Gizmo

I never found NOLF to buy... but I have Nolf 2 ~And FO3 reminds me a lot of it. I often do. Why exactly? and if I may ask... What distinction do you have between an RPG and an Adventure title? See, I can not figure out why Oblivion has a name for your PC, BG1 & 2 have names and it makes sense ~Do you pretend that you were born in Candle Keep and have a childhood friend in Imoen? [that's not supposed to be the least bit sarcastic or joking at your expense ~its a serious question]. When I play Baldur's ~Any Infinity game, I create a character, a name (after a while I may even fill in the Biography ), but that PC is not Me in Faerun. I don't pretend to be Xan or Imoen or Montaron... I look at them and extrapolate the behavior for each and every one of them, including the PC. Some do seem to play as 'having the wizards power', I never understood the draw... Rather, I always contemplate... How would this wizard with these abilities react to that person/creature speaking in that way about that subject. And I usually choose what option I have that's closest to the mark. *That's not too difficult at all in Fallout They were pretty good at in-character replies. The game Arx Fatalis comes close to you [the player] being the PC, but stops short as the PC is fully voiced in some clever ways.

If you truly recognize it as brilliant for some reason... yesMy post made the assumption of brilliance a given, in those examples. If it wasn't brilliant, then it wasn't. (but in this case it was ). Agreed. It does indeed make sense... and someone else may even choose to reiterate it. (But I'll put it another way myself... Look at the link in my SIG, called Ground Zero. Those guys got no direct pay for their hobby, yet it got them all jobs. )

I do, and so they are, but I at least acknowledge the reality of a sliding scale in this regard. No. No, it isn't. You don't make any sense. ie. If BIO were to no longer exist tomorrow it wouldn't make BG2 any less of a success just because BIO went belly up. Plus, art is a lot different games since the cost of making art is more of a matter of time spent by the artist unlike games which actually cost real money to make. Your analogy, therefore, is weak. No artist would ever have said that . For one thing what time they spend is not spent on something else (like other commercial endeavors), and also Art materials cost a hell of a lot of money, even a single brush can cost $120 by itself. This is rtaher poor reasoning as, say, if only 5 people experience what a lacklustre statement to make. Even indie developers need an audience. Or they might as well just make games for free and not pretend being professionals ie. don't charge for their games at all. The moment you charge for the privlege to play your product is the moment you have to expect to at least go even or the product is auto fail as it tells you and everyone else that not enough people want to play it and you overestimate the number of people who want your game. I agree with that first quote, some would consider it a success for having done it ~period. Same as if they'd climbed a mountain together and returned home alive and in good spirits (and with memories that they'd keep their whole lives). You would ask "Brilliant to who"? If I create something brilliant and my neighbor asks "what is it?", and then says, "oh" and continues sweeping his deck... his opinion affects nothing about my design. If one person creates a brilliant contraption and five million people snicker and laugh at it for being foolish in their opinions... that does not affect the design nor deface its brilliant design. The amazing fact is that if even one person recognizes the brilliance of a thing~ that's enough, even if it was only the person who did it. (but even more amazing... Even if the creator did not understand it themselves ~it could still be Brilliant to others... Just look at Frank Frazeta's incredible works).

There are thousands of brilliant starving artists, and (and plenty of not so brilliant starving ones). There are also too many non-skilled artists IMOJO ~It has come to pass that ugly art is all the rage, and galleries are filled to bursting with the stuff.[not so unlike the video game shelves these days]. As for the ones that make it (on merit)... That's fantastic, and usually well deserved. I never played HL2 ~though I loved Portal. I also only ever play Diablo 2 single player.

I didn't catch the context where this was said... but TC often [more often than not] means 'Total Conversion' *edit: I just read back several posts... and it looks like it does mean 'topic creator' Who plays an RPG to play as themselves? Personally I could hardly care about gender choice. All that matters is the story and the gameplay mechanics. If the story centers around a woman, then changing the gender type and name is not enough to make it center around a man ~and vice versa. A game designed like that would be a weak effort at best (insulting at worst). What if the game was set in the Vietnam war... about combat pilots... about tunnel rats... There are cultures whose myths consider only woman as magic users ~what then? Should men complain that they're not allowed to play a mage? I consider this a moot complaint about a non issue and games like Planescape, Sea of Evil & Arx Fatalis prove it well enough. No game is a perfect match for everyone, and if a person is not capable of playing an assigned character, then that is not the game for them. No one has to if you did come back. Still, 'post & run' tactics are pretty pointless and a waste of your time... Its certainly non-constructive, and leads nowhere. (But everyone knows that you will return to read your replies ~anonymously).

I disagree with that one. Any game designed from the get-go as a compromising "crowd pleaser" is usually mediocre [like FO3] or occasionally utter crap. If a game design is brilliant, but the current crop of consumers cannot appreciate it, that does not reflect bad on the game IMO, and is no different than kids preferring to eat paste over p

I'd like to see Myth 4, on par with this Dawn of War 2 concept; though the one thing they should absolutely never ~ever consider doing, is DOW's squad based units; Keep it Myth.

I remember continuing characters over from one game to the next in the Gold Box titles, (something truly lost in today's games). To build up a PC from lowly lvl1 to ah... (some really high level) over the course of 4 or five games (heh... I even ran a few through Hilsfar and returned). I'll play through NWN2 then MOTB. Given the choice of Witcher or MOTB which is lighter fare? (I'll likely play the light one first, as I won't have much free time until after October). v v | | Thanks | | v

Is it worth it to play through NWN2 first? In all these years I've never played past the edge of the first town.

And here I was feeling generous with the inclusion of several titles into the "good" list What havent you played on the good side? Funny that. I own, (but have not played), Witcher and MOTB. I bought MOTB early last year because of the positive opinion on the Codex, but I haven't got around to it yet. I do not own Final Fantasy (any), or Bloodlines, or Gothic 1. I also don't have Drakensang, Kotor or Jade Empire. I don't currently have Arcanum, but I used to.

The Myth series is fantastic. @ RPGmasterBoo ... Of those that I've played, I agree with your sig. (though a few on the 'Playable' list, I'd call 'good')

[quote name='H

I am. I have nothing against them personally, but I've not liked a single game of theirs since they retired the infinity engine.

Bethesda made Fallout 3 multicore aware! *But not really only technically I don't really know much about it, but I gather that some effects are offloaded (or can be if so configured). I never saw any performance gains for dual or quad core presence. Pretty much.I had mentioned Arx Fatalis as being less demanding (of resources) than Oblivion.

Fullscreen is less demanding than Windowed mode. If you are running a fullscreen game designed for a Pentium 2, on a modern quad core system ~You have load(s) to spare. Sadly I'm limited to two cores. That's still twice what the game would usually expect. Windows is multicore aware, but most software is not, and only wants one core ~and Windows happily runs two at a time across both or can be set to run one app on a specific core.

Fullscreen is less demanding than Windowed mode. If you are running a fullscreen game designed for a Pentium 2, on a modern quad core system ~You have load(s) to spare.

Zork is a great game because it doesn't require any graphics. Imagine Zork 2010 ~text based and done in pure assembly... but with the same system requirements as Fallout 3. (or ASCII graphics perhaps) The point of those games is pure imagination and response. Even drawing the dragon as cool as a pro illustrator is still their vision of a dragon and not the player's. (also though... Zork was designed for the early Personal Computers ~IE 4.MHz and a fiddling Kilobyte amount of ram).

Did I? You said Arx is less demanding(machine wise), but it really doesn't matter in this day and age. It's a fun game, but that really isn't a selling point anymore. Its a point of admiration though... Its always best to do the relative most with the relative least, and its easier on the machine... See, you can play Arx Fatalis while rendering out a batch of 3d frames in Vray, or another renderer. You can play it on a 3 year old budget laptop too. *And like I said, Arx Fatalis shipped in 2002.

Did I? ARX system requirements are less demanding than Oblivion's.

It just seems to me that the upper management there tries to cater too much. They seem to want a superior seller instead of a superior product (and those are not always one in the same ~Or in some instance even possible). For me, Arx Fatalis is an Oblivion killer ~Its not as big, not as demanding (machine-wise), has equal but different art (though... the Stone Golem looks quite like the Atronach, only Arx shipped in 2002) ~Design-wise I prefer the creatures in Arx to Oblivion, and the subterranean environments (which is the only fair way to compare ~Since Arx has no surface world in the game). Arx did not sell as well as Oblivion, but it is IMO the better game, (and its even an unofficial sequel to Ultima Underworld, but they never got the license). *Personally I consider the better RPG as well, but for many that term outright requires that they be allowed to create their own PC ~but which for me there is no such requirement for RPG's. Here is a small excerpt from the manual that shows the drive behind the game.

I don't think so...I finally tried the game after they begged me, and after 20 minutes I thought, "this is it ???" I quit and let the rest of the 10 day trial expire.

~Or those that refuse to play MMO's. Me, I refuse any game that lacks a decent single player campaign and/or won't work on my current hardware. *Or one that requires an internet connection for anything except optional multiplayer. Actually there are quite a few places in the US where you can get a really good computer, but cannot get really good internet connectivity. Quite a lot of folks are stuck with Dial-up for simply not having the option of DSL or cable.

Its great except that its kind of like making a photo realistic, havoc enabled Tetris; The result is undeniably beautiful, and focuses most on what's least important. FO3 is the best of TES4 with a new coat of pixel paint, minor derived gameplay changes, & copious digital gore. I just don't see anything that I liked of the original games in it. Though the landscape is phenomenal!

I know a poor chap whose wife divorced him (and one of her reasons was his playing Baldur's Gate ~a lot.)

Baldur's Gate 2 is a fantastic RPG that IMO is unmatched in the genre. Daggerfall is now free, So I'll have something more to add a bit later after I play it. http://download.cnet.com/The-Elder-Scrolls...4-10964310.html Fallout 3 really really looks the part where the world is concerned (except for Mr. handy). *And its cool that we didn't get this on the box... **Or this