Slowtrain

Yeah, but a new Jagged Alliance style game would need a decent budget. There is voice work that needs to be done, and you would have to develop an engine, and there is a good amount of artwork to it. I'm just saying it isn't a small project if we want it done right. There are plenty of cheap JA clones coming out of Eastern Europe and they pretty much all blow. Plus, the actual JA IP is in terrible hands. And there aren't many studios that even focus on TB games (except for the DS) so who is going to pick it up? I'm really bummed that Firaxis doesn't seem interested in moving forward on the Xcom property, I thought they were one of the few companies capable of doing it justice. RPG's as a genre have had high and low points, but there always seems to be a few strong studios dedicated to them. TB combat games seem completely dead at this point. I don't disagree that a studio would need some money to develop a worthwhile title. There's only so many corners you can. But I think what is missing right now in game development is the "middle class" game studios. A lot of them died in the late 90's and there hasn't been much to replace them with.

I assumed that we would find out more about the fate of the two who went through in upcoming episodes. My guess would be that they are not just dropped for good. I was also a little surprised that they actually shot the one guy as he tried to go through (I stil don't know any of the character names yet). Though they didn't kill him, that was still a bit of unexpected violence that was a tad more hardcore than I had expected from the show.

Good lord, man. What would drive you to this madness?

The thing is there is most definitely a market for a TB squad combat game like XCOM or Jag 2. Especially Jag 2. Every forum I go to has people who talk about JAg 2 from time to time. I get the occasional PM from people who see my jag 2 avvie and just say Hi, that was a great game. Bears Pit still has posters. The mods continue., As a market does it compare to the Halo3 market? Of course not. SO what happens? It gets ignored. Right now game devs and pubs are so focused on honkingn big blockbuster titles that they simply igmnore any amrket that does have the potential to generate huge sales. I really don't think that approach is going to last forever though because it's going to start showijg poor results eventually.

I like you.

There's always a chnace the acting will improve as the writers and actors both get a better sense of the characters and the show. I remember the first season of ST:TNG where the acting was pretty weak much of the time (with the obvious exception of Patrick Stewart who is never weak) but eventually the acting really became pretty good and during the best seasons was for the most aprt as good as you can see on TV.

Who thinks QTE's are a good idea? It's like a return to the days of FMV games. Hopefully, just like with FMV, the trend will quickly pass, leaving only a bad smell and a few brown stains.

My personal issues with FO3 have little, if anything, to do with the fact that it is "not like Fallout". I knpow there are some people who don't like Fo3 because it is not like the original, but there are also others who don't like aspects of FO3 simply because they don't like those aspects. Such as the need for slo mo for every...single...shot...in....VATS. Or level scaling.

Common problem in games that use unibody type of solution. In MMOGs even the most casual players seem to notice the difference, even when they can't explain why models look "wrong" somehow. Blizzard don't use unibody type of system and has to custom make animations for models that have different proportions. In Dragon Age dwarf is really good example when unibody goes wrong. For example take default human female model, face it towards the camera and take screenshot. Then do the same with default dwarf female. Open up two different screenshots in your photoshop (or similar program that allow easy image manipulation). Then resize different parts of the one model to match the other. Hands are identical (nimble hands ms. dwarf), arms are same lenght, only thicker. Neck shorter and face is wider. Torso and legs about 1/3 shorter. Human female model is actually very close to a ideal 8 head size like it should be. But dwarf model proportions are complitely messed up. It's too roughly 8 head sizes but not for arms. And it shouldn't be 8 head sizes as it makes models look very awkward, if they are wider (or more like flatten in case of dwarf female). Can't be worse than the body distortions used by Bethesda in Morrowind.

Game development is such a young field though (relatively) and it needs some time to sort itself out. Right now it is going through a major growth spurt but that won't last and then devs and publishers wil have to rethink strategies. Everything old is new again. Eventually.

I think eventually the game development market will move in this direction. There will always be a few super high-budget aim-for-the-sky games in development, but spending less money on smaller games that require fewer units sold to turn a profit is an altogether less risky and more sound business strategy.

It's only vague because complexity can manifest in many ways. It could be complexity like a flight sim with its hundreds of controls and steep learning curve. It could be complex like in Stars! with its many pull down menus and graphic-less UI. Or whatever. Also, I am in no way saying complexity in and of itself makes a good game nor that a non-complex game is a bad game. But all things being equal I prefer a game that takes time to learn and assimilate and presents me with a myriad if possibilities to be explored. I don't think I am alone in that either. But I do think I am in the minority.

I would counter with the thought that many developers are not making the games they want, regardless of the fans input. Developers are making games they, and the publishers and stockholders, think will sell.

I totally agree in a general sense. If I wanted to make a game that had a chance of selling millions of copies, I would make it as non-complex as possible. However, I, at least, and probably some others like complex games. So the audience is there. It's just not an audience that's going to purchase 8 million copies in the first week of release.

Generic may be the wrong word. A game that wants to selll million of copies can't afford to turn off too many people so it can't do anything too, umm, I dunno, complex.

If you want to sell to a lot of people, you have to make a game as generic as possible. atm, with game budgets the way they are, that makes the most sense. In the future there will most likely be more of an emergence of a niche game market, where games have smaller budget, specialized gameplay, and smaller audience targets. The wargaming scene has been plowing along like this for many years and as far as I know if still going strong. There is always an audience for a well-made game. You just have to match your budget to the audience.

If STALKER managed to get released after all its problems, then it's fair to say AP has quite a good chance of being released.

I liked the trailer. edit: Well, I didn't like the "music" but tha't not really all that critical.

Set equations always confused me.

Even though the both FO3 and Oblivion crash quite often on my system, I would say the biggest problems with Bethesda's engines are the artists and animators.

The indignant outrage will die down in a few more days and the forums will go back to being the slow and sleepy place we know and love.

atm, I wouldn't consider acting a strong point for the show. It's not cringe-inducing horrible or anything, but it often feels a little flat.

In light of Bioshock, I'm not sure if that statement makes sense or not. It actually makes perfect sense. System Shock 2 was hard lesson for Ken Levine. So much details went into it but majority of players wanted something complitely different. He and his crew did very detailed study what majority of players did want and then build Bioshock around that. Another quote from Ken Levine "We did some focus testing on BioShock -- and their answer as a focus group of 40 people was... 'Uh... Madden? Halo 3?'. The truth is that people have no idea of franchises. It's so hard to understand the experience of actual guys. You have to make the game for people who don't care." Bioware do - Story first, world second and game mechancis last. 2k games and Blizzard do - Game mechanics first, world second and story last. The reason I'm not sure it makes sense is that game mechanics of Bioshock blew chunks, and the story was the thing most people praised.

In light of Bioshock, I'm not sure if that statement makes sense or not.

A death system should reward players for not letting their characters die without penalizing them too heavily if they do. Vs Say a game like Bioshock which actually rewards players metagaming themselves into constant death.