Diogo Ribeiro

Except message boards are not exactly the best representation of what the consumer base might want. Message boards are mostly for fans of a company to trade opinions on said company's products. While you get good suggestions once in a while, there's a reason why many of them are not taken to heart by developers, and ultimately, do not make any appearance in a game. Bluntly put, they're either flat out bad (the most common reason), or do not fit the team's vision or needs for their product. Obsidian are aware of people's opinions and views. They're not ignoring us, but they certainly aren't being held hostage to our demands, either. Incidentally, attributing an insulting label to a company if they won't do what you think they should do isn't exactly smart. For this, we'd have to assume that the input people on message boards boards give out actually makes it to the game. We'd also have to assume that suggestions and gamer input are what make the game a success, when in fact, its likely to be the work put into the game by the team that will make it a success. Also, we'd have to assume that it was a good idea to award gamers with free copies of a game because they gave a suggestion that made it to the game. How many hundred would flood the boards trying to get the same result? Finally, we'd have to assume that knowing who gave the idea that makes it into the game was an easy task. How many people have given similar suggestions? Would all those that gave the same idea received free copies? And what if someone just decides to post an idea which isn't even theirs? How does one ascertain who is the creator of the idea itself? Nothing prevents developers from getting the real names from message board users, and including it in credits.

Holland won, and as such, they'll be Portugal's adversary. Sweden kicks the bucket. Next up: Denmark vs. Czech Republic.

And France just lost again Greece. Booyah!!

Someone give me those old time cassete tapes. Why did you had to abandon the ZX Spectrum format? Bastards.

What do you mean? Should've he stepped aside? Basically, Terry was blocking the goalkeeper on purpose while some other english player was aiming for the goal. Suffice to say, that's foul play. Regardless thats in the past. Portugal has been trough equally wrenching, game-crippling situations, and we got over it. It doesn't even matter who won; i found myself loving the game even when Portugal was losing, because of the effort both teams were putting into it.

And we friggin' WON!!! WHAAAAAAAAAA! Excellent game. Both teams did a good game, though Portugal was much superior. It's a shame someone has to stay behind, but it's life. Portugal >>>>>>> England :D

Today, Portugal vs. England. Comments?

Perhaps you should read closely, and in the process, try to differentiate between real and credible. Just a hint.

Are you generally this thick or you just like to play games ?!? Both, but that doesn't matter, because i was responding to your comment on how one set of special effects were more "fake and unbeleivable" than other, when in fact they're both fake and unbelievable.

They looked fake and unbeleivable. I'm sorry, i must've missed the credibility in the part where a liquid metal blob assumes a human apperance. Seriously, if the gripe you have with them is the credibility, sure, it's your opinion. But in terms of quality, i still maintain mine that the Matrix is superior to T2.

I think the Matrix special effects were anything but inferior to those seen in T2. The difference in years and the technical advancement should be an indication of that. Moving on, the Matrix sequels didn't warranted any special reaction from me in terms of the fighting sequences. Reloaded made something which i thought was impossible - which was to make the fights look dull. The first Matrix, in terms of combat sequences, manages to be quite convincing and interesting. One of the main reasons for this is that the combats are all done between people. The coreographed effort of two actors is much more convincing than nigh endless CGI Smiths re-enacting Dragon Ball Zesque fights (i swear i was half-expecting a couple of Smiths to energize, grow blonde hair and pull flurries of blows and Kamehamahas (sp)). Granted, there are combats against human opponents in the sequels as well, but to a lesser degree, and not as interesting. Bullet Time was overexacerbated. And in the first movie, there was always the doubt of wheter Neo was in fact the One or not (i know, having Keanu as the main star of the movie and not having him be the One would be a copout; i'm talking storywise). Each fight - specially against agents - carried the underlying idea that a fight could be the last. Not as much in the sequels. If anything, the Matrix sequels only made me enjoy the original more. Regardless, in the end, the Matrix sequels suck. Reloaded has Keanu's scrawny ass on-screen. Folks, that's a big NO right there.

I did the test and got a Homer Simpson picture. WTH?

If you don't care, why bring it up? Or maybe you should instead try to be mature enough to not refer to quibbles you may have had with me in the past, since they're not relevant (or rememberd correctly, as your statement would indicate). When did being politically correct became a issue? It's interesting that you imply i over-analyze people's posts... My post above was pretty nonchalant. I didn't made any statement against you, nor against your previous remark. I didn't asked you to rephrase it. Yet, you simply looked at it, and flipped out, changing in on the grounds of political correctedness... which no one else here seems to have brought up. Perhaps over-analyzing what others say is a trait which isn't exclusively mine, eh? Though over-reacting might be something worse.

Fallout didn't have serious writing? Whoa.

Any saying is better than "You must gather your party..."

Wizardry 8. Minimal voice sets allow for multiple male and female voices, the regulating difference being the personalities. There are several pre-recorded voice sets for different personalities (moody, intellectual, backstabbing, etc). The reason i don't see this being incorporated into TSL is simply the cost and work associated with recording several types of voices. Given that apparently all speech will have voice over, it's likely that there will only be one voice set for either gender.

There are endless things one could throw to the discussion. One would be what is art meant to be, but we already know the lack of consensus in that. Still, what exact definition of the word are we aiming for here? Art as in the accepted definition that reflects works which are universally accepted as being art; or art in the sense of depicting human ability itself, of being artful, of having a certain skill in a given field? If we're talking of the later, than likely everything we produce is likely to be art (with the possible exception of the afforementioned items geared towards survival or reproduction), because they are testaments to human skill. If we're talking about the former, then how and when did videogames qualify as being art? There are various forms of digital art (computer generated art being an example), but why should videogames qualify? Lets suppose that one of the reasons to consider videogames art would be the 'art' (as in, human skill) involved in creating long, efficient and elegant code that would in turn create the proccesses which run the game. If this would be the case, then why not consider any other computer program as art, too? Either one runs along due to said code. Perhaps it is the end result; the ability to create a compelling form of media? If this is the case, then we'd have several other computer programs to contend with as well, based on that concept (image producing, 3D model-creating, audio composing, etc., all are able to create an end result which can be quaified as art). Or is there something else? From a personal point of view, i believe that videogames cannot be considered art (with some exceptions) for several reasons. For one, the medium is very young and its potential has been barely used. While other forms of art were born, lived and age well, videogames are still giving baby steps. The medium hasn't established itself as a medium capable of presenting forms of art, or at least, forms of art which could be universally recognized as such. Videogames aren't the suffer with this kind of perception, tho'; the first steps of cinema were marred by inflamatory remarks by elitists who claimed that movies were for the mentally inept, uncapable of relying on a book and needing images to understand things. Second, neither players, publishers or developers are seriously considering the issue that the medium can be more that simple entertainment. The majority of gamers are interested in entertainment (*); the majority of developers are interested in complying with that line of thought; and publishers enforce this mentality by generally rejecting risky, out-of-the-box propositions. I feel the medium is severely put to waste by mass market mentalities. This isn't to say that other forms of art do not have different attitudes in their midst (how many painting styles failed to capture the attention of art appreciators who were more interested in painting's aesthetic aspects?). But the focus of the industry is basically that of mass market, which, under any context, promotes a standardization of ideas and a rejection of innovation and experimentalism (which to me is more important to the development of any form of expression). Also, my (hopefully) last point is, that i think that the interactivity videogames provide somewhat dillutes the concept of art (or of what i would perceive as art). Now, interaction between the public and the artform isn't necessarily bad; the dadaist Happenings were precisely that - an event which involved the audience and usually had them contribute to the creation of a final art form (i think this was a dadaist element, but my memory may be playing tricks on me). But when taken into context of videogames, that interaction from the audience is no longer there. The audience is not throwing random conceptual elements into something that will become a whole due to their input; the end result (the game), is already there. This results in the videogame being created with the primary concept of interaction, and in different ways for the player to interact with it. Its no longer about carrying a mesage, its about how the player will look at the theoretical message and understand it. It may seem weird that i am mentioning this as a problem, because the meaning of art, and the understanding of meanings adjacent to a form of art are dependant of the viewers' 'interaction' with the artform itself; but there is a reason. I believe art, in order to be understood, requires a keen perception of both the artist and the audience. However, i see videogames are created in a way which makes them easy to understand from the get go, which inherently facilitates the audience's perception, thus ruining the effect. But perhaps this is the way art will be re-evaluated in the future; the fusion of several art mediums into a single one, with the viewer's interactivity with the new form of art being the primary factor which defines the object's relevance. (*)I believe that, while some gamers are discerning enough to compreehend some developers' goals when placed into a videogame (such as, say, Hideo Kojima's fears of the digital age included in the more recent iterations of the Metal Gear Solid series), most gamers simply do not care. Kojima can express himself in his creations, but most gamers will simply not understand, not relate or simply not care with it. They prefer to be entrenched in the concept of gameplay than in the concept that there might be something more than that. Games like Deus Ex carry a concern towards the abuse of power, the concept of choice, the analysis of what terrorism really is; yet, players make online polls about favorite weapons and sneak guides. While i don't think Torment would be a good example of an artistic game (though in my mind it successfully combined visual and literary ideals into a single, definite form), i would also avoid nominating Syberia, Riven or Silent Hill 2 as artistic games. To me, games like Vib Ribbon, Ico or Rez (and perhaps Torment, though at an inferior level) stand as good examples of artistic games, in the sense of providing several elements which blur and produce something more than a game, or that can be considered more than a game. On a more inquisitive note, what elements did you find in those games you mentioned that made them artistic, or more artistic than Torment? Having played the game recently, I'd be interested in asking what exactly would be considered innovative in the game, because i fear i may have missed it.

Lets not forget Bradley's attempt at trying to do away with repetitive and monotonous clicking... by providing a combat system that usually relies on that.

This relates to what you said to what i answered... how? The point isn't about playing someone else's character, Hades. You stated, quote: For one, you assume that feature would provide players with greater replayability... when the element of replayability doesn't need to depend on it. Replayability can exist regardless of how customizable the initial character is. I think this should be obvious, no? Second, that feature isn't the most important feature of any CRPG (though i would personally rank it as one of the most important, no doubt), simply because, if there isn't a logical creation of elements that respond to your decision while operating character creation, than that feature is wasted. Hence why i asked, what good would your most important feature be if the gameworld did not provided several elements that allowed you to use your character effectively (to roleplay, as it were)? You can't take it out of context just like that. It has to be weighed down with the rest. Thats why Fallout's character creation and application of your character's possibilities are one of the things that make it shine; character creation alone is not important. Torment has a neutered character creation, yet it provided other elements to succeed. And so on, and so on.

There's no "most important feature", Hades. It's a combination of several. What good would be your most important feature if the gameworld was flat, unresponsive to your actions, and the game was linear? Not much replayable anymore, now, eh?

And we're in!!!!!!!!!!!! Portugal 1 - Spain 0 Excellent match by the way, though Portugal was superior to Spain in the majority of the game.

Yes, i know. This was even visible, because when the script was being activated, the character makes a small movement (implying it'll make some action; in this case, the dialogue), but it just stood there, and then remained still. And this is also why it created problems. Ever had the Harpers track down Jaheira delayed until after the Underdark? This happened to me once. It involved going into the Underdark before the final Harper encounter was activated. As i stepped out of the Underdark and talked to the Elves, the Harpers appear, engage in dialogue, and decide to attack me... which also made the Elves hostile. Not very good, i might add. Hence why i used the dragon example, as it happened to me often. I don't think it's rightful to invoke "X feature is right because that's how it happens in real life" or it's "that's how people do it", specially in this case. In real life, if a group of people were in the above situation (ready to confront possible death by means of superior teeth count), i can't imagine someone suddenly bothering me about silly romantic notions, notions which have been discussed in the past. People usually are more discerning in such situations. This isn't to say that i'm completely against Bioware's approach on timed romance dialogues. As far as i'm concerned, both the romances of Torment and BG2 had their pros and cons; and in my mind, an approach that tried to include aspects of both sides would perhaps strike a balance, and a less aggravating experience. In fact, i've stated my feelings about this somewhere, some other time.

Wait, wait, wait... you're saying a duel between two player's characters - which is basically there to determine which character is better - would end the "my character's are better than yours" discussions? In fact, wouldn't this kewl idea just increase those discussions because now, players would have the opportunity to actually show how their characters might be good? Am i the only one that played "Spot The Contradiction"?

If the same kind of droll shooting sequence has to be included to appease whatever demographic, then i suggest doing the following. *Make the space combat actually hard. I dislike having my RPGs play like Quake on several ocasions, but if you want to test my reflexes, at least make it challenging. *Don't make this a mandatory thing. Wheter poor or challenging, make any possible space combat minigame optional. The Ebon Hawk was reputedly the fastest ship in the galaxy, with some powerful shields, yet, i had to go trough combat. Give players the chance to avoid the combat, but also include possible rewards if they want to engage in it. *Don't rely only on the player to solve the problem. I have other party members. Some of them might even have a more combat-oriented background than me. Give players the possibility to ask some followers, more suited to combat than the PC, to help troughout combat sequences like those. It's not impossible to program this, and it's credible from a story viewpoint to have someone like a Republic War Hero to help out a very low level wannabe Jedi. [/complaining]