball things that come out of the ground, and this resulted in an automatic failure, because according to the story I had to get to my destination quickly, and walking would never get my there on time, and the bad guys would do whatever it is I'm rushing to stop them from doing. In reality, you can take as long as you feel like. Would HL2 be a better game if you really did need to hurry? Like I said earlier, it would suck to fail at the last moment because the invisible timer beat me. You could show the player the timer, but then you'd be adding an unrealistic feature to counter a realistic one. I remember an argument over at the Dark Mod (Thief-like mod for Doom 3) forums, concerning being able to save anywhere version limited saves or saving only in set locations. The save anywhere crowd argued that in a game like Thief, in which it's common to spend an hour or more on a single mission, limiting the ability to save would just lead to players taking less risks for fear of wiping out an hours worth of gaming, and then give up out of frustration. I think the reason developers don't go for time limits isn't due to nonsense like "people want pretty graphics", rather it's due to not wanting frustration to overrule the fun.

This is one hundred percent true. The problem I have is the apparent assumption that the reason we don't see such things in games, or see discussions of such things very often is due to people preferring silly things like pretty graphics or NPC romances or big boobed player models or whatever the hell else. It's the same old crap "The reason we don't see more of X (with X being "something I like") is because people prefer Y (with Y being "something I don't like"). People will use the same old casual gamer boogeyman because it's an easy scapegoat that doesn't exist to defend itself. I remember being blasted on a forum once simply for having the nerve to post a Far Cry screenshot and say I thought it was pretty, with the claim being that saying the graphics were pretty meant I obviously favoured graphics over gameplay. It's this attitude that leads to the kind of comments like yours. Just because the only thing a person might post on a message board is that they want NPC romances, doesn't mean that given the choice they would choice a crap game with romances over a great game without. Proof that such people exist is exactly what this is about, but apparently we are just supposed to take your word for it.

I didn't say or suggest Di disliked timers because of the reasons you pointed. My post wasn't aimed at her, so I'd appreciate if you didn't suggest it was. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then who are you referring to? Di is an example of someone who dislikes a certain feature and has a legitimate reason for it, but all you've done is offer up the typical boogeyman that people like to use as a scapegoat, typically called the "casual gamer". I'll take real people over imaginary ones anyday.

Having to complete a quest or the game as a whole within a specific time limit doesn't necessarily equal a game world that feels more alive. Does Di dislike quest timers because she has prefers pretty graphics or NPC romances? Hardly, like she said, she wants to be able to enjoy the game at her own pace, with I think is a pretty damn reasonable request, and probably the reason developers don't include more quest timers. One of my favourite moments in Fahrenheit was having to make a very quick decision in the park, and I love the moments such as when the cop is knocking on Lucas' door. I love timers on a small scale like this, but I would absolutely hate to spend hours on a quest or mission, only to automatically fail because I was a minute late from completion.

The problem people have with affirmative action programs, that qualified people are passed over for less qualified people, is exactly the reason such programs exist. The difference is that those who are anti affirmative action fear white males losing out to less qualified women and ethnic minorities, while those who are pro anti affirmative action fear women and ethnic minorities losing out to less qualified white males. The problem with such programs I think is that ultimately they preach to the choir.

Was that mod to play BG2 in IWD2 ever fully completed?

I replay games often enough, and while I remember most things about them, I still enjoy them. Last time I played though Thief gold, though, it felt about a bazillion times easier than I remembered.

For you maybe. I'm quite sure I didn't experience the Leopold Society crash my first time around. And that's the only constant show stopper the game really had. As far as I remember it was a problem everyone would eventually encounter with a unpatched game, but it's been too long to recall. The fact that there is only one showstopper is bad enough. It's like saying "But officer, I only killed one person." I never took alanschu's comment as meaning Bloodlines was released as beta, and I was right considering his "I wasn't saying that Bloodlines was a beta when released." comment in the last post. That is, I took is more as a comment on the apparent attitude of publishers/developers that they can release a game and fix major problems after release, as opposed to alanschu thinking that Atari and/or Troika ever said "We need to beta test this game, but we'll let the consumer do that." And thanks for the condescending "you don't understand" comment. Here I was thinking mkreku had a monopoly on them.

That's blowing things a bit out of proportion, I think. Now when somebody finds a few bugs here and there, everyone is like "OMFG BETA!!1" or "FFS SUPORT UR PRODUCT!!1", or some other catchphrase equally popular on dev message boards these days. Battlecruiser 3000 was a beta. Starfleet Command 2 was buggy as hell, but still playable. People who have played them can tell you how smoothly K2 and BL actually run. It is impossible to complete the released version of Bloodlines. Based on that, I don't think alanschu's comment is too harsh at all.

Metal Gear Solid 3 is fab. You can play through as straight action more than the others in the series. I also recommend Gun. Shooting bandits from horseback is fab. I found Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory allowed for more action than the previous games, though it's been a while since I played it and I may be remembering incorrectly... Oh, and if you haven't played GTA San Andreas you need to be put into the Klingon rocket and flown into the sun.

Thief series System Shock 2 Deus Ex Silent Hill series Metal Gear Solid series Resident Evil series The Secret of Monkey Island 1 & 2 Indiana Jones & the Fate of Atlantis Midwinter II: Flames of Freedom (even though it's rather unplayable today)

It's not an adaption of the Brit TV series. There was apparently a US version of the British series that was scrapped.

And that statement got my juices flowin'... Anyway, I'm really looking forward to Oblivion. I'll run out and buy it as soon as possible, and then touch myself all day long.

@ Darque: I can't believe you didn't list Resident Evil Gaiden, the most important Resident Evil of all! Anyway, what is this Seperate Ways thingamybob? Spoil me silly.

Fahrenheit.

^ Did you get your access pass? https://secure.eve-online.com/ft/?aid=100904&nogreet=1

I downloaded the Russian demo a while back, but I didn't know what the hell was going on, being that I don't understand a word of Russian. (The Russian S^2 demo was easy) I'm currently downloading the English version. My modem hates me. It cries itself to sleep at night.