AwesomeOcelot

The problem with religions in fantasy RPGs is that gods exist and we have two paradigms of how that intereaction goes i.e. fending machine, worship/reward, sacrifice/reward, charity/reward and "mysterious ways". In reality gods do not exist, we only have superstition as a basis for gods interacting with the world, and that's basically people believing what's convenient or flattering to them most of the time.

There's no reason why you'd want to, and there are reasons why you shouldn't be able i.e. the way they've implemented pathing. That's like saying there's no reason for fish to fly because they are meant to swim. They had a discussion on movement, they made a choice, I, the individual customer, didn't like it. They were not forced via engine to use that movement mechanic. It seriously isn't, it's more like wanting to eat soup with chopsticks. There's a difference between disgreeing with a design choice and saying there's no reason for something. There's plenty of reasons for why they made that decision, technical limitations aren't a requirement to being a reason.

There's no reason why you'd want to, and there are reasons why you shouldn't be able i.e. the way they've implemented pathing.

Broken Sword 5 Episode 1 and Guacamelee! soundtracks are pretty good, especially Guacamelee, probably one of my favourites ever. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1cRRyRhPvc

What kind of logic is that? Realism does not preclude fiction. I didn't say no harm could be done through fiction either, so well done reading comprehension. I'm pretty sure I said you can't objectify objects, for obvious reasons. I'm skeptical of the moral panic around sex and violence in video games. Yes, and it's a nonsense for people to say they're against discrimination without giving details. No, you've conflated two points. There's nothing wrong with a small development company targeting a niche market, they can't please everyone. You can't expect them to change because it's not up to you what they do, liberalism. Bull****. You couldn't possibly read this from my comments. This is not an honest dialogue. This is also minimizing your claims when you're defending them, by a lot, and grossly exagerating my claims when attacking them.

No, BruceVC advocated not having certain body types because some might find it offensive. It's relevant because people are saying they're offended as if that should count for anything, this is the drive behind a lot of the complaints about video games. If you cannot see how that quote applies to what's being said in this thread then that's your problem. I can't see anyone saying you shouldn't have this discussion or that you should stop because they're offended, so I don't know how you think it applies to others in this thread apart from massive delusion. It's not silly, it's just hypocrisy on your part. Saying you're against discrimination is nonsense, everyone discriminates, it's who and why that's important. It's not very liberal to expect content creators and niche audiences to kowtow to other groups just because they find something offensive. You can't objectify fictional characters, they're already objects. It's easier to market things people already want through cultural and biological biases than manipulating people, game company's marketing departments did not create sexual cultures around the world and do not dictate human biology. Why is this even up for debate? Of course portrayals of certain groups can be changed, question is who makes those decisions and should they be changed.

Red Alert (not just the live action, there's great prerendered stuff), Fallout (those death scenes, and my favourites the walk into the desert and the assault on Vault 13), Diablo 2, Warcraft 3, Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee, Tomb Raider (1996. especially the opening scene) have some of my favourites. While these games have some of my favourite cutscenes I prefer in engine cutscenes, for the consistancy with the rest of the game (doesn't matter so much with RTS and isometric RPG) and resource savings, they take a lot of time and imagine keeping up with technology with prerendered cutscenes, Hellgate London and Dawn of War 2 prerendered cutscenes must have cost a ****load.

No. I don't think they're phrased as reasonable points, I'm not sure what your points are because of the ridiculous formation. 1. ****'em. As I'd say to homophobes who would have a problem with Temple of Elemental Evil or Dragon Age: Origins. People should mind their own business, the people "offended" are not the audience, most of the time they'll never experience the game because they're not the audience. Should we remove homosexuality, violence, politics, etc...? Someone is going to get offended by it. I get offended by stuff in games, but I'm not prissy and self-entitled so I just stop playing and not buy games by that developer. It's the opposite of reasonable to expect others to bend to your mores, that doesn't happen in a free society. 2. That's making huge assumptions in what will and won't dminish the actual enjoyment of the game. Also it's the decision of the developer what they want to make and it's the decision of the publisher what they want to fund. 3. A marketing company that consistantly gets it wrong won't last.

That doesn't depend on that all, you may disagree with the conclusion of publishers that their games will have a primarily male audience and thus adding on top of that more content targetted at them is in their interests, but it doesn't rely on the potential gaming market as a whole, just games on an individual basis. The existence of Saints Row IV doesn't stop the next Sims or Animal Crossing game from existing. It results in bad games when a developer decides to target the broadest audience, the lowest common denominator, that's how certain developers do things but the developers that make good games don't. If there's a potential market publishers will exploit it, Bejeweled and The Sims show that, it doesn't require other games to be changed, it doesn't need to effect the existing industry, developers, and franchises. A new potential market should begin and grow alongside the existing market. I don't understand your point, I'll keep my comment simple. Lets say that there is a game like Dragon Crown which objectifies the female characters and the developers are happy with how the game is designed as they target a niche market that likes the fact how the women are portrayed. Do you not think that pressure should be put on them to change how they represent women in the game? That's an entirely separate point. This was in response to what people want in games, and that it's not necessarily a good thing for gamers or developers that were making games targetted at niches to try to chase a mass market. There's room for niches in the gaming industry. On your point, it's pretty simple. Female characters, as all fictional characters, are objects so cannot be objectified. They are made to serve a purpose, to serve the narrative, to provide comedy or titillation. Why should pressure be put on them to change? I believe that people can separate reality from fiction, the same arguments (often by the same people) are made about games and violence, and they're equally wrong. I don't believe it's right for me in a liberal society with freedom of expression to be sheltered from my entertainment choices. These games are fantasies, most of them may not be my fantasy, but I can empathise with people enough to not want to crush things they enjoy. Finally, I don't even believe the arguments about this are sincere, they're just rationalizations for disgust, like the people that get angry over homosexual acts in fiction or kissing on the street, it's insecure people feeling threatened.

That doesn't depend on that all, you may disagree with the conclusion of publishers that their games will have a primarily male audience and thus adding on top of that more content targetted at them is in their interests, but it doesn't rely on the potential gaming market as a whole, just games on an individual basis. The existence of Saints Row IV doesn't stop the next Sims or Animal Crossing game from existing. It results in bad games when a developer decides to target the broadest audience, the lowest common denominator, that's how certain developers do things but the developers that make good games don't. If there's a potential market publishers will exploit it, Bejeweled and The Sims show that, it doesn't require other games to be changed, it doesn't need to effect the existing industry, developers, and franchises. A new potential market should begin and grow alongside the existing market.

Only Valve games from the comments on Steam, only Dota 2 and Portal as far as I could see. It swapped Portal for Counter-Strike: Source for me, broke it, had to redownload it later.

I thought The Walking Dead was meh, there's way better TV shows, it's mediocre with stupid moments that were probably because of the nature of "interactive" novels, the reason it's one of the worst games is the gameplay. Where as Fahrenheit was offensively bad, cliche characters, stilted and stupid dialogue, and a ridiculous plot, the gameplay was even worse than The Walking Dead, Fahrenheit is definitely the worst game I've ever played. Of course gamers are notorious for loving **** stories, the amount of beloved Japanese games for instance. Then again The Da Vinci Code happened, and that's terribly written and the plot is nonsense, so clearly humanity loves the worst stories.

Perhaps you should read something about it. Intel is only supporting DDR4 at the end of the year for servers because of the lower voltage. DDR4 will be released at 2133 MT/s, which is also the speed of the highest DDR3 standard modules, manufacturers sell DDR3 at 2400 MT/s. In the future DDR4 will be faster, but for a while it won't be. I think you should because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. What specifically? That DDR4 is lower voltage (1.5v vs 1.2v)? That DDR4 will be introduced at 2133 MT/s and DDR3 is being sold at 2400 MT/s? That Intel is only supporting DDR4 RAM with enterprise class CPUs in 2014?

Vampire the Masqurade Bloodlines needed a console command because of a game breaking bug on launch. Used the console to recover from broken quests and to fix quests in Fallout: New Vegas. Maybe a coincidence it was those games and their relation to Pillars of Eternity. I think having a console significantly helps modding and fanpatches as well.

Perhaps you should read something about it. Intel is only supporting DDR4 at the end of the year for servers because of the lower voltage. DDR4 will be released at 2133 MT/s, which is also the speed of the highest DDR3 standard modules, manufacturers sell DDR3 at 2400 MT/s. In the future DDR4 will be faster, but for a while it won't be.

It's not just a little crazy, it's idiotic. DDR4 isn't as fast as the fastest DDR3, it's also really expensive. They're not releasing a $1000 console with top range hardware which they'd still make a loss on, and if they're going to release later they'll use newer generation hardware, not top range old hardware. On top of the new CPU it says they're sticking a similar CPU to the Wii U's with DDR3 on die (suggesting Wii U hardware emulation), which would push the price up further. Worst lie is the GPU, which obviously would have much too high power consumption for a console.

So basically, "I don't care for these ubiquitous body types in games so I'm going to make up insincere nonsensical moral arguments why they shouldn't be ubiquitous". Unattainable ideals in fiction aren't a problem, unless you're an idiot. Sexuality expressed in fiction isn't a problem, unless you're a prude. Notice I don't go around saying that "QTEs take away the challenge, responsibility, and creativity away from player, it sends bad messages", because I'm not mental, but if you don't care for popular body types, or you're a prude, then people just make up some nonsense about bad messages. It's not even as if there's a coherent plan to curtail fetishes and ideals, if that's even possible, you can change course but you're never going to stop extremes because that's inherent in them. Inability to accept failure and unrealistic expectations are the problem, I'd suggest they're a heavy influence on games where you get modern trends like QTEs and AI snipers are programmed to miss always. Changing games isn't going to solve that problem, it's only going to make less popular games and there's always going to be developers willing to step up and make popular games if others aren't willing to.

You could say the same for the Wii, not that much more powerful than a Xbox or GCN, and that sold better than both the PS3 and Xbox360. I think this is what happens when you try to fool people twice and how mainstream adoption can be extremely fickle. At least in my opinion the Wii was a fad that was really ****, and people are just going to assume the WiiU is more of the same, but they're also not the people buying the other consoles anyway. People wanted motion controls, until they used them. People want touchscreen games, but for some time they've owned tablets and smartphones, they also want ****ty touchscreen games, which Nintendo can't corner the market on.

Lots of fighting in the first 2 Mega Drive Road Rash games, and in the 3D poly "Road Rash 3D" and Jailbreak on the PS. In the sprite based 3DO version, which I owned a PS port of, fighting wasn't such a big part, the best strategy was to avoid it entirely, I only used the push kick to knock other bikes into uncoming vehicles because it was fun.

And by their very nature that's not what's happening, you're not responsible in the same way as control interaction in gameplay, you're just unlocking gates in a cutscene through prompts. It's completely boring to me, I'd rather just watch a cutscene, because if it's a cutscene I actually want to watch then I want to pay attention to it. I can't imagine anything worse than adding QTE to good cutscenes in games, but I also find that cutscenes are sucking as a result of QTE. It's "just watching" plus pressing buttons/performing gestures to explicit prompts. If a game is simple and telegraphed, we used to call it boring, shallow, and repetitive, well QTE is what happens when you make it as simple and telegraphed as you can get. Apparantly intending to suck.

Haven't gotten around to playing Shadowrun Returns even though I backed it, thing is $1.8m isn't a lot to make a RPG and just over a year is pretty short, I was not expecting it to be content rich or large, hopefully the planned DLC will make it better. The developer didn't have a great pedigree either, having made 2 mobile games, but they did have some veterans I respect greatly attached to the project, the people making the game didn't have a history. In terms of gameplay I don't think they were aiming to be like older games, and the Shadowrun game on the Mega Drive wasn't that complex. You're right, Broken Age is a bit light, but I think that's more a design choice than because of Kickstarter funding, also running out of time and money was a choice as well, to do with the art of the game and the way its created. Aren't all Tim Schafer games terrible to play? I mean Grim Fandango has some of the worst gameplay ever, someone created an entire movie of it so you don't have to play it. Brad Muir said the combat in Psychonauts was terrible until he came on board, and even though that game is great it still has someone pretty bad parts in terms of gameplay. Thing is Double FIne has made one of the best Adventures I've ever played, Stacking, and I doubt that had a budget anywhere near Broken Age's. FTL and Chivalry are best in class games. Gianna Sisters Twisted Dream is an incredible platformer, one of the best ever. Broken Sword 5 (at least the first episode) was on par with the original (the best Adventure game, Shadow of the Templars). About Shadowrun Returns and the DLC, I think someone is attributing malice to something which is adequately explained by stupidity.

It has gameplay, it's just terrible gameplay. Has a lot of non-iteractivity as well, a large part of it isn't a game.

The first videos were funny before they became painful. There was a time when reading the manuals for games was a requirement. Arcanum is a flawed gem, it's not all down to not reading the manual, there's a lot of fustration to be had regardless. If you haven't completed the game you're missing out, there's excellent stuff in it as well.

They did stick a store on top of Windows, launching at the start, requiring you to exit it without a setting to turn it off. It was a pretty aggressive move by Microsoft, I can understand why GabeN decided to look for an out.

Alien 3 on the Mega Drive was a good game.