Pidesco

The only games I've played extensively, with regenerating health, were Call of Duty 4 and Gears of War. In both those games, the speed of regeneration made everything a lot more boring and challengeless than it needed. While CoD4 kind of maintained the fun due to the different set pieces it threw at the player, Gears of War was made even more repetitive and dull by the regeneration, than it would be without it. Where I'm going with this is that health regeneration being good or bad is, probably, simply a matter of implementation. Also, bad health regen doesn't necessary break a game. All of that said, I have yet to play a game where I felt health regen was well implemented. Edit: Also, I wouldn't call GoW and CoD4 outstanding proof that medkits are a thing of the past. If anything, they're proof that regeneration needs to be fundamentally changed if it's going to work.

Yeah, and don't forget the planet eating reaper, physically indestructible reaper, the old, cryptic, manipulative woman who accompanies the lead character and is secretly in control of the reapers, and the legion of the fat reaper appointed bounty hunters that go chasing after the main protagonist because of the price that's been set on their head. wot?

Glad to hear that, maybe i give it a shot I found Shadow of Chernobyl to be pretty punishing as well.

She's talking about game developing costs, not store prices.

Saying that something is indisputable just because the majority agrees with it is hivemind like. You can have whatever opinion you want, but if you're going to claim some point of view is unassailable you should have a defense other than "the majority says so". But I am pleased you agree that I am correct.

Behold the all encompassing power of the hivemind.

I am aware of that and I mentioned it in this thread, already. "The gaming world" is an entity that can't (won't?) do much other than point approvingly at the products with best brand management.

Wata twiist! That would be just sad. Having each of the 3 games have different protagonists would give them room to be a bit more creative... Why would Bioware want to be more creative when they get all the sales and critical acclaim they need, without it? I think you pretty much nailed their setup there. Predictable yes, but not boring. It an entertaining space adventure action, not a nobel prize winning novel. It doesnt have to redefine sci-fi to be an awesome game. No, but it should at least be engaging, and the plot I'm predicting sounds like an instant snoozefest, which coupled with the poorly written characters and the middling action gameplay, doesn't sound like awesome to me.

It's fairly obvious that ME2's plot will be about the robots controlling the galaxy, with Shepard faking his death, to go underground and all rebel and stuff, so that the good fight against the powers that be can be fought. Boring, trite and predictable just like the first game. At least they're going for thematic unity across the trilogy, I guess.

So is the island kinda like the Heart of Gold? Does it require very low probabilities to work its magic or something?

12th century? Someone should turn The Old Man And The Sea into a strategy game using the new Total War engine. Epic fishing struggles are the future of gaming.

Maybe D'anna was a lesbian apostle found only in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Or something.

I saw it with my mum the other day. It was hilariously awful.

Cake - Ain't No Good It's an awesome song to play in Audiosurf and I'm now its elite champion.

Sunrise (1927) Gone With the Wind (1939) His Girl Friday (1939) Bringing Up Baby(1938) Adam

I thought you loved me.

I don't know, the whole plot is starting to sound more and more like a big self fulfilling prophecy, so that makes perfect sense. Perhaps the Island is a device that keeps the timeline intact?

I think he's implying she "works hard" to get her roles. I've never seen her being even a barely competent actress. She always acts as if she's playing the same character, and even that, she doesn't do particularly well. Considering Dollhouse seems to hinge on a character who is supposed to change her personality constantly, this really doesn't bode well for the show. I didn't believe for a second that she was some sort of miracle hostage negotiator.

AS far as the action is concerned, the difference between the Bourne movies and Taken is that Bourne is shown as a badass by how he gets through things beaten up and sometimes seriously injured, while in Taken, the main character just plows through everyone without breaking a sweat. This, not only takes away the thrill of the fights, but also makes an already too old character more unbelievable and hard to empathize with. Furthermore, the poor script really doesn't compensate in the empathy department. He was a government sanctioned serial killer, who ignored his daughter all his life, but it's ok because it allowed him to magically save her life when she got kidnapped, just like his overbearing paranoia predicted. It's not bad parenting if everyone is evil and out to get your daughter.

It would also explain Kara's ugly mannishness.

I'd say that taking the viewer out of Taken's idiotic plot would be a good thing. Idiotic? You mean to say that the premise is implausible, or that one guy could do anything about it is implausible? I wasn't really thinking of implausibility, although it is implausible. I was actually thinking about how hamfisted the script is and about the stupid notion that Neeson's quest magically redeems him as a father.

I'd say that taking the viewer out of Taken's idiotic plot would be a good thing.

Eliza Dushku is still an absolutely awful actress.

She better be coming back.

Who doesn't?