Leferd

Quote: Posted 05/13/06 18:28:17 (GMT) by Papermonk Interesting.. I assume the "2 companions" is more just in that instane and we can still have more than that. Thanks for the heads up, Spin! Yeah I'm not sure if that is a miquote or not. In the tutorial you have 2 companions, for the rest of the game you can have up to 3 (for a total of 4). However, those settings are just for our campaign. Your own campaigns can have more or less (or none). From Anthony Davis -gameplay programmer.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6147583.html interesting...

Or maybe, it's G) None of the above. For a game that's supposedly abandoned, their forums look remarkably full of BioPosts. Maybe just once, we can assume that video game developers aren't all complete liars whose only purpose in life is to misdirect and cheat their most hardcore of fans.

Didn't like Morrowind. My pc is ridicilously slow (p4 1.7, 768ram, ati 9600). But I'm hooked.

Some of those numbers are ridiculously high. Did you finish the game from start to end, or from savepoints? I've beaten K1 (start to end) three times. K2 once.

Obsidian didn't mess around too much with the core mechanics but they added some features that makes the game a little bit more user friendly. It's essentially the same gameplay with an all new storyline. It's a good game. Enjoy.

No problem. I'm also thinking of getting a new pc. My current rig is 4 1/2 years old, and I'm hoping it'll last through the end of this year (for gaming). In the meantime, I'm doing my research.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/10/amd...ult/page23.html I'm thinking that you should hold off until the Socket M2 processors hit the market and get either an X2 4400 or X2 4800. The performance bonus of the FX-60 isn't significant enough to offset the several hundred dollar price gap.

The AMD FX-60 processor also seems excessive. Atleast when it comes to price/performance. 2 gigs of ram is more than sufficient.

Kevin Saunders (Kone) some info from Chris Avellone. Relevant text: 13. The unannounced semi-original IP "inspired by a license" project. It's the first original Obsidian project, so the expectations and pressure must be high. Without being too specific, what design decisions can we expect? What's Obsidian's vision of a successful and original project these days, when sequels seem to rule the gaming world? This is purely hypothetical if someone takes offense at this, and since I am one of five owners, this is also solely my opinion without consultation with the other hive minds. Vision of a successful project - the priority of these components vary, but I'll present them in the order of how I see the priority, since I am egocentric: - Its core gameplay should be fun. Aside from our lead designer, Kevin Saunders, our third project has two of the three sub-lead designers (one Josh Sawyer, the other, Brian Heins, who were able to persuade to depart Rockstar) devoted to overseeing the two core game mechanics of the game and making sure they are as fun for the player as possible. I can't go into too much detail on the actual systems, but having someone carrying the torch for a core game mechanic is important - and it also allows it to be consistently held up throughout the entire game instead of chopped up amongst designers. - At Obsidian, we place a high priority on story and characters. Again, with our third project, we have another sub-lead (Brian Mitsoda, who did a lot of the story work and dialogue work on Vampire: Bloodlines) devoted solely to the overall story, its presentation, dialogue, influence mechanics, and voice acting for the game. - It should meet the consumer expectations whenever possible. There are certain expectations that the gaming community will have when the game is announced, and it is our responsibility to provide them with the experience they're looking for.

Best strategy game ever.

In order of most recent: Battlestar Galactica Firefly The West Wing (The Aaron Sorkin years) SportsNight Band of Brothers Batman the Animated Series Seinfeld The Simpsons Cheers M*A*S*H (early years)

Assuming the PS3 costs Sony $800 to produce, I doubt that they would be willing to take a $400 loss on each PS3 they sell. To break even, Sony would have to sell lots of games per unit to make up that $400. Sony has to either sell the PS3 at a higher price than the 360 (which would turn off consumers) or else they have to completely redesign the system to bring down the cost. Microsoft, on the other hand, takes only a small loss on each 360. They only need to sell a few games to break even.

Actually, the RTR mod has a better balance of fun/realism than Rome Total War vanilla. The Europa Barbarorum mod takes realism to extreme levels. That mod is *NOT* fun. The gripe against vanilla Rome is just that: It's a fun game, but in their enthusiasm of trying to make things fun for most people, they overshot it and as a result gave their fanbase a hernia over the liberties they took to make it more appealing. If you were to read CA's forums, and the fansite message boards, the majority of those that post are in agreement. Rome Total War is a great game, but could have been so much more if they stayed closer to their roots. That's why literally hundreds of thousands have downloaded the various versions of the RTR mod (and other mods like EB or SPQR), and a disproportianately high percentage of those who did download the mods actually prefer it to RTW vanilla. Why? Because they fixed unit balancing. They smartened up the AI. (atleast to a certain extent). They added better formations. They made unit rosters more realistic. They improved the economy model. They expanded the campaign map eastward (western India) and southward into the Numidian kingdom. They increased the number of playable factions (including Macedon!).

Nothing like pulling out arbitrary rulings. Not too many games are financial successes I guess. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Most games aren't. Most publishers rely on a strategy of releasing as many games as possible with the expectation that atleast a few of them will be huge hits. They hope those hits will offset the losses taken in by the games that don't sell well. A pity.

I didn't consider the AI of medieval to be any more superior. Furthermore, I'm not sure how not being able to play the Macedonians is somehow evidence that the combat is "dumbed down." As with units routing too quickly....as it would seem that that would work both ways. Fantasy women and basing the Egyptians incorrectly are historical inaccuracies...not "dumbed down combat." I also remember winning entire battles, even against heavy cavalry, with Longbowmen in Medieval. It's been a while since I played both games, but in Medieval, the only "terrain impacts" I really remember are UP > Down, trees = crap for cavalry (and good for ambushes). I probably need someone to remind me other terrain influences of Medieval, but I didn't find them too overwhelming...but that's just from memory. The thing I liked best about Medieval was the setting. I preferred it over the Roman era. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I never said that "combat" was dumbed down. I implied that the game as a whole was dumbed down. You wrote asking how was "Rome's combat dumbed down", I just didn't bother to qualify my response as a specific answer to Rome's combat being dumbed down. Perhaps it was my mistake to respond with generalities, but I fully stand by my assertions that Rome was dumbed down to appeal to a greater mass audience. Have you played Medieval with the Viking Invasions add-on? The AI for that game will redeploy their troops in formations based on the terrain and the force you wield. Rome's AI will never do that (atleast to not so great an extent). RTW also has a problem with suicidal generals charging headlong into battle. It took the work of the Modding community to fix these problems. The Longbowman from Medieval were actually supposed to be overpowered. The English really relied on them to win wars. No other archer unit was nearly quite so effective as they were. For Rome, The CA needed to better balance the effectiveness of missile units -as not all archers (peltasts, slingers, etc.,) are supposed to be as effective as longbowmen. Look, RTW is not a "bad" game. No way. I love the game. However, The CA should have made a more concerted effort in game balancing and staying closer to history in the same way they did for Medieval. The Rome Total Realism mod is what Rome Total War should have been coming out of the box.

"How was Rome's combat dumbed down???" -Terrain has less impact on the battlefield as does Medieval. -Units speeds are much too fast. The difference in speeds between infantry and cavalry is not as great as it should be. -Units will route much too quickly. -Archers and slingers are severely overpowered. -Fantasy units that have no place in history: flaming pigs; rabid dogs; screaming women. -The Egyptians are based on ancient Egypt rather than Ptolomeic Egypt. -The Macedonians are a non-playable faction. -DUMB AI. "Additionally, there is is a large community, including , which is best for a history lesson." -BTW do not. DO NOT go to rometotalrealism.com. That is a sham website. Go to www.rometotalrealism.org I would highly recommend anyone who's played Rome Total War to try out the Total Realism mod.

The Total War series of games are the best Turn-based Strategy/Real-time Tactical hybrids in the market. Rome Total War is however, only the second best in the series, behind Medieval Total War. A good analogy: Rome = KotORs Medieval = Infinity Engine games. Rome's tactical engine is based on a pretty looking 3D engine that brings about great cinematic combat. Medieval's tactical engine is a very primative 2D/3D hybrid with sprites (reminiscent of the IE engine actually), of which the key to success is through the careful study of the Art of War. Medieval's strategy engine virtually plays like a grognard's table-top boardgame. Rome's strategy engine plays like a Computer Turn-based Strategy game. Rome is a great game on its own right, but The Creative Assembly's hardcore fans have cried out over the "dumbing down" of the game for its appeal to a mainstream strategy audience. (see any similiar patterns here?) Anyways, I would highly recommend Rome Total War and suggest that you play it for a bit and then check out this fine mod: www.rometotalrealism.org (which addresses the "dumbing down" issue)

I'd like to know who made all those sketches.

1) Jolee Bindo (KotOR) 2) Minsc & Boo (BGs) 3) Yuthura Ban (KotOR) 4) Edwin Odesseiron (BGs) 5) HK-47 (KotOR) 6) Morte (PsT) 7) Kreia (TSL) Atton Rand (TSL) 9) Bastila Shan (KotOR) 10) Jeanette & Therese (VtM:B)

I guess that puts thisthis quote into perspective. "I think I may have commented in another thread that the tough thing is that it is hard to get a publisher to invest in a more traditional CRPG. For us to make one, we would most likely have to do it with our own money. It is something we kick around quite a bit, since after NWN2 we will have at least a part of an engine. Chris Avellone and I were talking at lunch on Friday about how we could do it. One of thing the thinks we are kicking around is trying to do a certain amount of design and pre-production while we are working on other projects." -Feargus I actually wouldn't "mind" if they develop console rpgs so long as they don't abandon the pc market. The KotORs and JE were quite fun. Mass Effect looks promising. I won't worry too much over the quality of PNJ and I'd be very curious to see how K3 would look with a brand new Obsidian designed engine. Assuming it's going to be K3.

What I'm really looking forward to are the inevitable high quality mods that are going to come out after its release. MTW has MTW XL. RTW has Rome Total Realism. Europa Barbarorum also looks promising.

Hey, honestly with ones self is important. I respect that you are coming to terms with it. However on a (somewhat) serious note and getting the thread back on track, I realize, D did infact pose a reasonable inquiry. Why dont I feel witcher will not do well and why do I have this perceived bias with nwn2. Well its quite simple, I do not know of any AAA titles this dev house has done. In fact I never heard of them before. Certainly they might have done something, but if this indeed is there first title I personally think its more then they can chew. Their lack of experience will sink the title to little more then average, at best IMO. I think people are focusing on the eye candy too much for this title. As we all know eye candy <> game play. With the background of those involved with nwn2 I am quite confidant nwn2 has a much larger chance of being successful then the witcher. Thus my reasons for my less then optimistic view of the finial witcher product. I certainly dont wish them ill will, but I frankly dont think they have the skill or backgroud to deliver anything more then a midrange game. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Possibly, but neither BIS or BIO had AAA experience before they made Fallout and BG respectively. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Adding on to that, I believe the Witcher devs were the ones who localized the BGs and Fallouts in many parts of Europe.

Really? What would you call them? Gameplay on all 3 titles is similar. What title would you call an RTS. Age of Empires? Civ? Just curious. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'd call the Total War series a Turn Based Strategy game with a Real Time Tactical component. This M2:TW is definitely on my Top 3 list of games that I am looking most forward to.

-Mass Effect 1, 2, 3. -Oblivion. -The inevitable KotOR3, JE2, and PNJ. -Top Spin 2. -Geometry Wars! -Playing them all on an HD screen.