Slowtrain

Thank you. That doesn't sound so bad.

Thnaks for the clarifucation. Fellow posters are alwasy more useful as far as gameplay ino than most of the review sites. The popping head bit doesn't seem a terribly enjoyable aspect of gameplay.

*makes mental note of a somewhat negative comment by Hurlie, puts on parka in anticpation of hell freezing over*

Think three letters: QTE

Despite doing many playthroughs of SS2, I never made much use of PSI, but iirc it was kind iof a pain to use and not really useful enough to bother with. The fwe times I tried to really focus on psi, I always rain ot of psi-hypos really fast and had to fall back on standard weapons anyway. That massive wrench was awesonme, btw.

Actually "radiant storytelling" pretty much sounds like a euphemism for level scaling. Once again.

@HK: Yep, you had to find various chemicals that were stored on each deck to research the various alien otems found around the ship. I'm not saying it was a great gameplay mechanic, but at least it offered variety. I thought the classes were pretty decently balanced in SS2. The Navy class was perhaps a tad more generally useful with its collection of skills, but I often took the marine class when I was in a more a mood to fight. I will agree that the skills were unbalanced: specifically hacking was too powerful and the last tier of standard weapons (the assault rifle) was too powerful.

What is the chance of this actually working?

I wasn't terribly interested in this DLC to begin with, but then I read that review and ... "several jumping bits, considering the game engine's terrible, unresponsive jumping mechanics" ... "A forced stealth sequence" .... "multiple timed escape sections" .....No, just no. I'll definitely be skipping this then. I'll stick to mods for now. Yep. It sounds like a pretty goofy thing to do with a FO3 dlc. But I'm curious if the Gamestop review is accurately representing the gameplay.

That Gamespot review makes it sound pretty tedious and badly designed. Are they exaggerating the case, do you think?

I don't think it was the resurrection chambers in and of themselves that were the problem. SS2 had them as well. The difference was that in SS2 using the res chambers had an in-game cost while in BS they had no in game cost.

I'll certainly agree that Bioshock wasn't a terrible game but it had a lot fo questionable ( to me) design decisions that made the game much less interesting. For example, in SS2 "research" was an entirely different gameplay mechanic than shooting. One can certainly make the argument that SS2's "research" was nothing more than a foozle hunt, but it was still a different mechanic from the shooting and added variety to the gameplay. In Bioshock "research" was streamlined into a shooting mechanic, only instead of pointing and clicking with a "gun", one pointed and clicked with a "camera". I'm sure some people think that was an improvement, but for me it was just one of many ways BS went out of its way to be less interesting than its predecessor.

lol. I love Grommy. You're probably right, but given that "proper rpg gameplay" is going to be a pretty subjective concept, I can still take away some meaning from the term, even if my own personal defininition of "proper rpg gameplay" might (and probably is, though not terribly) somewhat different from Wrath's.

I'm not really trying to explain it though, since I can't speak to exactly what Wrath meant, but I don't think the statement is quite as opaque as your're making it out to be. Obviously genre labels such as "rpg" "shooter" "adventure" etc are labels of short hand and convenience mostly, but they are labels which would seem to imply certain types of gaemplay mechanics. If a game is classified as an action/rpg then it would stand to reason that tthe game contains certain gameplay mechanics that are identifiable as rpg mechanics and some that are not. I woudl interprets Wrath's statement to mean a game that is entirely or mostly rpg mechanics and not shooter or other mechanics.

I think it would be whatever combination of gameplay mechanics make an rpg an rpg and not a shooter or an adventure game.

To me is was the gameplay that really hurt Bioshock. Primarily, as a shooter it wasn't very good, but it didn't really offer enough non-shooter gameplay to offset that failing. SS2, DX1, and even FO3 were all mediocre shooters as well, but they offered enough interesting non-shootery gameplay to offset their failings as shooters.

Hah. I'ts going to be like Bioshock except more. I hope not, from what I remember Bioshock was a mess, random crashes, can't change the settings or it crashes, big mess Agreed. Plus the cruddy shooter gameplay and infinite respawns and dull enemies and bad level design and boring weapons. But there are some who proclaim that Bioshock finally brought "art" to video games. Dunno about that myself.

Hah. I'ts going to be like Bioshock except more.

Yeah, all the worlds developers got togeather and said "Screw this, lets make really crap games". Nope. All the world's publishers got together and said: "Let's not take any risks and only fund the same drivel year after year because gamers are idiots and will buy it anyway." Or something....

Weird. I never saw Doom 1 as dark, any more than I saw one of those country fair shooting galleries as dark.

I think many developers and publishers should feel shame over the bug-ridden crap they foist off on the public and the grotesque PR that surrounds it.

Doom was dark? Doom 1?

lol. awesome.

What to you were the defining elements of Diablo? Surely not plot, characters, dialogue.

Wait, what?! Totally. There are no plots.