Nightshape

Oh please it's hardly as bad as Halo!

LOL. EGO really is in my opinion the best of both worlds, as a framework to build upon, it's dynamic, and extremely modular, it also easy to use. In terms of technology, it's the best I have ever seen.

Have you looked into using Reflection?

It's already been surpassed by Gears of War 2. It's art is much more striking than the ever boring jungle-military-camp stuff that Crysis displayed. The strength of CryEngine2 is the way it can render very large and good looking outdoor forrest areas, whereas Unreal3.x is unsurpassed when it comes to smaller indoor and streetlike levels. But U3 has outrun CryEngine2 a bit lately with its sweet cinematic effects, animation and physics system. Realtime ambient occlusion, can you even imagine just how friggin' cool that is? But ID Software's Tech5 is definently going to be a killer aswell, itll be able to render these huge and very detailed landscapes with no loading times at all. Not like FO3 for example, wher you can clearly see the game swapping between different LODs and stutter a bit as new content is loaded. *YAWN* EGO is where it's at!

I wish I knew, but I did certainly make myself heard in regards to the flaws in Viking, to one of the designers atleast...

It suffers from all the same flaws that Oblivion had. To me personally it looks sub-par, They really have supplied bare minimum as far as I can see. but graphics ain't everything... Infact it's unimportant, well until someone thinks it looks good, but seriously, it's the gameplay that makes FO3 so much fun. The environments, and characters could be better, but they don't need to be better, what is does the job well enough... But I'm not going to be the one saying "WOW what a pretty looking game", it's fugly.

Now then, now then, lets face it, the artwork, and animation is still ****.

... *oops* messy :D

Yeea.. except tiny insignificant things like how they couldnt get it to render at 1280x720(xbox360 standard resolution), so they had to lower the resolution thus making it look like a grainy migraine-inducing smudge? Sometimes your ignorance frustrates me. I believe Kaftan's comment was 100% accurate. Nothing surprising here, it was a simple tradeoff, a price the devs probably had to pay to maintain a consistent 30fps. Several console games are rendered at a lower resolution and then upscaled to 720p/1080p. Not what I was infact getting at... Actually I'm more interested in why... Stating the obvious is what frustrates me. Also, there is no standard resolution to my knowledge, only what the image is to be displayed at, and thus it's up or down scaled as required. Kaften has made the mistake of complaining about something that he knows nothing about, if his point is to say "High Spec PC's are better than Consoles", then indeed they are, they always have been. Actually I'd wager the reason is more to do with memory than actual hardware restrictions, but meh... I'm offering a reason, and that reason is DEFINATELY why GTA 4 has the fedelity of a **** stained piece of paper.

Yeea.. except tiny insignificant things like how they couldnt get it to render at 1280x720(xbox360 standard resolution), so they had to lower the resolution thus making it look like a grainy migraine-inducing smudge? Sometimes your ignorance frustrates me.

But BG was more accessable BECAUSE of all those things.

How is fable 2? How is casteration? Exactly... THEY REMOVED FISHING MAAAAAN!

Cyber FTW.. ATFW?! *Shakes head and cries*

Or realises it's a steaming pile of ****!

The good old days of niche rpg's being aimed at niche markets are over. Get with the program, it's all about the mass market, why on earth do you guys think casual games are so popular (it's because ANYONE, even ya gran, can play 'em). Mass Market = More Sales, you'll get the odd gem which has been funded thanks to some mass market pile of crap, that's just the way it is, it's the way things have been going for a while. I hate the attitude personally, this hollywood style of games development, but damnit... People are morons.

Ahhh many hours spent drawing maps on graph paper and hastily hunting dungeons for food, with the book at my side... Oh hail be the days of RPG glory LMFAO.

... It's not exactly 2D... Regardless, the art direction is consistant, but it's a horrible look that I personally cannot abide, I also think WoW look dreadful... So *shruggs* it's mostly a matter of opinion. WoW looks cartoony because thats the only way they could get it to keep running on systems that were not "tricked out" games. It's probably what keeps people playing because even with new expansions they don't really have to upgrade to keep going. I was aware of this anyway.

Probably I am just too cynical, however, I will say that allowing a gamer to simply continue in free play after the main quest has finished, doesn't seem to me to be very much in line with something that the developers wanted to do but didn't have the time for. What is there to do? Just don't stop the game when the quest is done. If gamers want to keep playing in a gameworld in which the main story arc is essentially "over" that can be totally up to them. As long as they don't complain that the gameworld isn't as responsive to them anymore, there's no good reason not to let them continue. Obviously in a linear game like half life or Deux Ex, there is no point to continuing past the ending because there is no "world" beyond the linear story. However in a sandbox game like Fallout 3 there is a huge world beyond the story and Fallout 3 even sells itself on that fact. To me, personally, it seems suspiciously like a carrot that was specifically and intentionally left out of the game just so it could be added in a DLC as a bit of extra incentive for people to purchase said DLC. Even if somebody wasn't really interested in the new DLC content, they might be more willing to shell out money for the ability to play through the world without worrying about the ending of the main story arc. Especially with all the potential mods on the inevitable horizon. But, like I said, I am just probably horribly cynical about things like that. There are obviously reasons, naturally it could very well be that they saw the chance to make some money, it's also just as likely there is some technical reason, or some other reason, in this respect I see why you're cynical, but I am sure there is a valid reason. Yes, I do believe making money is a valid reason, not one I like, but just as valid as any other.

... It's not exactly 2D... Regardless, the art direction is consistant, but it's a horrible look that I personally cannot abide, I also think WoW look dreadful... So *shruggs* it's mostly a matter of opinion.

I never said they were any good... They both suck, but the art direction for Diablo III is s***

It's just that Diablo in the past has always gritty, Diablo III has very very different art direction. beauty in games doesn't make a game good, much as with women, the good looking one's tend to often be the most shallow.

Been playing X-Com alot.... It's fun and challenging, they don't make 'em like that anymore... CRY HAVOK, WE CAN'T HAVE HARD FAILURE STATES ANYMORE THAT WOULD BE SILLY!

It's not so much logic as having been sat in a meeting when DLC has been discussed. Alot of stuff does end up as "We'll try that with DLC" because it's outside of a games core focus, or core X. I mean really, to put this in perspective, why didn't obsidian do the overland map for NWN 2 OC huh? I hate having to buy an expansion just for stuff which should have been in there on release... It's an idiotic assertion.

DLC content tends to be stuff that falls under the banner of "We really wanted to do this, but time didn't exactly allow for it". It also tends to extend a products life cycle and thus less trade in's of said products occur as a result. Complaining that such content should have existed in the original product is a misunderstanding of the restrictions placed on development teams during a products development. It's extremely rare, infact you could say that it's never happend that the content which is intended from the initial stages of development actually makes it into the final product something is always cut to allow for a more important feature. So in all fairness DLC is the addition of content which wouldn't have seen light of day if not for DLC itself, or expansions etc... To argue that DLC is actually content which was missed for any other reason is stupid, infact saying they left it out as a simple matter of choice is down right wrong. Plus nobody makes anyone purchase the extra content. FO3 would most likely still be in development if certain initially planned content wasn't cut.

It does if you define a game as 'true 3D' as I did. No fully 3D world uses sprites rather then 3D models. Well if you use that strange definition then there are no true 3D games, because they all use sprites to some degree. "2.5D" or "pseudo-3D" refers to games like those in the Build engine that aren't 3D at all. The world in games like Daggerfall or SkyNET don't pass for 3D, they are 3D. Chock full 'o polygons 'n ****. Well sure, just like some folks like to say that Fallout 3 isn't a "true Fallout game" you can tell yourself that games that make heavy use of sprites aren't "true 3D games", but in reality the games mkreku mentioned use a 3D engine. Hell Kitty is correct.