Amentep

Now that I can see; I think that has been a contraction in scope and depth in video games. I'm not sure if this is because of games being more popular (and thus supposedly "dumbed down" for the LCD player) or if its because of the weight of things that are expected (3D graphics, spoken dialogue, etc) compromises how much time can be spent bringing the story into a less narrow focus. While I enjoyed Dragon Age I did feel a bit like "this is it?" when I played it. I expected something much bigger in scope than what I got. Now I tend to mitigate my experience; I enjoyed what I got but what I got wasn't what I expected. I also wonder how much the slow merger of genres has effected things as well; does a modern RPG being realtime action has to also appeal to an action gamer as much as an RPGer in this day and age?

I'm agreeing with you to a certain extent. To sort of round off my thought, let me put it this way - a lot of the "depth" you mention is just making the games to reflect the pnp roots that they were building upon. Certainly the scope of Baldur's Gate or Fallout had already been done two decades prior in a variety of pnp sessions - possibly using GURPS, Tunnels and Trolls or Dungeons and Dragons as their system. So I don't see "being more like a pnp game than previous cRPGs" as being terribly innovative. Increased scope and depth are good, but again its building on the things that have already happened and seems to me to be a natural progression for cRPGs whose existence really stem from those pnp games. EDIT: About the games sucking or not - well hindsight is always 20-20. Its very easy to point to the past and say 'these games were great'. But give us ten years and we might see a lot of gems that right now we don't have proper perspective on. Or we may all agree it was a crappy period for games. That happens occasionally.

what games before these had the same cRPG depth? in game mechanics, quests, c&c, the way the systems affected the characters (saying the S.P.E.C.I.A.L., Traits, and Skills systems weren't original and innovative in the cRPG genre is...a bit silly, imo)? I was under the impression (perhaps wrongly) that the SPECIAL system wasn't the first system of its type - didn't Daggerfall use a skill based system the year before Fallout did? Wasn't Fallout supposed to use GURPS (and SPECIAL then does similar things to the GURPS system)? Didn't Wasteland (which Fallout started out as a sequel to) adopt the system from Tunnels and Trolls/Mercenaries, Spies and Private Eyes? Look I'm not saying the games aren't good, or aren't worthy of being considered top of the line. Something doesn't need to create a new wheel to do that. But to me and from everything I've seen and read, Fallout and Baldur's Gate were logical steps building on everything that came before them. Not a "new concept" game but more a culmination of all the good stuff that came before them.

Alpha Protocol: More Sex than Mass Effect, more interrogations than Fallout 3

The only difference I see is that there's a weaker market in PC then 10 years ago now (and I remember about 14 years ago the PCs were supposed to be dead, as they were about 10 years before that). Gamewise, it seems like video games are still pretty much follow the leader in terms of creating new games in particular genres. I do think that as technology has advanced, there's been less need for some genres (as their elements have been co-opted through technology - why do you need to create a game that's just a platformer when you can introduce platformer elements into your action-adventure game?) Ah. Well... I attended Juilliard... I'm a graduate of the Harvard business school. I travel quite extensively. I lived through the Black Plague and had a pretty good time during that. I've seen the EXORCIST ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT... NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT YOU'RE TALKING TO A DEAD GUY... NOW WHAT DO YOU THINK? You think I'm qualified? agreed. when the best answers to "What RPG in the past 5 years is as original and innovative as Fallout or Baldur's Gate" are either "Mass Effect!!!" or "Dragon Age!!!" i think we're in an obvious state of decline. Fallout and Baldur's Gate were really all that original and innovative? A game that would have been a sequel had they not lost the license and the umpteenth game in the D&D Forgotten Realms license? Don't get me wrong - I love both games. But I'm not sure I'd think of either as being totally groundbreaking. I'm willing to be convinced on the point, and both were really good...but...

Watched The Losers. Great fun. Loved the bit about how villains henchmen understand the meaning of "the nod". But good action and fun characters = fun.

When "gaming" became mainstream so "true gamers" had to differentiate themselves from those who just gamed on their off time I guess. Wouldn't that mean that true gamers consists solely of people who are paid to play games (reviewers, those in the game industry). I know I only ever game in my off time and always have. Cause my "on" time belongs to others... When they started to suck on a regular basis. Personally I haven't noticed them sucking anymore now than they did back in the days of the C64. Even taking into account personal taste, the signal to noise ratio on creative mediums are always going to be high in the disinteresting category. Or when gaming became so mainstream that a lot of what made it interesting vanished. The only thing that's really missing in modern gaming are the days where a major release was created by four people (or one person entirely). Of course you could argue that big money has created a situation where games tend to "play it safe" and are therefore rendered bland, but in my experience that's always been an element in games - not finding a new path that works but to take what worked for the other guy and make it work for you. Clones in essence...but then how many games can you name that are Donkey Kong clones from the early 80s?

I'm glad to hear that Aragast war isn't a hentai game in disguise - some of it looked good but I was a bit put off by the OTT sexual elements being presented. That mouse pad was a big "wha-huh?" when I saw it. Ended up not getting it. I'm playing Nier (which has its own "wha-huh?" element, I suppose ). Early impression so far is that Vagrant Story and Planescape: Torment had a torrid, secret love affair which gave birth to an action game with light RPG elements. This may actually make it seem more impressive than it really is (as those games have huge fan followings) but they were the games I thought of as I've played through it (and I'm fairly early in it so far, I think, so my opinion may change as time goes on). At its heart it is an action game built around hacking and slashing (the first thing you get to slash is sheep too, which seems to be a trend or something in games to beat up sheep) and flinging spells in a post-apocalyptic setting with some of the strangest characters and situations I've seen in a game in awhile (there has been one sequence so far entirely built up of text based puzzles in what has been mostly an action game in terms of gameplay!).

I liked the Strength screen. I loled.

Like a blob of black goo...

Naturally SWAT teams have a designated Bard.

There were 256 movies classed as "Westerns" since 2000 on IMDB. But it includes a HUGE amount of direct to DVD fare, and horror-westerns, softcore-westerns, foreign westerns and modern westerns (rodeos, pickup trucks etc). I tried to stick with films I'd heard of and that had some semblance of a national release and that were also period pieces without majorly overt supernatural elements. There are only two films on that list that I know could be considered comedies - Shanghai Noon and Shanghai Knights (although arguably Legend of Zorro was pretty tongue in cheek). The rest of the films are fairly serious to my knowledge (I haven't seen them all). At any rate, I'm not entirely sure what it has to do with games where the genres really haven't ebbed and flowed with movies. I think the big problem with Western games is that there haven't been very many good ones in recent years (even still, I'm pretty sure the original Red Dead Revolver did fairly well, and I've heard Gun did too). Westerns used to be made in spades in movies, its true, but most of them were "B" movies (if you look at the prestige pics of the period, westerns aren't as big). The loss of double features and drive-ins, the changing market and the economy all led to Westerns being made at a slower pace (and the popularity of the genre in Italy in the 60s and 70s meant US studios didn't need to make them, just buy the rights, dub and release). The Majors still did make westerns but the Heaven's Gate fiasco slowed those productions down as well (and yet you still got the occasional western like Silverado before another boom period came in the 90s). Is the genre as big as it used to be? No. But it still plugs along (supernatural-western Jonah Hex looks to be the next big release in June) Of course I'm a bit biased, I'd love a Deadlands video game.

It's definitely fun, I'll say that! Any movie that has inspired over a 100 sequels is automatically cinema gold. But what was up with the Franco Nero staring Rambo-esque Django sequel?

I was just kinda shocked that sheep beating is being used as a selling point.

Shanghai Noon (2000) The Claim (2000) South of Heaven, West of Hell (2000) Texas Rangers (2001) American Outlaws (2001) Dust (2001) Shanghai Knights (2003) The Missing (2003) Open Range (2003) Blueberry (2004) The Alamo (2004) The Legend of Zorro (2004) The Proposition (2005) Bandidas (2006) Seraphim Falls (2006) Sukiyaki Western Django(2007) 3:10 From Yuma (2007) The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007) Appaloosa (2008) I stuck with westerns I'd heard of from the 2000s

I loved old school Gamma World. Didn't really like the 3e Version (6th Edition, from SSS) and as I recall all mutations were actually the result of nanotech instead of radiation. But overall it just didn't capture the fun of the early versions. I believe we played 3rd edition and it was some of the funnest games I remember from that period, so I hope that this new one (aligned with 4e D&D) is a return to good form. I always loved the drawing of the hopeless mutant in the character generation section about accidentally creating a non-viable character. White Dwarf Gamma World Ad

Did I see correctly in the trailer, that it starts out showing you a guy beating up sheep with a stick?

yeah that was pretty clever (actually wish I hadn't been spoiled as to what was in it before seeing it) It's definitely fun, I'll say that!

I like the headline "Mandelson and Balls on Peppa Pig-gate"

I've usually already decided to buy (or not buy) a game before I ever see the box, anymore.

Yeah, sorry I just don't agree with your distinctions. To me there is no difference between Wrex, Tali, Garrus or Liara in terms of their dialogues, quality of writing or interesting elements within their character. In fact Wrex wasn't all "kill that guy" in the conversations I had with him; yes he's a ruthless fighter just as Garrus is loose cannon cop. But what makes both of them interesting is that that is not all there is to them, at least in my eyes.

I think the UK addressed post-war gun ownership with a 1920 measure (aimed at curtailing guns post-WWI) which I assume also affected gun ownership after WWII.

Some archetypes are overused and bad. For example, the "reluctant hero" or the "sadistic villain" are common archetypes, and they suck real hard (the first because it's pretty unrealistic and the second because it's so cartoonish). It's possible to make them good, but that would require finesse that Bioware lacks. "Ruthless fighter" is a pretty cartoonish archetype too, and Bioware uses it too goddamn much and just as an excuse to add in ~3 stories that the character tells that are "awesome" and "cool". The "loose cannon cop" archetype is less common and has a lot more inherent conflict (namely between law and order & vigilante justice), so it works a lot better. Plus Wrex is all like "WELL FORGET IT, I'M NOT SOME STEREOTYPE" and then the entire rest of the game his personality (not his backstory) boils down to "grumpy space frog that shoots dudes." I dunno, again to me its about execution, and I had no problem with Wrex. You didn't like him, fine. But you're making criteria for "coolness" that's only validity is your personal opinion. I really did not give a **** about everybody talking about their species. It was dumb and silly and shouldn't have been in the game. "Hello Tali, please, tell me about the Quarians. Despite being a badass special forces agent, I don't know **** about Quarians and can't be arsed to wiki it." Because individuals of each race clearly must have the same opinions of a galactic encyclopedia. Reading about something and gaining perspective from individuals who experienced that something is completely different. Doesn't she ask you at one point to like murder your family for some marginal magical bonus if you're an elf? I remember reading about that somewhere. I've not gotten that particular dialogue. Given that the Dalish Elf origin is parentless, is this the City Elf (has a single parent) or more likely an elf mage?

Yes, boring. A cardboard cut-out character with (like Wrex) little-to-no personality outside of "I like to kill things. Want to hear a story about me killing things?" All Bioware conversations are a bit repetitious. Garrus's worked a lot better because they were drawing on an already existing archetype (cop who doesn't like to play by the rules) that they hadn't used in every other game they've made. Wow. How is that amusing at all? If I wanted an obnoxious violent companion, I'd play Dragon Age and love on Morrigan. Sooo, creating a character who is a ruthless fighter archtype is somehow inferior to Bioware drawing on the loose cannon cop archtype. You'll pardon me if I fail to see the distinction, I hope! I thought Wrex actually had some interesting observations - particularly his view of the genophage and what his people should be doing vs what they were. And his meetup with Saren was interesting. Garrus had the guy who got away story that was interesting, but it took awhile to get to him. Black Whirlwind was interesting to me because he was so totally chaotic as to be completely ridiculous. Thought he was a fun character and his and Kang's dialogues were always fun in JE, IMO. I didn't find Morrigan to be obnoxiously violent either; in fact there's only one time I remember her suggesting a specific call to action that'd involve violence (specifically suggesting that killing Loghain and then gathering the army would be the best way to proceed). Most other times she seems to value individualism more than anything else.

This whole debate seems weird to me. But I guess I still haven't gotten up to speed on modern cell phones.