Diogo Ribeiro

How is the chess game graphically represented, out of curiosity?

To add to the previous titles, I'm also playing: For the SNES: Lufia 2 - Rise of the Sinistrals (started several times but quit; trying to finish it) Yoshi's Island For the Gameboy Advance: Rebelstar (hot damn, X-Com gameplay! not as scary though) Gunstar Super Heroes (bit disapointing, claimed to be a sequel but it's just a rehash of the original)

I don't think weapon limits make players think a whole lot more. Wheter I have twenty or two weapons at my disposal at one given time, the same problems will still exist and will still require the same solutions. Look at some Zelda games, where you have two possible items to use at a time and need to open the menu and exchange them for others. In pretty much all cases I've come across in those games the item limit had no bearing whatsoever when it came to me figuring out how to solve a situation. All it did was make it longer to solve it since I had to manage the menu every once in a while to switch items, use a given combination for a particular task, then return to what I was using before.

Those pirates should go legit and get employment in the gaming industry. That way, the pirating would be widely accepted.

Oops. Fixing it now...

There are four possible havens. The first one is the one LaCroix will give you, the one above the Pawnshop in Santa Monica. The second one is also given to you by LaCroix, and it's located in the Skyline Apartments Downtown. You receive it after the "Calling Dr. Grout" quest. Reportedly, you also can get it right after the "Elizabeth Rendezvous" quest if you are generally nice to him. If you are a generally insulting git to LaCroix or don't fare too well in his missions, you will likely not get it. The third haven is optional and is given to you by Gary after the "Come Into My Parlor" quest. It's located in the Downtown Sewers, and you will only obtain it if you are a Nosferatu. The fourth and final haven, also optional, is given to you by Strauss, the Tremere primogen. It's in his own house, in the upper room. You can get this when playing as a Tremere instead of LaCroix's apartment. IIRC, they were humans who had been experimented on, or fledeling vampires. Not too sure which.

Mafia was the spetznaz. Or was that the shiznit? Whatever, it rocked.

Depends on the quality of the game. If someone asked me if I would spend that kind of money for such a short game I don't think I could give a negative answer. A game can be a good game regardless of length. When I think back to some of the console games I bought in the past, they were finishable in less than 5 to 6 hours, yet I wouldn't hesitate to buy them again because they were worth every cent. It's all on a game by game basis: some are worth it, some are not.

I'm not sure people don't want to admit games like Fallout and Torment had a lot of combat. I think most people who played the game try to make the disctinction between the games having a lot of combat but conversely most of it was not necessary to go trough (especially true with Fallout, not so much with Fallout 2).

I can't say I ever chanced upon that many bugs in the game, though it had its share. Personally I found titles like Neverwinter Nights and Temple of Elemental Evil to be far buggier - even with their corresponding patches. I agree. But then, it seems most developers working with PnP licenses always turn their licensed games into some combat-fest one way or another. I can't remember many PnP licensed games which didn't had that much of a focus on combat... Shadowrun for the Sega Genesis and Planescape: Torment come to mind as titles which still managed to give players more ways to go about the game other than strictly combat, though.

You know, the teenage suicide rates increased that year because gamers couldn't jump off the game's stairs. Snatcher reference

A Torment thread. Whoa, the novelty. A game's combat can hardly be defined in its difficulty levels based on a handful of events. Considering all of a game's particular ingame mechanics and different possible player strategies one can apply, you're bound to stumble on people who will swear a game was insanely hard, or a walk in the park. Personally I can't remember any meaningful situation where Torment's combat caused me troubles, except when I was going against the designer's plans (such as trying to rub out Many-As-One or Lothar). For instance, the Fiend in the Box one encounters in Curst was easilly dispatched with Annah, Dak'kon and Fall-from-Grace in the party. I talked to Dak'kon and unloaded all my spells on the demon; then I had Grace and Dak'kon cast all they had as well while I 'entertained' the demon as a Fighter. When they were all out of spells, I simply talked to Annah and switched over to Thief, then proceeded to rain down backstabbing death on the fiend. It actually went down pretty quick. Barring that, I have slayed it as a soloing Fighter and Thief. Since the main character can't die and is resurrected nearby, its more of a game of patience than skill (though of course high level and good gear count). Nordom's maze was also easy depending on your style of play. Barring the possibility of setting the maze's difficulty to "Easy", you didn't need to fight every monster in every room... All you had to do - if you wanted to do so - was just to find Nordom and whack the Evil Wizard. Trial and error pretty much give away in which rooms they were. As for the criticism regarding Torment's combat system, it's been brought up time and again but the main issues were that it featured a much simpler version of the combat seen in other IE games in regards to challenge, diversity of opponents (both in style and tactics; a clear focus on behalf of enemies in melee combat is undeniable) and the problem with party members not living up to their classes' namesake (ie, characters in the party, aside the Nameless One, only used their specialized weapons rather than any class-specific weapon, which limited tactics; anyone trying to go for something like, say, ranged support could only rely on spellcasting). The game's combat often feels like something to distract gamers with, an afterthought, and it clearly doesn't have the same level of focus in combat as there was in games like Baldur's Gate 2. BG2 presented many more options regarding combat styles, enemies and tactics; it was much more combat-oriented and it shows. This doesn't necessarily make the combat in Torment bad; but it can't hope to compare with what the other IE games had.

Not if it had enough cleavage and eye candy to please gamers.

How is the game? Last titles I played were the PS1 and GBA ones; afterwards, I've lost track of recent titles in the series.

This from the person who had stated only moments ago that the reason given companies were not the best because they were already dead. Now it's something else, or some other reasons instead. You'll never change. Yeah, you're definitely one to talk of empirical sources. Try making concise points instead of hiding behind thin and poorly argumented vague statements before trying to appeal to common sense while riding a virtual high horse.

A big red button that, when pressed, makes you win the game automatically. Now, that's class. This doesn't really come as a surprise, really. Good for Bioware, I guess, and good for gamers who enjoy their games.

Nothing in the thread implies or states people have to a) conform to your opinion, and b) that electing their Top 5 or Top 10 gaming development houses has to be made based on existing companies only. Your 'asessment' is nothing more than your perspective, not a universal rule. Other than your self-serving, ever-changing morality, there is no reason to not take into account videogame companies who have ceased their functions when determing such lists as the ones in this thread. Cry more, sugar.

Translation: Looking Glass Studios, Strategic Simulations Inc., and Black Isle weren't some of the best, otherwise they wouldn't be dead. Insults removed. Don't do it again. -- Shadowstrider

Could have sworn he said "Whoopsy!". Maybe my hearing's just screwed up...all the loud music...and explosions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This reminds me of back when I played Sunset Riders in the Genesis and could swear the cowboys went "Whopee!" in the end of the stage, while everyone else told me I was wrong and that they actually shouted "Yeeha!".

A bit late but what the frag... Correlation, causation, etc. Problem here seems to be using large amounts of input options as the definition for 'complex'. A PC is a multimedia and multifunction machine; it requires by nature an input device that enables the user to take full advantage of what it offers, videogames and otherwise. On the other hand consoles are more limited in their uses (which isn't necessarily bad), and their primary use is for gaming and entertainment - you don't require anything as complex as a keyboard when a handful of buttons will just do the job. Moreover, an input device is not reflective of the complexity the games it allows you to play; a game can be complex and only utilize a handful of buttons, but of course, it all depends. Typing of the Dead is not a complex game simply because it requires you to use almost all the buttons of your keyboard, it's in fact a pretty simple game. The Sims 2 is a fairly complex game as it involves micromanaging many aspects of each Sim, yet it only requires a very small amount of buttons to succeed. A shooter where you can only change weapons with four different keys as opposed to using the mouse wheel to cycle between weapons isn't necessarily more complex gamewise. Also, with the advent of streamlining videogames - which happens in all platforms to some extent - what are the odds that you'll actually get to use all the buttons in a keyboard as opposed to all the buttons in a gamepad? Most PC games nowadays only require players to use a very small number of buttons: if you add to it the ability to customize controls, and the extra control methods you have (ie, mouse input, combining keys, mouse wheel).

No disagreement there, I also enjoy games that promote varied gameplay styles. However, I assume that both my last PM's to you before I took off last month and my posts in this thread indicate my disagreement with the deficiencies of genre labelling itself, not necessarily with the games.

The reticule is just a representation of the character's skill; you'll note it tightens faster according to the character's skill in any given weapon you are using and need to aim. But it's really nothing else than that. All three games work under the same principle: the players need to use their skill (player skill) for any movement and actions associated with targetting and shooting at an enemy, and all the outcome of the actual hits are decided by rolls based on the character's attributes (PC skill); the absence of a reticule doesn't really change that for Morrowind.

Y'know, it seems all I had to do was mention I had problems so they would go away. I'm playing it now. :ph34r: Now, if only the other two started working as well...