Slowtrain

3 words: Renegade Security Bot.

Just to point out as well that not everyone who is interested in the game is posting in all these threads. I will be buying it, but at this point the game appears content locked, or nearly so, and as such there's not much to say until the game is released.

Yeah, that's the thing. Most PC's don't have much personality anyway. Still the Big Daddy as portrayed in Bioshock was such a zombiefied automaton that it is hard for me to picture playing it as a character. It's similar to the Bioshock 2 devs announcing you get to play the game as a laser turret. Wheee!

LICE!

Yeah. Its hard to picture playing a Big Daddy since they don't really have much of a personality. It seems like it would be kind of like playing a refrigerator and falling over on your enemies or hitting them with the door. But, if the story of Bioshock 2 gives the Big Daddies a character, a personality, then maybe it would be OK?

Depends what they do with it. I agree that it seems a bit goofy.

I took 300 at face value and lasted about 50 minutes. Stupidest movie I've seen in years. On top of whatever hidoeas problems it had; it was astoundingly boring. I don't see how you can see it as a comedy either. It's an utterly retarded film. Edit; Seriously, how can that much death and violence be so coma-inducing? It's beyond me.

My new favorite weapon:

we'll have to wait and see how true it is, I guess. My first reaction was that is was a pretty dumb idea, but after a few moments of thought, I can see potential for a much more interesting story than Bioshock had. I do wish they would discard the save/harvest gimmick regardless. Not that interesting, unless they really apply meangingful gameplay consequences to the decision.

Is that confirmed officially?

I always enjoyed Tactics, although, even though I played it several times, I never actually finished it. The last series of misisons was such a tedious grind that I always gave up. The early missions are the most fun, and it tends to go steadily downhill. My biggest problems with the game is that many of the maps, and almost all of the maps in the second half, are mazes: there is only one way through and you've gotta grind out every bit of the way. It always ended up feeling more like Gauntlet with machine guns and rocket launchers rather than a tactical combat game. I also disliked the way the missions are grouped by enemy; it ends up feeling a bit mechanical. But still, pretty solid overall.

I'm just asking the question. There are quite a few people on this forum who still play Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment. And others. I don't think they are still playing them after all these years because of the photo-realistic faces. Great gameplay creates great ganmes; great graphics creates magazine covers.

is having photo-realisitc faces going to make the games any better? Or is just a giant waste of time and money?

Cool. Thanks.

well, maybe I will reinstall it when I am done with FO3 and give Bioshock another try. Isn't there a patch out that disables those res tubes?

Except with rez tubes all over the levels and infinite health. Why not just put your player in God mode right from the start and be done with it?

Because this is the internet. And an internet without trivial drama is like a day without sunshine. I would have expected you to know that by now.

A-Team, Simon and SImon, and Magnum PI ftw.

As usual I think Grommy raises a great point. I don't really expect a game or a movie or a book to frighten me for real. As a person who is (relatively) in touch with the real world, I always know that what I am seeing or experiencing is not real. Game, book, movie, whatever, I know that the fear, anxiety, or whatever I am experiencing is only as real as I let it be. If I permit the illusion of the story to take me over, I can get pretty caught up in whatever is going on and somewhat partake of the emotions being generated. So I think that a large part of being scared in games, is allowing oneself to get caught up in the moment, the famous "suspension of disbelief". If you are not willing to let yourself go, at least for a time, you're not really going to feel the scariness.

Weirdos. I'll grant you that Bioshock had a better story and better voice acting and what not than FO3. But that stuff is precisely Bethesda's greatest weakness. Bioshock's gameplay was just so messed up with its infinite health and free rez and repetitive respawning enemies and crappy minigames and picture taking. Picture taking! WTF? Gameplaywise Bioshock is a disaster. Not an Oblivion level obscenity of awfulness, but still...

That's pretty cool. It'll never happen though. Manipulating statistics is what makes money.

SS2 had 2 major weapon problems. 1) They degraded so fast that it was pain in the butt 2) the assault rifle was so far superior to all the other waapons in the game But, I agree, I did like the way SS2 gave you a small number of weapons and let you work with them and with your character skills to make the weapons more powerful.

What do you think of: a) as hurlshot mentioned, the idea that you can modify/augment your starting wepaons to mak them more useful as the game continues instead of introducing a bunch of entirely new weapons or b) the players skills directly affect the usefulness of a weapon, and as the player levels up and the skills get better the weapons become more effective To me, it just seems there are other, more subtle apporaches to increasing weapon effectiveness than just adding more powerful drops as the levels pile up. One of the things I really loved about Deus Ex was the fact that you could finish that game with same 10mm pistol and police baton that you started with. That was a lot of fun and really cool.

I don't agree, but I don't feel strongly enough to make a big deal of it. For me, the gameplay of FO3 is more fun than the gameplay of Bioshock, but neither is really all that memorable.

Do you think there is a point to implementing low-end weapons that either a player will ditch almost immeditealy or will never use at all? Using FO3 as an example (only because we are both playing it at the moment): There are three low end handguns: the .32 pistol, the "chinese" pistol, the 10mm pistol. All three of which do signifcantly less damage than any other firearm in the game. The player starts with the 10mm, but is going to ditch it quickly since other weapons that are vastly superior are easy to find. The .32 and chinese pistols are inferior to even the 10mm, so the player is never going to use them period. Sure you can use the crappy pistols as weapons for cannon fodder raiders, but why bother. What's s wrong with making every weapon worthwhile and interesting and to at least some degree "futurproof". Most games only need one basic handgun and it shouldn't be such a horrible weapon that you have to shoot a raider 30 times to make his head explode. A handgun you get at the start of a game should still be useful at the end of the game. Sure, a low velocity pistol bullet isn't as good as high velocity rifle bullet for some things, and a semi automatic pistol isn't as useful as a full auto submachine gun (though they fire the same bullet) in some areas, but a well mainted handgun is still deadly regardless. I have never been a fan of the time honored crpg cliche of starting charcters with bad gear that they ditch almost immediately. I have also never been a fan of the idea that the handgun you start the gamer with is useless by the time you're level 3. And I am really not a fan of of giving the gamer a whole bunch of useless weapons that will never be used. I just think there must be better ways to spend developer time.