Slowtrain

Lee has pretty much been my favorite character throughout the show. I think the writers have done as good a job with him as anyone else. *shrugs*

I'm still worried about the playability and bugginess of the game, but it's been so long since I bought a new game that I really don't care. Even if its a complete disaster, I'm only out $40 US, which would be the total amount of money I've spent on computer gaming during the last 12 months.

I'm sold.

Picks 10-6 are up today. http://pc.ign.com/articles/772/772285p3.html Half Life 2? *sighs* Did Valve send IGN a check for that one?

WHere the heck did I mention sales numbers? And I would consider "classics" to be among the "best games" so its an irrelevant distinction. System Shock 2 barely made a ripple when it was released. Yet here it is, number 15 or whatever. Obviously time has given people a different perspective on it. As far as Oblivion goes, I think its a pretty fun game. I don't feel it has the makings of a "best game" however. Its greatest asset is its prettiness, but a year from now there will be much better looking games. If there is any ES game that deserves a place in the "best PC games of all time" it would be Daggerfall.

Just because a game is ugly has nothing to do whether I will play it or not. But I won't deny the ugliness even I love the game. And the NWN2 character models are pretty dang ugly. Of course, beauty and the lack thereof is pretty subjective, but my subjective fails NWN2 on attractiveness.

Nonesense. A lot of games that turned out to be classic titles were virtually ignored when they were released. And some games that make a big splash at release quickly fade into the past. I predict Oblivion will be one of the latter, since it seems to contain little if anything that will render it a classic.

They look like ugly crap. Which doesn't make the game bad, but if the king is naked, well then the king is naked.

Even though I don't personally like PS:T, it should be in the top ten.

Sure, quality can be judged, but in order to go into the "best of all time" category there has to be some "time" to establish where the game sits in relation to all other games that have come before. There are a lot of quality games that don't deserve a "one of the best of all time" inclusion.

They are freaking ugly as crap. In this day and age, it's embarrassing in an A title.

I miss Ald.

meh. Oblivion has no business being in there. Not with standing how good or bad the game is, you can't judge a game as being best of all time when it has been out for less than a year. A game needs to age a bit and see how it stands up to the passage of time before it can be called a best of all time. Since this is PC games only Deus Ex should probably be higher than 20. ANd I don't know what Warcraft 2 did to deserve inclusion. And WoW? It may be popular, but that's hardly an indicator of best of all time. And Xard, Silent Storm, top 25? , um no.

Finished The Great Gatsby. Didn't remember any of the second half. Don't know what to think. The first half had a very organic feel, while the second half had a very heavily plotted feel which made it feel like two different stories. ALso read When Gravity Fails by George Alec Effinger, a sort of Islamic SF/private investigator story. Very much casual reading but enjoyable. The Islamic take gives some of the cliches an interesting spin. Currently wading through Moby ****. Melville's prose is a bit irascible in places, but overall quite entrancing. Preferable to John Grisham anyway.

@Aegeri: Spector's title at the time was Studio Director, so ultimately he was still responsible for the success or failure of the game. I don't think it was any surprise that he defended the game since he had to basically green light everything Smith did. SMith was also someone who had worked with Spector for years on Deus Ex, so its also no surprise the Spector defended SMith and his game since I am sure Spector felt a lot of loyalty to Smith. However, Spector has stated time and time again that while he supported SMith's choices even when he did not completely agree with them, he did not ever tell SMith how to implement the game or its content. And I agree with Hell Kitty that it was not such an awful game. Once I got over the pretty extreme disapointment of my intitial experiences with IW, I had a reasonable amount of fun with it. IW was the game that basically was a lesson for me that I should never believe any hype or have any expectations for a game, because regardless of what anyone says, you'll never know the truth of a game until it is released and people start to play it for real.

OK, maybe it is, but still. What about some furry blue guy who bounces a lot?

In this case, that might be a bad thing. I mean Uwe at least makes things entertaining nowadays. I mean that movie with Kristina Lokken may have been awful (so awful I can't remember the name of the film actually), but it was a total hoot.

You're right. A guy who can stretch himself like a rubber band and some girl who shoots force fields out of her head is so much better.

Directed by Uwe Boll, that most visonary of auteurs.

How odd.

I can hear everything in that test which is weird because I listen to more loud music than God.

For me the moment came when I slaughtered every WTO guard and civilian at the WTO Air Terminal. Not only were there absolutely 0 consequences from this at any point in the game, but the WTO chief still gave the same standard recruitment speech on the holoterminal making no memntion of the fact that I had just completely depopulated her entire air terminal right in front of all the cameras and sensors. As I walked around the empty air terminal completing my objectives with ease because everyone was dead and realizing the no one cared, I decided the whole thing was completely assinine and that Harvey Smith was either a total genius snake-oil salesman or an utter cretin.

I actually don't think IW was that bad a game. However, I do think it was one of the most disappointuing games I've ever played. It was disappointing both because it was ultimately so much less than Deus Ex and also because it was so much less than all the developer and publisher hype promised. Most specifically Harvey Smith said it would be a game where desicions mattered. However, it didn't take long to realize that nothing you did mattered in any way that was different from a standard FPS. Yes, you could make choices, but none of those choices changed anything remotely significant. Choices had less significance than even in the original Deus Ex. The only choice that mattered was the one that set up the end game. When confronted about this after the game's release, Smith said that he didn't want gamers to be restricted in the later game by the choices they had made early, which is why they designed the game the way they did. But that statement is so contradictory with Smith's stated intent of what the game would be, thast they are impossible to reconcile. The game would have been better, if they had just desiogned it as totally linear and without choices rather than spending time putting in fake choices that didn't matter.

The ammo crap wasn't a big deal at all. The big deal was that actions that were supposed to have consequences didn't. Also, Spector did not design DX2. Harvey Smith was the Project Director; it was his game vision from start to finish. Spector has stated that he did not interfere in game design decisions at all. SMith had a free hand.

My thoughts exactly. I find the original location of the nazi research lab far more interesting. But, to be fair, when I was following Fallout's development, despite the fact it looked so cool, I had a hard time gettign really interested because the basic premise of finding a waterchip seemd too stupid to be interesting. In the end of course, that game became one of my favorites ever, so I'm not going to judge the plot of the story too harshly since its how the game performs as a whole that will determine whether I like it or not.