pmp10

The point is that some of them may never be released. That's the problem of funding things up front.

As sad as it is - Skyrim. This year hasn't brought many noteworthy titles.

I think it was Sawyers creation and I agree - it was a great contrast to Fallout 3. Whereas Bethesda did a 'crash course to fallout' with player destroying another base in New Vegas you could take part in 'last ride of the enclave'. Now if only Fallout 4 could let enclave go.

Anyone with any sense does blame the British, and the French, for being- frankly- dishonest colonialist scum who managed the difficult task of asterisking the region up even more than it was with their arbitrary line drawing, contradictory promises, flagrant outright lying and mealy mouthed White Man's Burden justifications for said self interested carve up and associated brutal repression and reliance on even more brutal proxy rulers. After all, it wasn't Saddam Hussein who first gassed Iraq's marsh arabs, it was the British as suggested by... Winston S Churchill, national hero. That's interesting. I'd always thought that most people would put the blame on the British more for the manner of their exit from the region rather than the diplomacy of the war years.

Most likely it is. From what I heard various types of customer behavior tracking are slowly becoming standard.

Mostly it's just retuned the difficulty curve, the early game fights are significantly easier now while there's not much difference later in the game. No idea about alchemy however. Alchemy didn't change in major way. Last I checked there were some rebalancing mods out but they couldn't fix over-reliance on dodging or the ghost battle in chapter 2.

Just noticed that Fallen Enchantress is out. Anyone played it? I know that the fist out was a disaster but I'd really liked Master of Magic and could use a proper strategy game (i.e. one that's not about XP farming).

That's simplifying things quite a bit. There was never a chance to reconcile Jewish monotheism with Roman imperial cult and the issues between them were bound to explode sooner or later. And as you pointed it out yourself with the example of Cartage - you could never have 'peace' with imperial Rome.

Sure and we use burn people who said the world wasn't flat. Fighting nonsense with nonsense leaves you both ignorant.

If you are going to force companions on the player then in the very least you should make sure they are not annoying. Not everyone looks forward to delving into a myriad of parenting-issues or care about building their virtual-harem.

Which was fine by me since the game didn't really reward your for your Silent rating. I think Absolution may be the first Hitman game that I won't buy. If there is really no alternative to wrestling Danny Trejo in a cage match, I probably won't get it at all. Really, is one aspect of a game enough to completely put you off buying it? Tough crowd This isn't just one aspect. That's an entire design approach.

Not that I'm expecting anything similar to happen but not all conflicts happen with the consent of the majority. Some are started by a militant fringe while everyone moderate looks away.

That and they have developed terrible over-reliance on cinematics. I don't know what exactly changed in JRPG design (or perhaps failed to change) but I just can't stand the genre anymore. Maybe it's the whole teen-focus and character-drama that is driving me away. Last JRPG I picked was Resonance of Fate and the protagonists teenage-sidekick made my blood-boil with constant sulking over his dark-past.

Publishers want to make things that sell. If interactivity is an acceptable sacrifice for the sake of graphics they will have no problem with it. The only question is weather the minority of gamers that doesn't agree can still have any games made to suit their needs.

I know this is meant for comic relief but it's pretty interesting historically. US civil war actually was preceded by years of similar movements.

You mean if. I think in case of Volition the question is indeed who. When THQ troubles first surfaced it was already said that Activision was ready to snatch them. Relic and the other ongoing THQ projects like South Park are not nearly as attractive. Even if something like the rumored Squre-Enix buyout was to happen there is no guarantee that things would proceed as planed.

If GHz were the major limitation we could play modern games on decade old celerons. The reality is that most PC games are bottlenecked by CPU and there is no good way to find out how accurate 'requirements' are without playing the game and benchmarking resource use.

Discussing prices is problematic as it will vary depending on country. Popularity / publishers / taxes / sales and used market make for a major difference in what is affordable.

Ahh yes - PC elitism. Don't suppose it occurred to you that not everyone deems the difference worth the expense? Especially since you yourself are far from the top of master-race food-chain and are doubtlessly looked down on by people playing with their crossfire setups on 5760x1200 thanks to the use of 3-monitors.

Not entirely - it's a matter of expectations. Planescape as a fantasy universe comes with a set of expectations that it almost immediately breaks as it turns out not to be Tolkien inspired. This leaves players free to approach it without preexisting bias. Assassins Creed creates expectation of a historical setting which it fulfills for a good while but then suddenly it moves into the direction of a poorly handled sci-fi. In the end AC was always doomed to become a mess story-wise as you cannot make a long-running series work with conspiracy theories. You either need a new bigger mystery for every revelation you make or simply never resolve anything.

Then it's 5 years old not 7. Much like fixing a laptop, just because it is possible and there are youtube videos showing you how to do it, doesn't mean everyone should pick up a soldering gun. A desktop PC is much easier to open up and swap components than anything else. Or you could pay someone to do it - just as a novice would do with a desktop PC.

Okay, I picked up a fairly bleeding edge pc 6-7 years ago. Apart from having to replace the graphics card twice (because they died, not because of a need to make them better) , and a hard drive that also died needing to be replaced, I haven't had any issues and it still chews up modern games with no problem. And no, it still runs on the OS it came with. And in that case you cannot run games requiring Vista/7 while an xbox360 will play Just Cause 2 or X-com without issue. Sure you do - there as many ways to fix braking down consoles as there are PCs.

Except with consoles we are talking 7 years time and it still can be good for another 2. Just in that time frame PCs have the issues with different OS and DX10. Last I heard even PS2 emulation was not in very good shape. Chances that xbox360/ps3 games will be playable in emulators within 5 years are slim to none.

- the PC for that price runs games on minimal settings, and even that badly Pc on minimal settings is how a console runs games. If you bought a PC back when this gen consoles launched, they'd still be able to play games with console quality today. The whole "PCs gotta be upgraded every 6 months" thing is an enormous ****ing fallacy. No it can't - trust me on that. Nobody is talking 6 months but xbox 360 has been out over 5 years now. And any PC bought at the time of it's release will in the very least need an OS upgrade. Consoles not only offer more value for money but they also allow for peace of mind as far technical issues and performance is concerned.

Or maybe not everyone agrees that first one was garbage?