metadigital

Tigers are good swimmers, yes. They also beat lions every time in a fight.

Innocent mango and passionfruit smoothie and hemp powder.

System Shock 2 was very linear. And there's nothing wrong with that; having a clear goal doesn't equate to unfun. Gabe Newell's Half-Lifes are notoriously on-a-rail (they even called one of the levels that!). Deus Ex was quite linear, too: there were distinct gates to the next level that could be achieved through a few different sub-goals, each of which could be, in turn, achieved according to the individual players' strategies (which I think is the best part of the game ... apart from the truth-in-plain-sight conspiracy, and the super-realistic science fiction and nanotechnology enabling magical abilities, and the super-duper graphics, and the sublime soundtrack, and the excellent writing, and the sensational gameplay, and the cynical social commentary, and ...). The biggest improvement Bethesda made to Morrowind was, in my excellent and worthy opinion, the tracking system in the journal. (It was beyond tolerance to have to hunt through the hundreds of diary pages to find a quest that you wanted to continue in the local geographic zone.)

I think it helps if the parents are as disciplined as they expect the baby to be; no point in expecting the baby to sleep through the night if the parents are not routine with their awake and bedtimes and are upsetting the rhythm of the child.

If you want it is quite possible to use the Wiimote with your PC (third party drivers and configured as a joystick).

Games used to be harder, yes, but that was back when the next level of Pacman or Space Invaders was just the same as the last level, only a bit faster and with less margin for error for the player; games didn't really "end", one playing was just able to play past the point where the developer was able to reasonably place the most difficult starting point, and "clock the game". This emphasized the whole point of the game: to provide an amusing diversion that continually challenged the player. Also, the gaming industry has (necessarily) broadened to include people who have next to no shared traits with nerds. This means that there are ability levels wider than just "obsessive" and "obsessive AND compulsive". If you don't like how easy a game is, just ramp up the difficulty. Or don't use a particular feature that you feel makes the game "too easy". As for cheats, I recall being able to crash the Apple ][ and edit the machine code address space to give my avatar 99 of every little silly ingredient (tassels anyone?) so that the PC could create whatever spells in Ultima ][. As I see it, Calax, from your post you aren't against using cheats and don't have a problem with the new competition dimensions ("damage taken" etc), and would even participate eventually if the game was of significant interest to you (I'm thinking an RTS). I agree.

I concur. Though, I don't have full exposure to all of their franchises, the ones I'm familiar with are not RPGs. What I'm going to do is contest any attempt at grouping them together with companies that make actual RPGs. Turn-based, isometric 2d engines?

Okay, NOW I'm interested.

Hmm. Linear is not so good, though I'll wait to read a full playthrough review. Nothing wrong with a broadside attack on the feculent nonsense she spouts.

How did you encounter the music, if you didn't play the games? Did you choose it because of the author (sound unheard), or did a friend play the game and you heard it there?

Hey, that's FUN!

So, between the first of these latest two pictures (of a flying dragon), "epic fantasy" and "modern-day action adventure" I see no whisper of "post-apoc", "cyberpunk" or even "Gibsonesque future-thriller". So my excitement is bound to a lower strata, though certainly not completely extinguished.

Notice I have been very well behaved and NOT said anything about Vista, your friend and their lack of common sense / Lemming-like wish to jump off a proverbial cliff. Your friend has just wasted money on Vista. But, if they think that it's better to have a shiny new OS to look at, rather than a new 300GB harddrive, or even a 8800GTS, then I am not in a position to tell them how to spend their money. I know what I'd rather have spent the cash on, though.

Balding, fat and stupid might help the description.

It's not a comment on the PC, it's a comment on the OS. There's really no requirement to upgrade an OS, unless there is a business need, or the person intends to continually upgrade and go for DirectX10 graphics, etc. But you already stated that the person wasn't in a position to upgrade the harddisk (one of the cheaper and certainly the highest return on investment and value component).

But ... what about the DirectX10ishness?

It's intuitive. And Yes.

Gamespot don't have a high opinion of Shadowrun: BUT, they do say good things about Tabula Rasa: Also, anyone played the new (and only) DirectX10 game: Lost Planet?

Because there is no need to update an Operating System on an old machine.

I miss part one.

Spoilerz!

It's much better to buy a new computer with a new OS installed. Failing that, just upgrade and keep your data intact. Failing that, get a new harddrive and install on that. (Harddrives are the best components to upgrade frequently, as they are ahead of the Moore's Law curve for performance improvement.) Failing that, format it.

And spelmar is very displeased.