Wrath of Dagon

I've already said Or what Starwars said. Some of you might think it's hype, but those of us who follow AoD forums have seen plenty of evidence, and we believe it. Most developers only give you the marketing line, ITS actually shows you how the game works. If you don't believe them, you can try the demo and see for yourself, no need to endlessly argue about this.

VGA is fine for 720P, which is what my TV is. Being a nice plasma, it still kills my 1600x1050 monitor, even with much lower res.

It's HD, but only has component or VGA. VGA is supported by my video card. If it does support the controller, I'll try it, thanks. Edit: You misread it, it says if the game supports a controller, it has to support the 360 controller, all games being able to work with controller only would be an onerous requirement.

You are aware that you can use the TV as a secondary monitor and use the 360 gamepad with the PC, right? I'm not sure if DAOPC will support the game pad, if it's not designed for it it's a pain in the ass. It might be viable if you don't have to use the KB&M at all, I'd just have to get a really long VGA cable that everyone will stumble over, so probably won't bother.

I prefer to do exploration in third person, and I like moving my character with a controller instead of using click to move. Plus it would look better on my big screen TV than on my monitor. However, combat trumps that, so I guess I'll get the PC version at least initially.

This just in, console combat has been gimped: http://daforums.bioware.com/forums/viewtop...m=135&sp=45

So they are charging the same for AoD, as others games that actually have high production values. $25 for the dl version is far more reasonable and quite frankly appropriate. Even then I only paid $19 AUD for Mount & Blade an indie title that AoD would hope to match, in both quality and success. As I've already explained, AoD is offering a lot more than just production values, things that mainstream games don't offer. If production values are the most important thing to you, buy any random EA/Activision game, don't bother with AoD. The reason the boxed version is $50 is because they want to have a really good color printed manual, which is quite expensive, especially in low volume, so they're just recovering cost.

I'm pretty sure you'll be able to turn the blood off.

I'm sure they'd love if it was that successful, they expect it to be a niche hardcore game though.

Btw, last I heard planned prices are $25 for download and $50+shipping for a box with a really nice colored manual. I suppose that could change depending on what distribution arrangements are made. You don't have to spend anything to find out if the game is worth it as there will be a demo. Also it doesn't make sense that indie games should be automatically cheaper because their budgets are less, since they also expect to sell a lot fewer games. I'm sure they've put as much time into the game per person as any mainstream developer.

I think everyone's missing the point, and it's not that expectations are lower. Indeed, why would I buy a game that I was expecting less from than most other games? The expectations are actually much higher, but these expectations are choices and consequences, different ways to play according to your build, and tactical and challenging combat. No one expects technically cutting edge graphics, because a) It's not a priority to people following this game b) There's no way to do it on a 0 budget, or even on a huge budget is forementioned priorities are also fulfilled.

I can run all my games under W7/64, some of them did crash as they did under Vista, but I think it's because my graphics card is overheating. Edit: A lot of the older game compatibility will depend on whether the graphics driver works with the game, rather than W7 itself.

If Vista was a success, and came in 64 bit only, it wouldn't be an issue right now.

Banned in Australia again. Here's what ESRB has to say about it: http://www.esrb.org/ratings/synopsis.jsp?Certificate=27163

Then, have you got any idea whats on their mind? Because this is beyond weird. We don't have any ****ing money!!!!

Might as well go for 64 bit, not that it'll do any good as all developers will be limited by having to support 32 bit for years to come.

You mean like the very successful uprisings against the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe?

Oh, thanks, I think I missed that because I posted at the same time as he, so the subsequent discussion was irrelevant.

I think that was more of a rationalization for his getting cold feet, politically it didn't make any sense since that was his one chance to get rid of Churchill. Edit: May be the drugs he was taking kicked in. Some of the stuff he supposedly said was just weird.

Germans attacked in June. And no, Russians weren't about to attack Germany at that time: http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/208/108/lang,en/

I still don't understand whether recruit and veteran are tied into the difficulty setting or completely independent of it.

Certainly Germany had many chances to if not outright win, at least greatly improve its chances of winning. For example, had they not inexplicably stopped their advance for several days at Dunkirk, they could've annihilated the British Expeditionary Force (as everyone including Churchill expected) and knocked Britain out of the war. There were also many blunders in Russia, e.g. I believe at Kursk hitler delayed the offensive against Von Mannstein's advice.

I'm against locked difficulty levels, if that's what this is. It's pretty presumptious of developers to assume people will play their game more than once.

When Oblivion came out, it was pretty much alone among open world RPG's, which I believe explains the high scores (Gothic is barely known in the US).

Everyone's getting out of AP's way, what luck, Obs better not delay it.