Slowtrain

I've never understood the appeal of Chuck Norris. But then again I've never understood the appeal of Steven Segal either. Or Jean Claude Van Damme for that matter. Actually, the whole "throw an entire barful of thugs threw the window" genre has never done more for me except make me blink.

Looking at a healthbar doesn't bother me. No immersion break there. Its quick, painless, and easy. Its a gameplay convention sure, but I've become so standardized to it, that I am no longer aware of its artifice. Actually removing the healthbar and forcing me to do something new would be more immersion breaking. DOn't go overboard on making a game simulate "reality" too much. That's a long dark and dangerous road.

SO do you think its possible for a game, given our current state of technology, to be so completely immersive that nothign ever happens in it to remind us that we are playing a game? I don't, at least I've never experienced it. Whether its a door that doesn't open or a wall that won't blow up or a npc that will not die, I constantly encounter immersion breakers in every game I play. But maybe I'm taking this talk of "you are there" too literally?

Interesting point. I never thought of it that way. Of course that's assuming its the publishers and not the devs that are the cause of the buggy release,a nd the devs are thus worse supporting. But who can ever know the truth... *cues Visceris theme music*

Yes, well, I violated my own "never buy 1.0 without research" rule for that one too. Needless to say, it was great reminder of why I have that rule in the first place. Damn you, DW Bradley! DAMN YOU! D:

I updated to the latest video drivers and the game ran much worse. Happily XP is easy to roll back so I just went back to the old drivers. GOtta love the science of programming, no?

It came with a second disk, which I think enabled you to do multiplay.

Sequel: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337103/

Nope. He's hot. A little goofy looking, but it adds to his charm.

I still have the CDs to that game. Never liked it very much.

So do I. The sequel, however, is a mess. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I liked them both, but I enjoyed Angels of the Apocalypse more. I think I preferred the larger-scale plot (howevere goof it might have been) and the spoooky overtones, especially at the beginning.

I think the reason we are gravitating to unkillable characters as an example of choices and consequences is because they are a unique and obvious part of a linear story-based game. As Hell KItty says there is a difference between walkign into the wrong bathroom vs killing a game-critical character. Probably in the end there is no "best" or even "right" way to do implement that level of choice/restriction/consequence. A computer gameworld is such an aritifical and restricted place anyway that really to apply consequence and choice the same way we apply in RL is absurd when you think about it. We all go into a computer game putting on our story-telling blinders and accept the limitations, restricitions, and impossibilities of the virtual world we are in. ANd again, you can't have story and freedom both. The most free and open ended games are tactical combat games like XCOM and Jagged Alliance 2 and flight sims with dynamic campaigns. And those are so free because there isn't really any story, just a situation that needs to rectified, an overall goal that needs to be achieved. Fallout was also something like this, having no real story, but rather just an overall goal (find the waterchip; destroy ther mutants) and a world that was filled with little vignettes that had no real effect on the overall goal, other than offering different ways to achieve short-term objectives. I personally prefer games such as Fallout and Jagged Alliance 2, but otoh, I'm not going to penalize a story-based game from restricting my choices. That's part of the deal I enter into when I begin the game.

I've never seen a single game developer polarize so many people. How does Tim Cain sleep at night, we wonders? How, HOW? Anyway, as long as a game eventually gets patched to a playable state, I don't really care about bugs. I simply don't buy games upon initial release. Given the well documented state of the entire software industry, anybody who puts down money for version 1.0 of anything without doing their research first deserves whatever they get.

My game was noticeably less stable and more buggy the one time I tried it with the unofficial patch. As Hell Kitty says it really just changes the game as the patch maker saw fit; it doesn't make it better. I prefer the game with just the 1.2 official. YMMV. edit: added "more"

Ha, Vis, the day the day you close doors and give up will be a sad day for gamers too.

I was just forced to watch Serenity which I had adamantly refused to do because I knew it was going to suck. OK. It didn't suck.

Jagged Alliance 2. FOr like the 20 billionth time. But why the heck not?

You know, I don't agree with everything that comes out of the Codex. Don't think anyone does. But its not like they're a monolithic presence either; they're a collection of voices who have a passion for crpgs. And a lot of time they tell truths that need be said, and sometimes they do it pretty funny, too. If there ever was such a ting as the anti-establishment of gamers, that's them. Like I said, the day the codex lays down and gives up will be a sad day for people who have a passion for computer games..

RolePlayer, I would say you are using the word "choices" in too broad a sense. There are degrees of choice possible within the set parameters of a game world. Within the mission levels of DX, the player does have a great deal of freedom of how she/he chooses to go about achieving the mision goals. However, at the end of the mission, no matter what choices you made, your character is still going to be in roughly the same place either way. Help Paul live or let Paul die, it doesn't matter to the actual storyarc of the game. And overall I felt the devs did a pretty good job of balancing the two elements. As long as one is trying to tell a linear story, you are going to have to force a player into some kind of set path, all you can really hope for is an "illusion" of freedom, and that illusion is going to be generated by getting small choices that change the short term situation, but have little or no effect on the long-term story. I'm not saying the DX doesn't deserve criticism, because I think it has a lot of very poorly done things that rip any illusion of OMG you are really there to shreds. However not being able to kill Jock is not one of them. I thinkk.

I bought this game and have played it for a while. I was extremely disappointed. It feels clumsy and awkwardly put togther. I'm going to go back and give it a fair shake later when I have some time and hope that there is some real gameplay depth concealed beneath the surface. However, right now I feel like I wasted 40 dollars. Vis: I would definitely wait to read some reviews before you drop your money on it.

I agree with much of your take on crpgs, RP, but in the case of DX, I think you are a bit off base in your criticisms. DX is it its heart still a linear game that requires the prescence of certain characters to tell its story and the presence of certain allegiances to tell the story. JC can't join the MJ12 because that's not the story; JC can't kill Manderley because that's not the story, etc and so forth. Whether the devs choose to keep manderley behind a plate glass window the whole game or simply make him invulnerable until X point in the story is immaterial. The fact is that some artificial device will have to be used to keep him alive until then. IIRC earlier in the thread you commended the DX2 devs for creating the "lockewd-weapon" environments in DX2 as a better way of preventing the player from attemptin to kill invulernable characters. But that same "locked-weapon" device caused howls of outrage on the DX forums when it was first discovered becausew it was so much more intrusive to the gameplay than making Manderley or Gunther invulernable. 6 on way; half a dozen the other. ANyway, bottom line is I think you are criticizing DX for not being something that it never tries to be.

Actually, another thing bugged me, too. Which was having to steal supplies from your own headquarters. HELLO! I work for you. Gimme some stuff, please. Once I started replaying the game I stopped breaking into the Unatco air vent for a couple multitools. Totally absurd. Actually, Deus Ex had a kind of weird design that floated somewhere between hardcore spy sim and goofy loot hunt.

The only thing that bugged me about Deus Ex was hacking computer terminals while the person was standing 2 feet away. That just felt so wrong somehow. I didn't understand why the devs couldn't have come up with something a bit more belieavble..

hah. That's an awesome article and makes me love those boys even more. The codex always was and remains the best crpg site in the internet. The day the codex finally gives up and closes doors wil be a sad day indeed.