Slowtrain

That's a remarkably jaded and cynical view. Discussion rarely if ever changes things immediately, right here, right now. Just as Krezzie says, discussion does serve to increase awareness of an issue and works to cause change over a period of time. Not just discussion here, but anywhere. When thoughts and ideas are exchanged among people, the potential for change is set in motion.

It would make sense then that they would go with a harder DRM if they felt it could help squeeze a bit more money out of the pc game market

Denial much? Denial of what? Is 10% signifcant enough a number to make it worthwhile? I guess it is, or they wouldn't do it. Still, its somewhat confusing why PC game development gets more than token effort by devs and publishers.

I totally agree with this. Nothing great was ever achieved by pandering to what people think they want. It's financially a safer course, however. Until the gaming fad passes and the big money goes elsewhere, we're going to be stuck with the current trends.

According to wikipedia, 67% of the first game's total sales came from the 360 version (as opposed to PS3 and PC). Would the pc game sales numbers be more or less than than PS3 numbers? If it is substantially more than the pc market share is still large enough to be significant. If not, then I wonder why publishers even bother making the majority of their games available on pc.

How much business do you think Ubisoft planned to get out of their pc sales anyway, compared to consoles? Maybe be Ubisoft simply doesn't care what the response of pc users are. Which maybe why they were willing to put such an annoying DRM on the game in the first place? Also, how many people who wander into stores either know or care what DRM is int he first place. My bet is not many. Although probably more likely among pc gamers than console gamers.

Which could also be this WoT game. Dismissing this game because it has a new dev involved is premature. I think you misinterpreted something I said somewhere. I never dismissed the game (I didn't not dismiss it either). I was commenting on the fact that Obs involvement doesn't appear to add any cred based on both the info in the initial press release and subsequent update by Larry Moondragon.

So it's like The Witcher or Drakensang? Cheers for the heads up. Neither of which had anything to recommend except for fans of the story them until they were released. Thanks for playing.

I thought the first section of IWD2 was more than pretty good. The combat was fun, the environments were interesting, the 3E rules were a nice change of pace, but starting with the Ice Palace it all began to fall apart into the thankless hell of pointless repetitve combat. Granted IWD certainly had its share of grindy bits, such as the last couple levels of Dragon's Eye, but somehow it managed to keep things interesting in a way that IWD 2 never did.

IWD was my favorite IE game by far. IWD2 though not so much.

CLear Sky is actually better than STALKER in a lot of ways. If you like STALKER gameplay its worth getting.

heh. I played SOC and Clear Sky until my head exploded and I never even noticed that.

In what way?

Agreed. Based on that press release it sounds like not only are they planning on handling all the major creative work themselves but are pretty protective of the fact that it is their game to develop, not someone else's. The fact that this Larry Moondragon even posted a follow-up to clarify the issue seems to highlight that point especially. Which I give them credit for. If the game turns out great, it will be a good reflection on them.

Not strapped immoveably to your forearm like some piece of cyber-bondage gear. It always helps to read your posts in this voice: Whatever helps.

Not strapped immoveably to your forearm like some piece of cyber-bondage gear.

Do you still have to have that goddamn pipboy thing strapped to your forearm all the time? Weapon str requirements for firearms?

The weaknesses and failures of a game's design tend to become more obvious as one develops more of an understanding of how the game plays. Which tends to come through repeated playthroughs. That being said, my appreciation for Fallout 3 generally increased as I played it more and more, though that might be because my expectation was so low to begin with combined with the fact the entire opening character creation/tutorial part was so horrible.

I listen to you, Hurlie. Though I think you are way too generous when it comes to evaluating games sometimes, but I do listen (or read as the case may be).

Unless this quote (from the link in the OP) is incorrect or has a different meaning than I am seeing, this is not going to be an "Obsidian game". This is going to be a "Red Eagle Games game" with technical support from Obsidian so that Red Eagle doesn't have to front the capital for a huge staff and tech infrastructure. I mean, I hope it works out well for Obsidian and gets them some cash and work, but it's just another video fantasy game without anything in particular to recommend it unless you happen to be a fan of the WoT stuff.

WHo cares. It doesn't sound like Obsidian is going to have any of the higher level functions. Its just some noob studio putting out a low-rent game based on their IP to cash in some chips from dumb fans. Obx is is doing the gruntwork. Hopefully, it wil get them some cash, but the game is almost guaranteed to be your run of the mill commercial cash in. That's what it sound slike at this point. I can't believe you guys are excited about this. N00bs.

I basically agree with you, but I generally don't play story-based games, so I can get quite a bit of replay out of the ones I like. For the record, I wouldn't consider Fallout a story-based game. I mean, yes, it had a story, but the story sucked.

I saw an ad for it on TV last night. On the Discovery Channel, I think, which seems an odd place to be pushing a game like this. How come Alpha Protocol doesn't have TV ads?

I've just come to accept the fact that System Shock 1 is one of those game experiences that will never be surpassed. Despite the cartoony graphics, computer games used to be such amazing experiences, now, for the most part, they're just meh.

It depends how much dumbification the remake is (would be) subjected to. Yes, I really want to play the same game for the 4232th time. No thanks, new story or bust. lol. wut? This is video gaming, THE INDUSTRY. Everything is redone, remade or just kicked out for the umpteenth time. So you want a Fallout 1/2 remake because everyone else is doing that? That's a pretty sad reason. I'd rather have Obsidian try something new. I don't neccessarily WANT a Fallout remake or an XCOM remake or a Jag 2 remake. I was only remarking that if it were not highly dumbified a remake could be fine, ie NOT the devil. I think simply claiming that remakes are the devil is a pretty sad reason for not wanting a remake. Actually it's not eally a reasomn at all.