Starwars

I'd rather see more new projects (like the Banner Saga) in the future rather than sequels and re-makes, but I wouldn't scoff at a Darklands re-make/sequel.

Best of luck, what a bummer it's been to see so many people go.

Best of luck George, really enjoyed the work you put down in MotB and DS3!

The hospital ward I work at had some patients with the Calici virus a couple of months ago. Was pretty anxious to go to work but managed to keep from getting sick.

Is that the one in the sorta sideroom? If so, yes... But I did beat him on Hardcore though after a few tries. It's lucky that he seems to have fairly low hit-points since he hits like a truck and it's a fight in an enclosed area. Mirror Image coupled with Geometry of Annihilation as Reinhart worked well if I remember correctly. I still found the final boss of the DLC to be the hardest though (still haven't beat it on Hardcore). A lot of it because it's a real endurance fight with not a lot of room for mistakes, sorta similar to one of the first Jeyne fights (the one which everyone complaints about). I liked the DLC fight better though in the sense that I found it easier with the overview of things, it's bone-hard but you can most often tell what kills you. In the Jeyne fight, there can be so much going on that I just lose visual track of what the hell is happening at times.

Having one's name on a title screen as being the person who presents the game is not necessarily an indicator of one's current popularity, especially when the game in question is over a decade old and one's only game that could even loosely be called an RPG in the last decade is the Xbox version of A Bard's Tale. I haven't played NV yet (It's on my to do list. Eventually.) but I'm not certain why 'the developers of Alpha Protocol' would be considered a bad thing. That was a thoroughly good game, with absolutely unparalleled levels of cause and effect to decisions made. The only downsides are the bugs, and since (as Mr Fargo kindly pointed out) QA is a publisher side of the fence dealio, that's not really on Obsidian. I think the Fargo quote goes a bit far towards the "fight the good fight, support the devs, publishers are evil" here. The publishers do QA and test the game out but it's still up to Obsidian to fix bugs and plan out the development well in the first place. Publisher support is obviously crucial, but Obsidian are the ones developing the game with all that entails. As far as Alpha Protocol goes, it is not a game that is viewed very positively generally speaking. And by that I mean that you'll find a lot of genuine enthusiasm among certain crowds, and it's easy to see that as a case where people have come around to like the game. But if you step outside those particular circles, there are many people who view it as a downright terrible game. I don't agree myself but there you go. Also, Volourn is Volourn.

And more importantly, on what difficulty?

I think the whole child-killing business bothers me mostly because I think I'm somewhat of a continuity nut when it comes to the "inner rules" of a game. It bothers me that I could kill off everyone in the game world, but the children are immortal. And it bothers me anymore that there is a notion that child-killing is absolutely wrong, but blowing away innocent people is alright as long as they are adult. But I don't think it's even that much about the children in particular, I could count the times I've killed children in the old Fallouts on one hand I think (and that's during the course of a *lot* of replays during the years) it bothered me a lot in Fallout 3 as well that there were certain characters who were unkillable for no reason at all (well, that Bethesda couldn't design the game in a way that allowed for their death of course, but I mean in the context of the game world itself). This is in a game that is supposed to be pretty much about ultimate player freedom. It bothered me a lot in Skyrim also. It does not bother me in well... I dunno, Mass Effect for example because the rules for the game are clear. You can't attack anyone you wish in this game.That's fine. I have no problem with that. But if a game allows me to attack anyone I wish, then clearly I would expect for those NPCs to be able to die also.

True. Better we bury this and just go for the publisher model, eliminate all alternatives. Especially the ones relying on people being generous... I mean yuck. Taking chances? That's disgusting. No, thank god we have exciting projects like Baldurs Gate remakes.

The kickstarting madness continues: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1613260297/shadowrun-returns

I really liked the atmosphere in Stonebridge, would've loved to explore that in a a "classic RPG" where you could enter houses and so forth. Feels too static for a town within the context of this game.

A bit off-topic here, butI think in terms of "emotional impact" (if we define it for a moment where you actively react to something in a game) it's often the smaller things that get to me for some reason. I mean, I love the companions of Planescape: Torment. But what was it that created a little lump in my throat? It was Ingress, running around the Hive being afraid to accidentally enter any portals. For some reason, that's always what I think of when I see PS:T mentioned somewhere. I don't know what that proves except that I think it takes very little for anything to potentially "get to you", it just needs to resound with... something inside you.

Holy hell, haha. I'd love to play a "classic" Larry game again, those were great silly fun. EDIT: Goddamn, a remake? That's too bad.

If I replay a RPG, I almost always explore the other options on replaying. Replayability (if we define it as unique content per playthrough) is something I really cherish, so I really loved it in New Vegas where you could really create a character concept, roll with it and end up having very different experiences each time around. My enjoyment really varies though. Most of Bioware's games (well, many games overall) really feels like they are written to be experienced as a good character, and the "evil" path feels slapped on and often petty. If we take Mask of the Betrayer, most of what you can do is still really Chaotic Evil stuff, being a huge jerk. But it works oh-so-much better than most other story-based RPGs because the story actually makes sense when playing it that way also. It doesn't feel like an afterthought.

The DLC is good, adds a fair amount of length to the game. It's not like the New Vegas DLCs though where each one was pretty different in gameplay and theme. DS3 DLC feels like more of the same and fits right in with the main campaign. It has some good improvements, in my opinion the most welcome one being more open areas. It's also pretty goddamn hard on Hardcore and there are fights I have not been able to beat yet there. If you didn't like the main campaign of DS3, then the DLC certainly won't change your mind. But if you enjoyed the gameplay and want more, it's a good investment I think.

I remember when I was a kid and played Civilization. That game definitely "educated" me in some ways, obviously not in terms of history chronologically speaking, but it opened my eyes to various civilizations, buildings, the wonders and so forth. I can't think of any games that actively awakened my interest in a very specific culture as such though. There have been occassions where I've looked up something briefly, just to see how they would compare to the game, but nothing really deeper than that I think. Popular culture though? Yes, I've gotten into a lot of that stuff (books, movies and so forth) because of games.

Yeah. I guess the character itself actually isn't that bad in retrospect, he even kills his half-brother. But I dunno, I think his seeking redemption gets somewhat lost in the film. It doesn't feel genuine enough, he should've been more haunted, more broken. I don't really feel his plight. And part of that may just be that it's a character that just looks *fabulous* no matter what the situation. Even if he's covered in dirt, he always looks oh-so-heroic and beautiful. I think it drags the film down overall. It's obviously a *very* stylized look at that period of time, it's just that the more "hollywood feeling" parts of the film doesn't really do the film any services.

You can open the inventory directly with 'F' I believe.

Re-watched the director's cut of King of Heaven. It's a good film but I think there are a number of things that keep it from really being excellent. Some characters, most notably Guy de Lusignan and Reynald something something, are just set up way too much as the villains. Guy in particular is just overtly evil, way too much of a moustache twirler. In contrast, Balian feels way too much like the classicaction-hero. These characters in particular could've really used some... well, I guess more grey overall. It works better in the overall conflict between the Christians and the Muslims, where both sides feel humanized and the film doesn't push you to care for one or the other. The guy who plays Saladin is especially excellent. And of course, it is a visually great movie. It's like watching a constant stream of beautiful paintings. The soundtrack is also excellent. It's a good film, especially in the visual sense. But I could've done without the overtly good/evil characters.

I think I like Reinart the best to play. Pretty unusual playstyle and pretty damn hard at times if you play on Harcore. Lucas is also surprisingly fun to play, again, on Hardcore. Didn't expect to like him much with the sword style but since he has almost only melee attacks, you have to really be on your toes on the hardest mode.

I stopped playing around the time you start getting involved with the Geth and Quarians. There are times when this game is fun and engaging but it's just...errgh. When I first played ME2 I could have fun with it despite some obvious cracks in the storyline and some stupid stuff. But in ME3, the good parts of the game can no longer hold back the stupidity and how implausible some of it feels. Even if it's popcorn entertainment, I can't just flat out ignore everything. And then you have the missions that are obviously multiplayer maps, the goddamn horrendous space exploration, and the lovely fetch quests. I'm fine with people liking these games but I can't for the life of me understand just how many things they get a pass on in reviews. Specifically stuff like the fetch quests. They should be slammed for including stuff like that, it's *horrendous*. I think the real killer for me though is that I don't find the characters interesting anymore generally speaking. The returning cast is like... It's nice to see some of them but I mean, even though I like Garrus... I know him now. It's not particularly interesting to data-mine him as a companion anymore because he was in the other games. Newly included beefcake is a really boring character and EDI is just... no.

I haven't tried Tropico 4 but Tropico 3 is basically a prettier and easier version of Tropico 1 I'd say. And from what I hear, Tropico 4 is basically an upgraded version of Tropico 3. The first game is my fav amongst the ones I played. That said, even though I think the Tropico 3 is way too easy, it's a pretty pleasant game to play. Excellent little time-waster with great atmosphere, one of those games you tend to start up every now and then to have some fun with.

I must admit that I find this setup a bit... strange. I mean, cool to see cooperation by two companies and all. But what exactly would it mean for development? Since Fargo has some original key people on-board already and what I assume a fairly clear vision of the game (since he seems to have thought about the design a lot even before the kickstarter)... Are there gonna be OEI designers on the game as well or are they just handling the technical side? It would be cool to see the game done in the Onyx engine. But it'd be fun to know what exactly the partnership would mean for the game since the asking price is fairly high.

I recommend retrying the game on the hardest mode once you complete it. I think it makes the main game a great deal more exciting, though I had to turn down the difficulty to normal when doing the DLC. Plus, the characters are different enough to play from one another and it's fun to explore a new playing style.

I can't say that I'm particularly excited for this, just feels like a cash-grab to me. I don't think these games call for a makeover or "enhanced edition" or whatever. They are what they are, you can still play them just fine on new computers and so forth. Sequels, re-makes oh my...