Moatilliatta

Funny. My experience is that people enjoy it when they are young and grow to see it as quite bad, unless you start when you're old in which case your soul is lost forever.

I would rather call it a subset of god games, but really all genres should be seen as independent as they're all to different to be subsets of each other. You can control armies in Mount & Blade and I doubt anybody, possibly excluding people who are insane, would call it a strategy game. There is also the point that the army-control part in all Caesar III was absolutely terrible.

Since when did Caesar III become a strategy game?

I remember Barbarians being my favourite character to play. I don't think that I ever used any specific builds and just put points into skills in whatever way seemed fun, as Diablo 2 is already pretty easy.

Need help finding mods? No, I need help installing the DLC I paid for but which won't install under Vista because Bethesda can't be bothered to update its stuff. Yes, I am still bitter. And yes, I do realise it's not your fault (sorry). I am however rather worried now, because I would like to like Fallout 3 and I'm scared I'm going to be mouthing 'Die Bethesda Scum' over and over again as it installs (under Vista, presumably). I would bet that you could try to install them on a non-Vista machine and then manually move them over to the actual install. I'm pretty sure that Bethesda doesn't update files with their DLCs and as such this aproach should work. Need help finding mods? There is only one mod worth anything.

I personally enjoyed the great interactivity in its romances, I mean like... you could initiate it!

They will proceed with caution whether they are government-surveyed or not as they will have many eyes on them looking for slipups and I presume that scientists want to create names for them in the good sense and not the bad one. I too am not worried.

CoD4 SP does have some cool parts but is also quite short and probably not really worth choosing above something else if you know beforehand that you won't play MP. I can easily say that Bioshock was a very interesting experience for me, but you have to want to look around at the architecture and focus on the story to really enjoy it i.e. it doesn't suit itself to just an action game experience.

So starting your own company is the gamemaking solution to people with zero skills?

a - 1 c - 2 This is the first time I've used all my votes, yay me!

Beta? As in open beta? Any way to still get in? Edit: Aw, I have to buy stuff to get in, there goes my chance.

@ Morgoth It doesn't have an actual release date, but 2008 has been mentioned. Edit: Because Karka came in between.

I believe that I'm locked on to my october game: Red Alert 3.

Isn't the entire idea behind previews that we're supposed to react to them so that we remember the game when it comes closer to being finished? When I say that I'm critical about a game it usually just means that the preview was succesfull in getting me to be interested in what they're doing to the game, and as such they have me put down as someone who will follow the game and look at what happens with it. I'll be following the game all the while swearing at the developers for not making the game be what I want it to be, it's what I do.

He is right that the markets are vastly different, just look at how different consoles sell in America, europe and japan. Similarly different things sell in America and Europe when it come to games. Also you need to get used to Europe being one province when it comes to marketing.

Is this more common that most of us think? I would tend to believe that focusing on making a good middle of the road version would work better and more efficiently than trying to service two kinds of people at the same time.

Not to mention Jazz Jackrabbit 1/2 and Unreal Tournament. Mr. Brandon has a permanent place on my list of people who are definitely awesome.

I'll be very critical of this game unless they show me something which is actually worth playing for, and considering what I find in the article (Arcania: A gothic tale? Oh please.) this isn't gonna be something special.

Actually you're wrong. (I betcha you'd never have guessed that would be my opening remark. ) My argument doesn't rely on emotion like the ones of political conservatives or philosophical conservatives, but rather on the point of my Grue post, if you're wandering about in the darkness and is likely to be eaten by a Grue (make a mistake based on lack of info), then the smartest solution is to find the lightsource (the info that would show that you or I is correct). This is what our established fields of science is based upon and what has brought us the things that you attribute to blind stumbling about in the dark. Once again I shall hold the opinion that we know little of what your theory would lead us into and as such we should not do anything except research possible solutions to our current problems. If research show with a reasonable certainty that we need to restrict our population growth to achieve maximum ahppiness of all existing humans then it is a decision that could be justified, it isn't there yet. As to the second argument, how slow? The current lack of clever people in the west and the burden fo elderly in the exact same place has been introduced slowly and society hasn't really evolved to properly deal with it and as such I can't find the merit in your 'steady does it' argument. And you're right, these ideas have been tried in China (don't know about Japan) and China is a whole different ball of soup as they have a much more severe problem than we will ever have on account of our population already shrinking. I know the feeling as I'm always on here in my free time and as such my brain is both divided and not really willing to think too much. @Gorth: You're assuming that the natural way of things is unlimited growth, it isn't so, as shown by the abysmall birthrates in the west.

Double posting because I can't forget how eerily apropiate this piece of gaming history seems: Sand, Xard and Lady Crimson would totally have been eaten by the Grue.

I'd like to see this point if you believe that you've made it. Edit: Didn't see your edit, but rest of the post still matters. Reducing our population growth could easily affect our economy negatively (we already lack smart people, and we would have an even larger burden of elderly people compared to young productive people) and we don't know if reducing our population through having little to no children will actually produce the desired result. The people born today won't pollute heavily for quite some time (when they start doing stuff like having an extremely expensive and ineffecient car for each family member and similar ****), so any possible benefits would probably lie in the future when for all we know things could be much different. For all we know the damage to the western economies could be directly detrimental to inventing stuff like fusion energy as a reliable source of energy. All I'm saying is that you guys are basing your theory on a lot of guesswork and ignoring the bad sideeffects of reduced population. If we don't know anything then we shouldn't act, basic conservatism (NOT the political "ideology" but rather the idea that you shouldn't act unless you know why you're acting and what your act will bring).

I remember a funny moment when wolf blew someones head off and made some comment that was earily appropiate. They're still not good NPCs as most of them have little to say that will matter and those that do will still be silent for most of the game, essentially the same problem as fallout has. The only reason why theyr felt good was that it was more of a RTT than a RPG and as such it was a bonus, you have to know the individual relations and plan your teams with metagame knowledge (or just be lucky) to really have anywhere near as much as even Fallout 2. Edit: Also Fidel's maniacal laughter while psychoing was awesome.

That wasn't my point. My point was that your argument for trying it was not a good argument, as simply not knowing whether it will provide a good or bad result isn't a reason for trying it, as my extreme example showed. edit: edited for friendlyness.

Actually the NPCs only come off as real if you somehow mix them in a way so that they'll actually talk to each other. Most of the NPCs have little to say in most situations.

Reminds me of Deep Ecology (especially the extremists). All of these people forget that nature has little worth in and of itself and most (if not all) of its worth is given by relations to humans.