Spider

From what I can tell, most DD solutions already work like this. Steam does (although if Steam requires you to authenticate through their servers when re-installing something could get problematic) and the Galactic Civilizations II version also allows this. Companies do realize that people are paranoid and will be forced to design their service after that fact. This is a reasonable question and one I've been asking myself. I think it's very odd to ask customers to pay for expenses that no longer exists. Sure, the developer gets more money, but by going the way of DD they already do that. I have the same problem when I buy a physical copy from the publisher's website. I get charged the full price and that of shipping. Which means they simply get to pocket the retailers share. If my actions are causing a company to save money, I expect to save money myself in the process, otherwise what is the point? My largest problems with the Steam-model is that through the interview I understand that in order to use Steam, you must also use the Source engine. Even if the Source engine is very customizable and excellent in every way, I'm not sure I like the thought of so many games using the same engine. But time will tell when it comes to that. ((this also explains why Steam can be free of charge, since you have to pay to use Source, and I guess the contract for that includes the right to use Steam) And by the way, a counter to the argument about what happens if the server goes down, is what happens if your CD gets scratched and the company goes out of business? How do you go about replacing your IWD cds for instance?

Also worth mentioning about Nexus is that it comes with full pause-and-play capabilities so there is no twitch involved at all.

Replay value? Not that I've actually replayed either, but I'd have to go with Freelancer. The comparison is wildly unfair though, since Space Rangers takes much longer to complete the first time (at least it did for me). Although by the time I did finish it, it felt like I had gotten the most of what the game had to offer out of it, so I don't think I'll be playing it again anytime soon (and I felt the game became a bit repetetive at the end). Which is the better game overall is hard to say though. I really liked Freelancer in the beginning, but the second half it became a linear mess and thus lost part of what made it good. Space Rangers stuck to it's guns all the way through and the game deserves credit for that. In the end I'd probably recommend Freelancer, but it's tight and depends a little on what you want to get out of the game. You should also take a look at Nexus: The Jupiter Incident, that was a really good game.

I'm a lot more negative than people in general it seems. I'm expecting 20-25 hours doing every sidequest I can find. I hope I'm wrong though.

While I applaud your efforts, I fear that they are going to be in vain. The gaming press isn't exactly the most objective. Most gaming sites are too dependant on good will from the publishers (review copies, invitations to press events) to be asking questions this uncomfortable. (not that I really consider this an uncomfortable question, but apparently Feargus does or we'd have an answer already) I may be a bit cynical, but I don't exactly have faith in the gaming sites and magazines when it comes to digging.

KK was the web admin and designer for Interplay. Jessica was the designer for BIS.

I really don't know either. But it's possible they were so sure they'd get to make the Post-Apoc game that they poured all their resources into that since they weren't getting paid to work on Bloodlines anyway. The Post-Apoc game was supposed to be FO3 after all, until Bethesda snagged the license. Or maybe they had to let a lot of people go once Bloodlines was done and didn't have the manpower to work on it. Or maybe Activision simply wouldn't let them ("We have the gold master we need and we want to be able to go into production with a days notice"). Or maybe my speculation is way off base and they did work on the game up until the release date. Agreed and for a while I discarded that as unprovable myself. But there are so many things that just don't add up in that case. I'm pretty sure that the info that dev time was cut short came from a Troika dev, or at least someone with good enough insight to be reliable to me. And the first (at least semi-)official release date given was May. And so many people have said that Activision was sitting on it. Spread a rumor far enough and it becomes true. But in the end it's all speculation and the only people who truly know aren't likely to tell us. And in the end, it probably doesn't really matter anyway. On-topic: As for the actual topic at hand, I've got to say I'm with Gromnir. I think we (meaning we as consumers, not board geeks) deserve to know what we're expected to spend our money on. But I'm not sure getting that information now is going to be much help. As long as there is an official estimate by the time the game gets released I'm content. (to use the knife analogy, before the set goes into production they could still add or remove a knife, so it doesn't matter before they hit retail) How long does a crpg need to be for me to consider it worth $50? It's hard to say I guess. But I think 20 hours is too short. I thought Bloodlines and KotOR had it down pretty well, which means 35-40 hours. If it starts getting shorter than that, then I'll probably stay away. Although in the case of NWN2, there is also the toolset to consider. It's not why I'll be getting the game, but it's still a huge part of it and something that a lot of dev hours have been spent on. So yeah, the toolset does make up for some of it. So if those are 20 brilliant hours I may be interested. But they'd better be bloody amazing. Then again, I'm one of those people who are amazed by the sheer size of Oblivion. I've been playing for 100+ hours and I am nowhere near done with it yet. I've done basically all the quests I've found except the main one and a few others that don't fit my character. Currently I'm dungeon crawling like crazy and I'm loving that as well. On the other hand I wouldn't really classify Oblivion as a RPG either (although I can see why people do and it is a RPG-Sandbox hybrid I guess). So length does matter and average content can be improved upon if there is simply a lot of it. Oblivion as a 40 hour game wouldn't have been the same.

In regards to Vampire not being finished, this is what I've been able to piece together from reading various message boards and interviews. Nothing is confirmed, but it makes sense. I'm not sure that Vampire was done when the leak occured (iirc that was a year before actual release) but I am fairly certain that Vampire was completed from Troika's side quite some time before actual release. Someone mentioned that when WW announced they were ending the World of Darkness, Activision got cold feet and wanted to cancel the game altogether, but Troika managed to convince them to allow development to continue, although with six months cut from the development schedule. This is why the last part of the game turns into a hackfest that really doesn't fit well with the rest of the game. There was plans for the end game to be more involved, but it simply wasn't possible. So that is why the game shipped with a poor endgame and loads of bugs. The consensus (on the various places I visited) was that the game was out of Troika's hands in May the year of release and then just sitting on a shelf waiting for Valve to wrap up Half-Life 2. So why did it just sit there for an extensive period of time when bugs could have been fixed? Why does anything ever happen in the corporate world? Money. Activision didn't have any faith in the game anymore and they definitely weren't going to spend another dollar on it. And Troika obviously didn't have the resources to do it on their own. Again, this is only speculation, but from my perspective it seems very likely.

My instinct is to say something like 1 level/5 hours of play, with an exception in the early game where you need to level faster to get away from the pure randomness of it all. However, the second part of Gromnir's question made me think. And I realized I've never played a single player game that levels that slowly. So obvioulsy that number is for a party based crpg. I do think it'd work for me in a single player game as well so I'll stick with it. Of course, this is restricted to D&D, other systems will have different requirements.

Not dead, moved. At least I think so, don't remember wha tthe addy was when you were a member. But it's still up and running. As for the Witcher, I am looking forward to it with mild anticipation. There's a good chance it's going to suck, but there is also the odd chance that it'll be really good. They will get the benefit of a doubt from me, but at the same time they've taken so long to get this game out that I thought it got cancelled until new info started resurfacing again. Is there even a resemblance of a release date floating around?

Slight spoilers ahead for those that don't want to know what is planned for season 3. Besides, couldn't internet participation mean something like Living Greyhawk or Living Force? Where how players play the game affects how the story in the show plays out.

As with any other thing, you can't judge an entire genre based on what a select sample is contributing to it. Not even when the sample is a majority of contributors. I like the fantasy genre. It has so much potential and there are still lots of things in that genre that haven't been done yet. What they are I can't tell you because they haven't been done. There are a lot of great fantasy writers out there that challenge the borders of the genre with almost every sentence they write. One needs to look no further than Michael Moorcok (stupid language filter) to see an example of that. I will admit that I not overly found of popular fantasy though. I agree that there are a lot of hacks writing in the genre and that a lot of it is just rehashing stories that've already been told in settings that have already been created. That lack of imagination is sad indeed, but it doesn't mean it's a hopeless genre. You just have to look a little harder to find stuff that interests you. (and if you like the stories told in mainstream fantasy, then that's good for you)

I actually find this worrying. The lead designer quitting (or being fired) this close to release can't possibly be a good sign, especially when no one is saying anything as to why he is leaving. Are there other things we don't know about?

That is a great suggestion! :D (of course, my connection has nothing to do with what I posted, I've got no problems in those regards) Edit: Since we are drifting off-topic here, watch me try and steer things back on track. The original poster asked for opinions on some other Sci-Fi shows as well, so I'll continue. X-files is a pretty good show, at least as far as I've seen it. I've only watched the first 4 seasons completely and the odd episode elsewhere. I do intend to catch up on it one day, but it's not at the top of my list atm. The pacing in the show is really slow for the most part, which may mkae episodes feel slow, but it's very deliberate and it works for the show instead of against it for the most part. The style of the show varies greatly from the episodes that deal with random monsters (or similar) to the ones that focus on the overall plotline. The monster-episodes got a bit formulaic and unfortunately the characters are a bit stuck in their respective roles (Scully is always sceptic and Mulder is always right in his guesses). For me the show really shines in the story-episodes where they dig into the conspiracy theories, but from what I've been told these get weaker and weaker as the show progresses. I've heard this is true for the show overall though. Supernatural is in a way very similar to the X-files, only instead of two FBI-agents you've got two hunky brothers. But where X-files had a scientific approach to it's myster solving that made it creepy in a way, Supernatural is taking the horror movie route. Every episode is pretty much a horror movie condensed into 45 minutes (which actually works in the shows favor, the episodes never feel like they're dragging). Arrive, find out about monster, find out how to kill monster, rescue girl (and there's always a girl). Just as with X-files there are a few episodes that deal with an overall plot although these for the most part follow the same formula as the other episodes, just with a few twists. Those episodes have become more and more frequent as the season has passed, so it definitely feels like the overall plot is moving along. In short though, if you like horror movies (not, not slasher movies) you're probably going to like this show.

It's kinda hard not to look at them when they cover then entire screen (or I'm forced to scroll past 5 of them to get to the next post). One picture every here and there is fine, but multiple pictures in several of your posts in a single thread is a bit much. I don't care what the pictures are of, I think you're posting too many of them regardless of content.

Enough with the picture-spamming already. Jorian, for real, multiple pictures in every thread I see you post in is starting to get quite annoying. Especially after people asked you to get back on topic once already.

Babylon 5 is one of the best Sci Fi shows ever to air. If for no other reason that it did what no other show had done before. It had a 5 season story arc all plotted out from the beginning. The story of the show would run through 5 seasons, no more, no less. So if you want a strong story, B5 is fantastic. The special effects and make up can be a bit off-putting at times, if you care about those things, but it's worth overlooking. Stargate SG1 is a very good show. There is a reason it's lasted as long as it has. Most of the episodes are one-offs, especially in the early seasons. The later ones (5 and onwards iirc) the overall story has become more and more important. The actors are good, the writing is ok (sometimes pretty bad, sometimes very good, but mostly ok). The first seasons, the sci fi elements are fairly scarce, but has also become more prominent as they've discovered more about the universe (nowadays, Earth has Spaceships of it's own). Stargate Atlantis is more of the same, although a bit more hardcore Sci Fi, they live in an alien city as opposed to a military bunker and have access to more advanced tech. The characters are a bit uneven, but overall it's still an ok show. Andromeda (now cancelled) was really good during the first two seasons, would probably appeal to a fan of TNG, although I'm not sure since I never was. After that, there was a steady decline in quality and the story-lines become confusing and hard to grasp. The fifth season was really crappy for the first half, but the second half was much improved. Farscape is many's favorite and while it's not mine, it's ok. I hated how they used muppet-like dolls for some aliensabd felt the make up on others was very plastic and unrealistic. The first seasons pretended to have an overarching plot, but it might as well not have since nothing happened with it. It had a problem (for me) with pacing overall in the first two seasons and could at times be a tad dull. It picked up in the third and fourth season when the central plot started to take of for real (actually that started to happen in the second half of season 2 iirc). At the end of it, I finally started to see why people liked it so much. The characters in the show are very well written and have a certain depth to them. And the actors are all very good. I assume BG means Battlestar Galactica (it's more commonly refered to as BSG) so I'll leave that and Firefly out for now.

Well, I hated doing it (hyperspace) the one time I did, so I was quite happy it was the only time I had to. Unique artifacts be damned!

I wouldn't have minded the text adventures so much if two things had happened: The English would have been decent. and the text on every "page" would have been cut in half. There was so much pointless filler (and presented in the aforementioned bad English) that reading a single page felt like a chore. Some of them were better than others. Edit: Was the pinball part totally optional? I only ventured into a black hole once, but that time felt like something I had to do.

It's pretty good. Not the bestest game ever, but worth playing. (you should read the Codex review before reading my comments or part of them will not make sense) It gets very repetetive in the end though, at least it did for me. Fight upon fight upong fight against the Dominator forces after I had the best equipment available for my ship and maxed out all the stats. Probably my own fault for wanting to have as good gear as possible before taking the fight to the enemy, before that I was mostly defending or assisting in liberation efforts. The RTS segments were actually quite fun. I don't like RTS much, but there are a few of them I can stand and this was one of them. They were very easy though, I think only one caused me any real headaches. The text-based quests were pretty bad though. Really bad even. Partly because the english translation wasn't all that, but mostly because they were dull. MCA talked in his Codex interview about not breaking up the action with too much text and these did exactly that. Some were ok, most were really dull (and yes, you could simply not do that type of quests, but the reward was generally pretty good and at times getting quests at all could be difficult). The quests overall were very similar. There was basically 4 different types of quests, and then the text ones and the RTS ones. Which is another reason it felt kinda repetetive in the end.

I just have to get my head around this concept... Hades bought a MMORPG? HADES bought a MMORPG?? I never thought I'd see the day... Maybe hell will freeze over one of these days. With that out of the way, it was very informative. I have a couple of questions: How does character creation work exactly? Do you get feats (at the beginning)? How do you distribute Attribute points? Have you managed to reach a full level? If so, is multi-classing indeed in? How does multi-classing work with the tiered levels? Since it's a game with a monthly fee, do you feel the fee is warranted? What is there to do in the game besides going on quests? If the game wants to have longevity, there needs to be stuff for people to do after they've completed all the quests there is and have reached max level.

The boss at Sony, Ken Kutaragi, has announced that the PS3 will be released world-winde in November. Just in time for christmas, then. Link: http://www.mcvuk.com/newsitem.php?id=846

I did say this was another discussion, but since you mentioned it, I will take it here anyway. Of course, this is a bit moot of they actually charge an additional $5 for media if you want the box, since that's basically my whole argument. But here is why: I don't like physical stuff. If I can get a game and everything I need to play it though digital means only then I'm all happy. I don't want CD-boxes taking up space and I definitely don't want manuals. Not only do I think they waste space in my (tiny) apartment, I also think it's a waste of resources to put stuff on paper and plastic that I don't need. If I desperately want the game on a CD I can just burn it myself and personally think that any game that isn't playable without having to read the manual is designed poorly. So if I was paying the same price for a digital game as I would for a boxed game, not only would I be paying for stuff I don't want, I'd actually be paying for stuff I think shouldn't be produced in the first place. But as I said, this isn't the case here, since apparently they do charge your for the materials used. I never wanted a large discount, just an acknowledgement that the digital product is cheaper to produce. Is it really that popular? Most of the games I've seen use it are those with a European publisher, which mostly means eastern european developers (UFO, Silent Storm, etc). Most US games don't use it, I think. UFO: Aftershock is the only SF game I've installed on my computer.

I've heard good things about the Icemats: http://www.dvdshoponline.co.uk/Mousemats.html I don't have much personal experience with it, but I have a friend who swears by it (he's a hardcore gamer as well, so he's kinda picky).

In fact, StarForce has been cracked in several games. And those that haven't been cracked have had bypasses. Also, not every download = a lost sale. The question is, how many of those discouraged from downloading a game thanks to copy protection such as StarForce are actually buying the game? Is the number high enough to warrant the cost of using StarForce in the first place (which I'm sure doesn't come cheaply). StarForce especially is actually a detriment for a lot of people to buy a game. I know of people that's had their systems messed up by StarForce, enough of them to make me hesitant to ever get a game with SF. I actually like the way the GalCiv developers think and I'm very tempted to buy the game just for that. The fact that they are selling the game via direct download is another plus for me (although I don't like that the digital version costs the same as the boxed one, but that is another discussion).