Wrath of Dagon

If you want better combat, play Half-Life 2. If you want a better RPG, play just about anything.

Hey, I don't yell, I just don't understand how so many people miss the lousy quality of this game. Does repeating the same barren planet 35 times and claiming you're exploring the galaxy give no one a clue?

We know ammo is unlimited, but what about health? I don't think regenerating health is a good idea for this kind of game, as we're discussing in DX3 thread in Computer and Console. Scrounging for healthpacks during a mission isn't realistic, so I would suggest being given a certain number of healthpacks before the start of each mission, and you wouldn't be able to use a healthpack while in combat. You'd still have the problem of an in-game explanation of how healthpacks work, but heck, it's a game.

It just sets off alarm bells that this might really be an accessible shooter with token RPG elements, but who knows, they might implement it well.

Difficulty level with autohealing only affects individual battles. What happens in one battle has no bearing on the next battle. However if you have limited healing resources per game level, you have to be careful about expending too much of it in any one battle, and thus may have to rethink your whole approach. Sure, you can still take the careful approach even without incentive from the game, but then you're not really competing against the game, which is kind of the point. With the ability to quick save and quick load, are you ever really competing against the game? If the game is hard, then people compensate by saving and loading more frequently. Kill a guy without taking damage? Save! And so on. What is frustrating is that the end of a level becomes impossible to complete because you have no health and there are no medkits around, but you just barely made it through some tough parts. Time to start it all over then I guess. It's a double edged sword, and don't really care one way or the other. If I had to choose I'd probably choose a slow regen. I do that a lot. So what, the point is I have to take out each enemy carefully, even if I have to try multiple times. I'm not saying make the game frustrating, I'm saying make it so alternate paths and taking the entire level into consideration has an incentive. I think the point you're making about low health is more valid for shooters, in a game like DX you have plenty of opportunity to avoid that kind of situation so long as you don't just use brute force, which is much of the fun. And slow regen just makes your stand around and wait when in low health, which is the least fun solution IMO. I hated when I kept having to do that in Oblivion.

I don't think it needs to be that complex, though personally I don't think there's such a thing as too complex, so long as it's not confusing. The main point is that you need to be careful in each battle, so instead of taking on 5 enemies in a row, may be hack the turret or sneak through the vent instead, or find some cover from which you can snipe them efficiently.

Difficulty level with autohealing only affects individual battles. What happens in one battle has no bearing on the next battle. However if you have limited healing resources per game level, you have to be careful about expending too much of it in any one battle, and thus may have to rethink your whole approach. Sure, you can still take the careful approach even without incentive from the game, but then you're not really competing against the game, which is kind of the point.

The real problem with regenarating health for me is that it allows you to take a lot more chances during combat. You can run and gun, and so long as you have a sliver of health left, you're fine. Which is OK if the objective is just to survive each individual battle, but not if the obective is to properly approach the entire situation, as it should be in this kind of game.

I assume the game mechanics will be different from the other games. I don't know, canon isn't very important to me, but I guess a lot of people are quite concerned about it. As far as consequences in IW, when I refused to kill Paul Denton for the Illuminati, they started sending their Elite Troopers after me. I think you can also agree to work with the Templars, but I don't know what that does. Other than that, I didn't notice much.

They have biomechanical augmentations, so may be tiny internal robots that repair your tissues? I think those kinds of experiments are being conducted now.

It had a fairly gentle learning curve, it did get harder though, especially on the high difficulty setting.

People only say IW is bad because it's not exactly like the first one. Evaluated on its own or compared to any contemporary game or any game made since then, it's a great game. I only hope AP will be as good. This new one though, they're only planning to spend 2 yrs on it, I don't see how you make a great game in that amount of time. Plus this regenerating health thing makes it sound like they'll make a run and gun shooter and slap the DX name on it. I'll reserve my judgment until I get more info though.

Can't wait.

Loved the first game, the second wouldn't run on my Xbox because of some horrendous bug they didn't catch. Was really looking forward to the third one until I found out they made it more "accessible", which means take out a lot of the stuff that made the first one good and make it into Gears of Duty in Arms. Third person cover, regenerating health, less realistic iron sights, lots of gore, in-game advertisement. The reviews have also been fairly negative. Still, I'll probably try the demo once it's out.

No, the more realistic, the more awesome, so long as it's still a game of course. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?optio...5&Itemid=95

What amazes me is that any nutcase can start a website attacking a game and it immediately get picked up by every gaming website out there, because obviously gamers love being defensive. I should try that, think of all the money I'd make from clicks!

The 10 point grading system for games isn't really linear. Most critics give a 7 to an average game, not a 5. The 5 point scale seems to be more linear, with 2.5-3 being average. I think that's just how scores developed over time. So many games getting above a 9 is pretty ridiculous, and it's hard not to suspect that something nefarious is going on. I blame the Halo 2 review, that's the first time I noticed something seems to be out of whack.

How reviews really work: http://sorethumbsblog.com/post/47555759/gamingjournalism3

Yes, and Ion Storm Austin. Two Thief games in all.

An interview with Emil Pagliarulo : http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3775...ritage_the_.php

No, because you normally can't look for healthpacks while in combat. OK, that can be an interesting game mechanic, but it doesn't have to be in every game. AP will provide other stuff for you to fiddle with. Overheating gauge is kind of like reload, just to limit your rate of fire and prevent you from spraying bullets all over the screen without aiming. I didn't have any problems with it in PS or Mass Effect.

Yeah, I agree with the OP, in most shooters ammo being limited is almost meaningless. It does make for a decent reward though.

It's more interesting to analyze, I'll give you that.

She leaked the knowledge, and she knew what could happen, so I'd say she betrayed them, just a matter of semantics though. Edit: Also, remember that Kreia thought Atris would replace her as the betrayer, so her actions have to be seen in that light.

Yes she did: