greylord

Can you elaborate? TONGUE IN CHEEK Here let me translate. "I worked on Bioshock and whoever criticizes it and tells me how to do something is an idiot." How's that. Hopefully you caught the tongue in cheek part though. On the otherhand I feel sorry for the guy, he's just experiencing what a LOT of the general public experiences and why Blizzards games normally do very well and people trust them...Blizzard caters to the lower ground of graphics and computers in general, not the the newest thing out there, thus increasing their customer base. Hence they don't get as many people like the guy who wrote the article finding out that they can't run a game because they don't have shiny enough new gadgets to run it. If I were the guy and just had my phone shut off, I probably wouldn't be buying video games to pass the time though, on a side not. Edit: Heck, he should start saving for an Xbox360 at that Christmas time, then he could play those games and not have to worry about computer upgrades or anything like that...and the 360 is currently going for 279 new, and down to at least 239 used in pretty accessible areas.

I'd be more inclined to think it would be Baldur's Gate if they were going to use a brand that everyone recognized. When BG2 it came out it was neck in neck with Diablo 2 in all the reviews...with BG2 normally getting the higher score. KoToR is well known, but more well known for being on the Xbox than on the PC (though obviously it is also well known on the PC) so I'm not certain how well that brand would fare if they are going to try to beat WoW in people buying it sight unseen. Of course on the otherhand it DOES have the Star Wars brand with it, but I think a lot of those who would buy it might have a bad taste in their mouth from the treatment of Star Wars Galaxies. People like me on the otherhand might at least try it out sight unseen, but sometimes I don't think my tastes flow with the majority of gamers.

Bethesda secured the rights to IWD3? Well, this is one they better get done well, and true to the heart and spirit at least of the old ones. NOT like they did with their Star Trek games (though Legacy had so much promise, it needed a LOT more polish, and the rest of the ones they put out weren't all that great either). Still seeing what happens with FO, I suppose that will tell us whether what they make out of IWD would be an abomination or a dream come true.

I've played Halo co-op. Thought it was stupid. Can't even come close to comparing to the Battlefield games or Unreal Tournament. There is only ONE advantage to Halo Coop, and that is because it's on a console you only need one console and 4 controllers for four guys. Add another console and TV and you can have 8 people playing at the same time, like a LAN party but cheaper. I played in a tournament, won several bouts (one of the first times I played even), got bored, and told the final guy I beat that he could go to the finals. Anyone bragging about HALO Coop would seem to me not to really be into online first person shooters and don't know all the options available via them nowdays. It truly wasn't anything special. To tell the truth, I had more fun with Doom. But, as I said, the big special thing about Halo is the bang for the buck and having so many people able to play for so cheaply, meaning it's far easier and takes up less space than a bunch of people with their computers. Since you'll all be sitting on the same couch, it will also stand a good chance of being more sociable as well. It's the social endeaver in HALO coop that's appealing. The game itself is rather bleh in mp. The SP portion of it however wasn't too bad as far as storyline goes, and there have been many First Person shooters which aren't half as good as Halo or Halo 2 is as far as gameplay and story in the Singleplayer mode. That actually is more appealing about Halo to me than the coop. However, even for SP play, I'd rather Call of Duty 2, or Call of Duty if going for the experience and gameplay.

Can you DIG IT!!! -The Warriors

I wouldn't say so. 2K and SecuRom have stated about the items, but they didn't mention what exactly it was (which HAS been discovered). They didn't tell you that the reason a Rootkit revealer might see it as such is because of the level at which 3 lines of code are put into, nor that they CANNOT be uninstalled. Uninstalling Bioshock OR SecuRom functions WILL NOT disable OR uninstall these items. They are hidden away, so unless one knows what they are looking for, they WILL not find them, and even if they do, unless they go to the actual level of program and code, they can't even be taken off from what I understand. What do you call a program that installs itself without your knowledge, hidden away in another program, that can do things like disable or enable programs as entered (in this case however, only Bioshock is the program (edit: it allows bioshock to be accessed), at least confirmed, some have said it also has portions of it that are centered at disabling certain versions of Nero and other burning programs), and have no normal way of uninstallation. I call it a Trojan, though there are Trojans out there that are easier to detect. However, this DOES come from my Nephew, so I didn't discover it myself but I do trust his statements over all.

So, in relation to 2K, how does it feel to have them Sucker you guys! Suckers! Personally, good luck at removing it if you really want it removed. It's a major [word that cannot really be said here] to get rid of. There are three different little items that you have to remove, and they are all at the base level of Windows, so it's not going to be any typical walk in the park. To tell the truth, AVG can detect portions of it probably, but I don't think it will be able to do a complete clean of it due to how low level in the programming this Trojan affects. What you are talking about is seperate from what is mistaken for the Rootkit. IT INSTALLS A WINDOWS SERVICE. Which is quite easy to turn off as it is a windows service and is listed under windows services. The full extent of the administrative abilities it gives to other users I can't speak to, but supposedly it's limited to only SecuROM functions. This isn't the thing that people have mistaken for the Rootkit? It's in Bioshock. There isn't any rootkit there that I can tell, though one that could be mistaken for one...which is the item which is the backdoor created into your accounts (So one could bypass your security if they desired...though probably via the game). It's a little lowlevel however, and I doubt this could be turned off by Windows. It COULD be used by a SecuRom update to prevent you from utilizing certain programs or resources, OR allowing you TO use certain programs or resources if they so desired. I believe 2K also called it a service, though this one isn't able to be turned off easily as there are three different points of contact in the code at three different locations in Windows. If I mistook something as a Rootkit that's probably what I'd have mistaken it for as it is at a pretty low level of the program. It could be a separate item however I suppose.

Yes, Bioshock DOES have a Trojan, so it's not surprising if your AVG is detecting it. That's like...duh... I even mentioned it in the Bioshock thread as to why I wouldn't play Bioshock on PC and only on Xbox if I were you. I included what it did, and why the developers felt they should include it. So, in relation to 2K, how does it feel to have them Sucker you guys! Suckers! Personally, good luck at removing it if you really want it removed. It's a major [word that cannot really be said here] to get rid of. There are three different little items that you have to remove, and they are all at the base level of Windows, so it's not going to be any typical walk in the park. To tell the truth, AVG can detect portions of it probably, but I don't think it will be able to do a complete clean of it due to how low level in the programming this Trojan affects.

Well, I was about to get it when my Nephew warned me about a Trojan it installs (mistakenly called Rootkit by someothers). It is a baselevel line of code which disables the administrative portion of your administrator account allowing all others to access it. This allows the game to have those who are not administrators run it. Unless you go to the base level of windows YOU CANNOT uninstall this trojan/program they give you courtesy of your install of the program or of the Demo. Already installed Bioshock in full or Demo form. Welcome to the shock...you're already infected. Good Luck at getting it uninfected. It also has been stated in some others opinions that it will disable certain functions of items the programmers consider pirated or could be used in piracy. I don't know how this works. 2K games has come out and stated, it is not a rootkit, but an accessory for the game. I suppose it's an anti-piracy enhancement to your game...nice of them to think about you so much to prevent pirates on your machine. Check security levels and turn them down? I don't know the specs on your machine but of course I would suppose that would be an obvious gotcha. However if I play it I'll go the other way...playing it on a 360 I think.

So what do you think? I think it's doable and possible. Remember when the Xbox original had power supplies causing fires, probably for the 360 they created something that would be a safety against such things occurring with the circuit board. Oops, need the link

I know a two year old that is okay with Mario, and I know some 5 year olds that could beat it (dang it, I know I introduced them a little early to video games, but these kids are gaming LORDS compared to me in what they can do...this 5 year old is AMAZING in the video games). They are really good with the older games that are NOT RPGs. Not so good with some of the newer games that have a little more complexities to them however and a few more buttons for them to push and figure out. I have no problems with cheats in a SP game. However, my suggestion...don't play the 5 year old in a Street Fighter type game, he has no mercy, and will spank your fighter hard. PS: I don't think you could beat PacMan, it seems to go on forever. I've never reached the end at least...being Mr. Obvious I suppose.

Can you explain that more? What, you design the dungeon yourself, then you go traipsing in it? You don't design it, you map it out as you go along. Similar to some other older games, except instead of having to get your own pen and paper, you use the stylus and lower screen of the DS to draw it out, put in markers of monsters, treasure, stairs, doors, events, notes, and other such items. The game itself is no waltz in the park. It's easy to die if one doesn't ready themselves right for the next level, doesn't use common sense in party design, or simply gets lost and can't figure out how to get out. You'll get a rudimentary mapping done as you progress, but it's up to you to basically fill in all the details and such. So far, great game. Just discovering another element to it which is the economics. It seems that you can only have a five person party, but they belong to your own personal guild of which you can have up to 20 individuals. Economically this can pay out because instead of having characters that are focused on combat feats or wilderness feats, you can have those which you specialize in mining, wood cutting, or trapping, and such economic items as doing these jobs to get stuff to sell and actually make money. Interesting concept that I haven't tried out too much yet (just created my first miner and woodcutter to add to a guild for a money gathering team). In addition, I got smoked on one of the levels as I hadn't prepared my party well enough, but I will have them geared up soon to take it on again after reloading up the save.

Saw it at the gaming store and thought, what they heck I'll pick it up and give it a try. I hadn't heard of it and figured I might be taking a huge risk. I even thought it might stink badly. I was wrong. ALL wrong. This game ROCKS. Seriously Rocks thus far. I'm not certain if there is much story yet, I'm only in the first few hours so haven't gotten that far. However it started out with you creating a party which you name, and put in formation. You then head off to the dungeon (It's a town...and a dungeon, that's it really...a really really BIG dungeon). You MAP out the dungeon yourself, AND, unusually for a DS game, you can put notes on it (like BG2 type notes but not quite as long), markers, and other items. The dungeon crawling in appearance is like the Old eye of the Beholder games, Dungeon Hack, or Wizardry games. The artwork isn't old school however, it's more anime drawings for characters, and the backgrounds are up to date overall so much more vibrant than the older games and more detailed. There isn't much customization on character creation other than picking class (basic classes, though they are renamed, you have your fighter class, you ranger class, your paladin class, your Wizard class, your healer Class, a wierd class I'm not certain what it falls under, and a Bard class...along with two others I haven't unlocked yet. As you level up however, you get much more customization as you pick what types of spells you want your casters to know, what skills for your warriors, and find better weapons to buy, etc. I don't have a full review for it yet, but if you like old school games you might consider checking this one out. From a risky buy, it's turned out to be the absolute BEST nintendo DS game I've gotten thus far. It completely rocks!

Okay...my bad...approved of what was being put out because they had guys talking to the people developing it and looking at it the entire way through and dictating some of what they would and would not have in the game...and then published it. So you're right, they didn't develop it but they sure had a lot of weight on what and how it was made. Mad Doc made Legacy, the best of the bunch at least on X-box but forced to put it out in a condition they weren't really wanting to put it out by...take a wild guess on which publisher (actually you don't have to have a wild guess it was Bethesda that forced it out when they did), Quicksilver made Tactical Assault, and some strange company made Encounters. Bethesda really lost a lot of respect on how they handled some of the things on their side...and yes, they forced some items out the door with things that the developers didn't want, it was done because Bethesda said so. I think Legacy was the one that made the most of the PC ST gamers mad however, since Mad Doc didn't get the chance to finish (to be fair: of course I believe Bethesda's side is in relation to their budgetary concerns in relation to the game overall or that's how it sounded) with all they had or wanted from what I understand. Nevertheless, in summary, Bethesda had some great games on their own...but have botched enough recently to make me keep my expectations low. Can't be too disappointed if I don't expect that much, and seeing their results from the ST franchise, I have really low expectations for FO3.

When I first read this I wanted to scream. Really scream. Then I saw that the same article also claimed they were making a BG type game for the DS. At that point I figured the people writing this stuff must be doing an April fools, on crack or really thought Bio had gone insane. Either that or bioware really HAS gone insane. I'm hoping the latter is not true.

I've had similar problems with both KOTOR games on Radeons. If this is a 1.0 game you might try d/ling the latest patch and try it then. KOTOR2 is unplayable on my Radeon cards unless I d/l the patches, then they run great. Just something to try.

Well, I'm not going to be looking with high hopes at Bethesda for Fallout 3. Looking at what they did with the Star Trek License, they about murdered that thing. There WERE some good games they could have built off of for their new games such as Bridge Commander, or the Star Fleet Command Series, but instead they had to come up with their own ships and own ideas...which led to some pretty bad games. One of the problems was that they released games that had nothing unlocked unless you played through the game starting in the hated Enterprise era (so for TNG or TOS lovers like me...we couldn't even play a single ship from that era in skirmish or otherwise on the console versions of some of their games). Add to that some really hard scenarios, and some really foolish reasoning on how to solve some of the puzzles...and some rather poor gameplay, and the HUGE opportunity they had with Star Trek was wasted. Completely. After seeing what they did with that opportunity and how they completely tossed it to the wind I'm not holding on to any great hopes for FO3. On the bright side, if it IS good, I can be pleasantly surprised. (seeing I'm not one they really have to worry about anyways, at least one sale is probably locked in for me since I'll at least try it).

Hey, I liked the music to DS1, even if the gameplay got really boring after about all of 10 minutes. I DID enjoy the gameplay for DS2. I thought it was the best ActionRPG for the PC with a mouse since Diablo2 (which many don't like either soooooo). On the otherhand, I'll give a wait and see on what comes out of this for this new RPG. Sega had some great RPGs in the early 90s (Phantasy Star, and also they created a GG game called Defenders of Oasis), however recently I've hated all the RPGs they've created. It should be interesting to see what gets created between the two of them.

Well, can't read the article, maybe it was deleted or moved from the link or just not registering? Whichever it is, it should be noted that the Barbarian was a Kit, but later on in 2nd edition it actually became a Class somewhat similar to UA, but a little less powerful. Hence, Barbarian WAS a class found in the Complete Barbarian for 2nd Edition.

Bingo. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I used the pause between turns function and had it on "pause" quite a bit so I could choose who and what I did with more finesse.

You should add in your opinion. Best sellers that did NOT match up graphically to other games being released... NWN (Yep, atrocious graphics compared to the status quo...oh what's that...major seller???) World of Warcraft (Yep, graphics are even down to lower end cards faaaaar below what was being released...what's that...major seller???) The Sims (had terrible graphics up to when it was replaced by Sims 2 and still was always at the top of the list...hmm...how did that happen). PS2 (less powerful than the Xbox and especially the Xbox 360 but worldwide is far more popular by almost 10+ to 1 margin and greater???) (we'll see what happens with the PS3 of course) So, in your opinion graphics play a major part, just like in my opinion, it's the gameplay...and THAT'S why those games above did well...not because they in any way were eye candy...bling bling.

???? Whatever. There's no way he can tell me what my opinion is...duh... On the matter of my opinion I'm 100% correct, and those trying to tell me my opinion is different should go take a shot of whiskey and start reflecting on why they think they want to be me and know more about my opinions then myself. On the Bis/Bioware thing, you know...you're right. But when I look at the IE games, I lump them all together. And Plus, yes I do consider NWN and TOEE Atari games as well...which still fits into your argument. From what I understand however, BIS had quite a bit of say on the products whilst Bio was developing them that went into the BG series. I think they both worked together and worked together well on all the projects enough for me to have the opinion (there's that word again) that they worked more closely and in better unison than Atari and any company does. It was because of this unison that BIS was even able to come out with the IWD series and PS:T. In my opinion.

Your comment reminds me of Force Commander. Couldn't play the game past the first level it was so bad...but STILL love the soundtrack to that game!!!

And I'd counter argue and say that the actual GAME ENTHUSAISTS (and yes, you could call us nerds) which are probably a minority, can STILL see the good graphics of the games. Now, Once again in my opoinion. Take an older game like the original Diablo (now almost 12 years of age) and compared to many games, I think it STILL looks good, and has good gameplay for it's specific genre of Hack and slash. Eye is in the beauty of the beholder, but Titan Quest and Sacred, though elements of them were well created...just didn't have the quality of work and heart put into their drawings (discussing others in the genre today). In fact, Titan quest didn't really strike me as pretty at all, or even graphically appeasing except for the lighting. Perhaps it's becuase I actually still enjoy playing the original Diablo, and can't stand Titan Quest, or most of these other action RPGs. Overall they stink and are not my preferred form of play. Normally can't stand action RPGs when one gets down to it, at least what some try to pass off as action RPGs today. BUT, I did like and still like to play Diablo. I enjoy Diablo ii as well. I also enjoyed the BGDA series. But, it's more about the gameplay than the graphics. If it has good gameplay, it will always be enjoyable to me. ALOT of the oldergames I never played (I was one of those that didn't have a computer OR console in my youth, and got into them quite by accident...probably why I'm an editor instead of something dealing heavily in programming today and such). Most of the older games that I've played now I try because I find them at really cheap prices somewhere and give it a shot. I've found many enjoyable games that way. I think a lot of it is that to me, ultimately I care more about whether a game is fun, than not. Graphics are nice, but bling bling is more of a Western thing, and though it's nice and I can get excited by it...bling bling doesn't determine enjoyment for me. IN MY OPINION what you stated above appliles heavily to teens and MAYBE the less gamer involved college students (those who play to brag they are gamers, but don't get into ALL games), but to the overall gamer (and you do have some really hard teens and college students in exeption to the others) who has been around for a while, what really matters is whether it is fun or not. If it has good graphics and is fun, that's great. If it doesn't have graphics at all, but is fun, well, hey, just like most games, it'll be fun many years down the road. Unless you play it to death (and even then some will still be fun, but repetition can get boring I admit), games that you enjoy should remain games that you enjoy/would enjoy. Once again, those in my opinion that let graphics get in the way of determining whether they can or cannot enjoy a game are not really those who are in it for enjoyment, or gaming, and aren't really gamers at all. They're in it for the eyecandy, they faddish element, and the bling bling. Maybe not a bad thing, at least then they probably aren't the computer nerd like I have become!!!