Spider

Spiritual sequel to System Shock 2. Made by the same developer even, but I think the SS2 liscence belongs to someone else, hence spiritual sequel.

I disagree. I think the Ultimate versions are excellent. I grew up with these characters and love the originals, but the Ultimate versions was a fresh view. And if you don't like the Ultimate versions, then just don't read them. They don't affect the core mythology in anyway. Either way, the Marvel way with Ultimates has got to be better than how DC does things. How many times have they restarted their mythology by now?

Yep. Or I probably saw it, just didn't reflect on what it actualy meant. English not my first language and all (although I usually don't slip up like that it's just that eg isn't as commonly used as, for instance, ie)

No, Age of Apocalypse gives you +100% offense. I suppose the team bonus applies if you create a team from specific eras. Another could be Storm, Wolverine, Colossus and Nightcrawler (the second generation of X-men if you will. Haven't tried it though and the game is uninstalled so I can't check).

storm can put out fires with her whirlwind <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But not build bridges, right? Or did I miss that? I knew she could put out fires (but I had built her up with lightning instead of wind so I'd have to respecialize) but wanted a character that did both. Rogue was good in XL2. I can't say about XL1 since I haven't played that, but Southern Smash wasn't the only thing that did damage. I liked to play her because she was versatile. She wasn't the best tank, but she could hold her own and she had a few complimentary things going on as well (Flight, Heal). I never did get Power Theft to work though.

I thought it was great fun. The controls were a bit awkward (PC version) but that's only to be expected. It was very easy in the beginning though, but it got harder from chapter 3 and onwards. My team was: Cyclops, Wolverine, Iceman and Rogue with Rogue being the character I played (except when I needed the other's powers to solve puzzles). I had Storm instead of Iceman for a long time, but he got swapped in because he could both do bridges and put out fires.

I'm all with you on these three, although I would prefer Syndicate over Syndicate Wars. The building of your company is more interesting than religious zealots to me.

Hades hasn't even played so I don't think he's saying much (other than having learnt his lesson and never touching a Troika game again). I on the other hand loved the First Person view in Bloodlines and think it added a lot to the atmosphere in the game. But it's got to be a non-party based game if it's going to be a RPG. If I have a party I want to be able to see all my characters at the same time.

The next time someone asks why developers (usually) don't officially announce games until very late in the development cycle, I'm going to point them towards this post.

It was a Fox show. It was never renewed once it's original order of nine episodes were done. For those who want to learn more: http://www.tv.com/kindred-the-embraced/sho....html?q=kindred

Exactly. For those interested it's called Kindred: The Embrace. I think it's on DVD even.

There already is TV-series though.

So Pirates! is a RPG but Jade Empire isn't?

6) Units will no longer have separate offensive and defensive stats, instead they'll just have power. (and this is the streamlining that has me the most worried, although it has been said that units can be customized through veterancy upgrades, although to what degree remains to be seen)

If they don't have your IP, how do they know what game to join? Or rather, how will they find your game since there is no list of servers or anything when you play online.

The expansion, SIlent Storm: Sentinels was even better!

It was never my intent to argue that fantasy is the preferred setting. Even with a wide margin. However, 70% vs 27% for second most popular is significantly different from 70% vs 10%. The interesting question however is how many will buy their preferred category exclusively. I have a feeling the oerlap is quite large as well.

This categorization is vastly unfair though. Both post-acop and cyberpunk are sci-fi settings. There are many variations in Fantasy as well (for instance, Star Wars is more a Fantasy setting than a Sci Fi one), so keeping that category together while splitting up sci-fi will produce somewhat skewed results. A better way of looking at it is that sci-fi holds 27% to the 70% of fantasy.

Since you're disputing what people are calling great, then what is your definition of a great game? A game you like? I don't consider FF, Madden or Arcanum great games. The first two is only a matter of taste though, I'm not interested in their type of gameplay so to me they're pretty dull. But I could admit that they are probably top of the line when it comes to production value. So if that's the criteria used, dismissing both Ground Control and Chronicles of Riddick makes no sense. (Arcanum, by the way, is another story. That is a game I do like, but there are far too many issues with it to be called a great game.) Anyway, if we're going with production value and popularity in their genre, how about Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2? Those are European and I think they qualify as great games. Not my style of game, but neither is Madden or FF.

Here goes: Baldurs Gate 1 (including TotSC): 85% (great athmosphere) Baldurs Gate 1 with Tutu: 95% (it no longer takes forever to walk anywhere) Baldurs Gate 2 : 90% Throne of Bhaal : 85% Icevind Dale 1 (including HoW and TotL): 85% (great story) Icewind Dale 2 : 80% (I never was sold on the 3ed hybrid) Planescape Torment : 99% (I'm too biased when it comes to this game) Fallout 1 : 90% (great athmosphere, a bit short) Fallout 2 : 90% (not as great athmosphere, but makes up for it with length) Vampire Bloodlines : 75% (the last part of the game really brought it down as did the slowdowns I suffered) Temple of elemental evil : 55% (the faithfulness to the ruleset is the only redeeming part, the rest was utter crap) Neverwinter Nights : 70% (boring single player campaign, nice animations for it's time) SoU: 75% HotU: 80% KOTOR 1 : 85% KOTOR 2 : haven't played since my computer can't handle it Morrowind: 40% (not an entirely fair judgment, I could only stand it for a couple of hours) Dungeon Siege: 35% (so incredibly boring) Diablo : haven't played Diablo 2 : 70% (addictive as hell) System Shock 2 : haven't played Arx Fatalis : haven't played Gothic : haven't played Gothic 2 : haven't played Soulbringer : haven't played Wizardry 8 : haven't played Sacred : haven't played Arcanum : 75% (great character creation and setting, poor graphics and combat) Jade Empire : haven't played Dungeon Lords : haven't played Deus ex : haven't played Lionheart : 70% (great ideas, poor implementation) Might and magic 9 : haven't played

It is most definitely spelled mystary, at least in this case.

Or maybe IWD3 using the Jefferson engine... Who knows what Feargus bought (he does apparently). I think Interplay owned the fanchise Icewind Dale, meaning no other developer can produce a game with that name. If Obsidian has that franchise now then they are the only ones that can make it. They still have to get it published by Atari though, since they are the only ones allowed to publish D&D stuff. At least that's how I think it works, my knowledge in US copyright law is a bit rusty.

This is oversimplifying things so much it's almost scary. Just because The Elder Scrolls are games that focuses huge worlds it doesn't mean that Bethesda is that limited in their visions. Isn't it possible that they bought the Fallout liscence to actually expand on their reertoire? It isn't unheard of after all, Black Isle did pretty much the same thing when they followed Planescape: Torment with Icewind Dale. I'm not saying Fallout 3 won't be "Morrowind with guns", but I don't think it's right to assume it will be either. There is simply no evidece presented that the game will go either way. I'm just saying that I think Bethesda deserve the benefit of a doubt. They will make changes that may not sit well with all fans, that much can be expected. Then again, the changes Black Isle had planned for Van Buren didn't sit that well with many fans either (such as going full 3D, making the game real-time AND turnbased etc). I personally think FO3 will have a very different focus than Morrowind. I think it will be a lot smaller and more compact and I think it will include actual dialogue. I'm pretty sure it's going to be in some form of real-time (most likely with pause) and maybe in a first person view. These cahnges doesn't necessarilly make it a bad game though. I don't think it's going to be anywhere near the level of the first two, but at least I think there is hope it can still be a nice addition to the series. If it does turn out to be a post-apocalyptical version of The Elder Scrolls, then I'll admit I was overly enthusiastic and that all the naysayers were right. But I am going to wait until there is proof first.