Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chris Taylor Talks Dungeon Siege II Details

Posted by simoniker on from the not-just-an-overview dept.

Thanks to GameSpy for its overview of the changes and interview with Gas Powered Games boss Chris Taylor regarding PC action RPG sequel Dungeon Siege II, due out via Microsoft later in 2004. Taylor, lead designer of the classic RTS Total Annihilation, discusses the original Dungeon Siege ("Overall the response was very positive, and most criticism was offered as a call for features in a sequel"), and reveals features for the sequel including (Phantasy Star Online mag-like?) "exotic pets", of which he explains: "You can buy these and develop them by feeding them different items you find in the world."

41 comments

  1. Translation: by WinnipegDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So it's basically the same game, but prettier and the pack mule has been replaced by a more dangerous animal.

    How about this. Make me care about the character, the storyline, and give me more than four skills to improve on and then we can talk. The first game in this series made Diablo seem like a deep RPG...

  2. Exotic pets eating items? reminds me of something by *weasel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It reminds of the classiest 'garbage collection' design I encountered in early gaming.

    Back in the day there was a frickin awesome game, Alternate Reality, published by Datasoft. Being an very old game, and having fixed memory limits, the developer had to keep players from hoarding too many items.

    Thereby 'the devourer' was added to the game. It was a mean-and-nasty that would track down and attack the player. During combat, the devourer would eat random items from the player's pack.

    The thing is, (unknown to me at the time) the devourer only came out when the player was getting dangerously close to the item limit.

    Sure, you could eventually get powerful enough to fend one off before you lost an item - but another would always come.

    It was just a real classy, practical design solution to a hardware limitation.

    Though this has only tangential bearing on Dungeon Siege at best - Damn I loved that game.

    (There were in fact 2 connected AR games, of a larger planned series. The City, and The Dungeon were the released games. I played primarily The Dungeon, and am only certain of the devourer in that context. I'm not certain if it was present in The City.)

    --
    // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
  3. Where's Total Annihilation 2? by Sparky9292 · · Score: 1

    I still think that Taylor make millions created a TA-like game and simply update the graphics to a 3D engine.

    Is the RTS genre dead? Do we we really need another RPG game?

    1. Re:Where's Total Annihilation 2? by *weasel · · Score: 1

      Pardon me if I'm wrong - but wasn't Total Annihilation itself a 3D engine?

      perhaps you meant update the graphics to a newer 3D engine?

      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
    2. Re:Where's Total Annihilation 2? by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      Pardon me if I'm wrong - but wasn't Total Annihilation itself a 3D engine?
      Only on a loose definition.

      TA used 3D units but the terrain was a 2D tiled map with a height attribute. Most players would consider this to be close enough to 2D.
  4. You peta watch out, you peta not cry... by stienman · · Score: 3, Funny

    "You can buy these and develop them by feeding them different items you find in the world."

    Oh great, now PETA's going to be 'weighing in' on the video game violence debate:

    "And next in our presentation you'll see test subject B abusing his virtual kitty..."
    "EAT THE STAFF YOU STUPID CAT! IT'LL GIVE YOU MORE POWER! EAT IT! EAAAAAAT IT!!!!! "
    "As any idiot can see, congressman, this is going to lead to a world where children will abuse animals for special protection from trolls and hellhounds."

    You are in a governement full of twisty laws, all alike. You are likely to be eaten by a lobbyist.

    -Adam

  5. Re:Exotic pets eating items? reminds me of somethi by Xian97 · · Score: 1

    I don't remember the devourer in the City but that game was more just of a leveling up adventure preparing you for the ones to come. Too bad they only ever released The Dungeon later. I have to agree with you, it was an awesome game for the time.

  6. Argh! Another Pokemon/charabom/capsule! by MilenCent · · Score: 0

    This is a highly-overused play mechanic these days. At least Nintendo keeps adding weird-ass features to Pokemon, like secret hideouts and real-time clocks.

    The whole rasing-a-pet mechanic is overdone. It might still be made to work if the player were given a significant chance of killing the pixelbeast in question, and if he could somehow become attached to it, but often it just results in another set of numbers to max out.

    Which is also a problem with RPGs in general these days.

  7. Hmmm by JMZero · · Score: 1

    Dungeon Siege distilled the modern CRPG into its purest, simplest, lamest form yet. Its like Diablo without as much clicking and many fewer stats and combinations.

    Now it looks like their going to gradually add on the kind of muck they took off. I would have preferred they went the other way. Screw all the stats except Level. No skills, nothing. Kind of like Gauntlet, only your player moves and attacks on his own if you don't touch anything. It could be both a game and a screensaver.

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    1. Re:Hmmm by Pizzop · · Score: 2, Funny

      they already have the game screensaver, check here: Progress Quest

      --
      How to Speak Leet
  8. Multiplayer? by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 3, Informative

    I just hope the multiplayer is better implimented in DS2 than it was in DS1. My group tried playing this one at a LAN party, and the lack of thought in MP really showed. The entire method of scaling the game for more players seemed to revolve around giving the enemies a ton of hit points. So you'd end up hacking at a single enemy like it was a damned redwood tree. It eventually got so bad that the fighters of our group would set thier character to attack an enemy, and then go out to the kitchen to get sodas. We even had one person take a break by having his character follow another character. The nearest person would just reach over occasionally to hit the "take a healing potion" button. And (insert diety here) forbid that you were stupid enough to be a mage, you would sit there blasting off the most powerful spells in the game repeatedly, chugging mana potion after mana potion, and be lucky to drop an enemy before you ran out, or the enemy got a hold of you and killed you.
    In all, the multiplayer just didn't seem very polished. It eventually broke down into everyone being a fighter type, with just enough magic to cast a heal spell now and again. And far too long chopping at the same damned enemy. Some of the elements in the game were great, and I really wanted to like it, but I just couldn't get past the obvious problems.

    --
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    Laziness is the father.
  9. Re:Exotic pets eating items? reminds me of somethi by breon.halling · · Score: 1

    Here's a whack of infomation about AR: link

    --
    "Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
  10. Re:Argh! Another Pokemon/charabom/capsule! by Quarters · · Score: 4, Funny
    Yeah, and that whole holding a weapon while running around in 1st person mode while shooting things is just a major fad.

    Don't even get me started on the hackneyed "top down, resource management, build a building to build a unit type, mass them and attack your enemies" game type. Man is that worn out!

  11. DS 1 = looked pretty, crap game by DamienMcKenna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My wife and I bought Dungeon Siege when it came out as we like Diablo-esque games and the previews painted a picture of it being so. After getting it we were overjoyed with the graphics and overall polish, but he game itself sucketh verily:

    * You had little to do in the game other than tell the characters where to move - fighting was automatic.

    * The levels were quite sprawling with many parts leaving you wondering where to go next.

    * The end game was a huge let-down, with the rest of the game being so graphically beautiful, we were expecting something impressive.

    * The enemies weren't very difficult so you could get through the entire game in one playing.

    * No jump-to-town spells or potions, meaning that you had to walk huge distances to sell your stuff.

    * Due to all of the above the boredom factor set in quite quickly.

    The multi-player side of the game was actually worse. Take the above faults and add:

    * You had to complete an entire world in one go as the save-game didn't record what you had already done.

    * Each world was huge.

    Put those together and you effectively had to play for 12+ hours straight to finish a world, otherwise it was a waste of time.

    After finishing the game once (took a day) we gave up on it altogether.

    The only positive side of the game might be the mods, but there weren't any available when we last played it (two years ago).

    Damien

    1. Re:DS 1 = looked pretty, crap game by Sigma+7 · · Score: 3, Informative
      * You had little to do in the game other than tell the characters where to move - fighting was automatic.
      Why exactly is that a bad thing? I have seen that feature reproduced in other games, and find it to be quite convienent since you do not have to stop fighting in order to prime one or more of your spells.

      Requiring the player to keep clicking to attack is a bad thing. As an example, take Nox: you have to do some fancy movements with your mouse in order to defeat some powerful monsters -- click on monster to attack, swing mouse to other side of screen and click to retreat, swing mouse back to attack monster, etc. One wrong move, and you are either dead, or have 90% of your health taken off. Failing to have ultra-1337 mousing skills should not warrent a player's death.

      * The levels were quite sprawling with many parts leaving you wondering where to go next.
      Didn't notice the problem in either single or multi player. The single player campaign is considered linear enough that you can generally tell which direction is forward or backward. The multiplayer campaign has signposts scattered through the dungeons/map that you can tell which direction to head next.

      * The enemies weren't very difficult so you could get through the entire game in one playing.
      Are you sure? I've attempted to complete the game with one character, and ended up having to recruit NPCs because of the difficulty in single-handedly killing off the monsters. Not only that, but I've had cases where monsters actually managed to knock out (and even kill) some of my characters.

      * No jump-to-town spells or potions, meaning that you had to walk huge distances to sell your stuff.
      For single-player, that is a problem. However, that's why you hire packmules - you can purchase two at the first town in single player, and thus have a lot of carring capacity for magical items you can pick up.

      Multiplayer, as you know, implements statically placed teleporters - if you reach a distant teleport pad, you can return to town without too much problem.

      * You had to complete an entire world in one go as the save-game didn't record what you had already done.
      To complete the official multiplayer campaign, all you need are the eight city stones and to ensure the primary quest triggers have been primed by talking to the priests that hand out the primary quests. The HUB system allows teleportation between cities, thus allowing you to easily tag the quests as complete with minimal problem. As a result, you don't need save the world state in multiplayer.
    2. Re:DS 1 = looked pretty, crap game by king-manic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Regaurdless it was a worse then mediochre game that looked great but played horribly. I never got past the first dungeon just becuase of sheer disgust. It distilled out all the good parts of a lot of other games and the left overs was item management/exploration. Nothing to get excited about.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    3. Re:DS 1 = looked pretty, crap game by vadim_t · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Requiring the player to keep clicking to attack is a bad thing. As an example, take Nox: you have to do some fancy movements with your mouse in order to defeat some powerful monsters -- click on monster to attack, swing mouse to other side of screen and click to retreat, swing mouse back to attack monster, etc. One wrong move, and you are either dead, or have 90% of your health taken off. Failing to have ultra-1337 mousing skills should not warrent a player's death.


      And this is exactly something that I miss. DS is pretty, but that's all that it really is. Nox was very diablo-like but it was fun because it was challenging and actually required some ability - mousing ability as you said.

      Games like BG2 on the other hand, are won through thinking - knowing what skills to apply where, how to use your characters the best, etc.

      DS requires no ability of any kind at all. Attack is automated. There's no need to think. The campaign is braindead - no real story of any kind I could see from the first few hours. Somehow they made something even more boring than Diablo, where at least some ability was needed.
    4. Re:DS 1 = looked pretty, crap game by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      Nox was very diablo-like but it was fun because it was challenging and actually required some ability - mousing ability as you said.
      That's the problem right there - Nox's only strong point was mousing (especially whan it was released.)

      However, this strong point isn't really strong since the rest of that game is pretty weak as well. First off, there were plenty of instant kill attacks that take out 80-100% of your health, even when you are supposed to be resistant to the fireball. (Even if there were a tangible benefit, it isn't as noticable as it could be - there could be some hidden factor that amplified damage, such as platemail inflicting *3 shock.)

      If anything, the mousing requirement for a game is just a way to delay the relization that the game really is not good. As a result, I prefer the more upfront games that allow the player to automatically engage in reasonable combat manuvers so that more attention can be paid to the quality of the game rather than its rapid clicking.

      I also have two other examples of mouse games as well: Commandos I:Beyond the Call of Duty , and Sanity: Aiken's Artifact. In the first example, you have to manually click to ensure your soldier enters firing range, click on the harpoon icon (or use its hotkey), then use the harpoon. If you aren't close enough, you have to cancel the harpoon command, order another movement command, switch back to the harpoon and use it. This wouldn't be extrmely bad if it weren't for the fact there is a final mission that requires you to have a combined minimum health and game time requirements (game speed directly relates to CPU speed) met before it can be unlocked.

      In the second example, Sanity, the mousing does absolutly nothing to improve what is already bad gameplay. Usually, combat appears in open spaces where everything can get sidestepped (and since there is no AI leadahead, you just travel in circles).
    5. Re:DS 1 = looked pretty, crap game by Orne · · Score: 1

      Good analysis. My only caveat is that, in single-player, I thought this was one of the MOST linear games ever designed. The majority of the game was (1) you have a town/safe zone where you can sell things and recruit partners and (2) you have a linear stretch of terrain with one special fork into a closed dungeon. At the end of (2) you find a (1).

      I can think of only one area where the progress loops back on itself, and that was "the giant stone gate is barricaded, you have to go through the icky spider dungeon to get to the other side, where you can clear the barricade" and use the city to sell items again. Nowhere is there a "you can take this path, or you can take that path" and have different outcomes.

      Excellent graphics, but I'd put it more on par with a souped up Gauntlet than a real RPG.

    6. Re:DS 1 = looked pretty, crap game by Orne · · Score: 1

      I never played Nox, but back when I was in college, there was this game Die By The Sword.

      The claim to fame was, it was a 1st-person "melee", where you used the keyboard to walk, but the way you moved your mouse caused the hero's sword to swing in odd maneuvers. Very dynamic poly models could capture any movement of the arms, and depending on swing speed, direction, and where you hit, that's how you did damage to the enemies.

  12. DS I, Mac Version: C by Spencerian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    GPG actually ported DS to Mac OS X. It's playability was stronger due to a typical Mac's better-than-standard-issue video card (in my case, initially a GeForce 4MX 32MB).

    It wasn't much different than Diablo II in playability, although I appreciated the ability to blend abilities to create characters, unlike in Diablo II where the character type is quite fixed.

    I, too, was disappointed with the overall plot (the word "contrived" fits well) and lacked Diablo and Diablo II's storyline that kept its rigid universe interesting. Weapons, armor, and graphics were very nice, including the use of a true mule for loot (no other game since that has been popular enough for me to play on Mac OS X has duplicated this), the wide, wide world that had lots to explore (particularly the MP map), and showing definitive changes to the character's appearance as armor and weapons are added.

    The bad news: The Mac version lacked an inherent MP game list system, since DirectPlay is not available for Mac OS X. Thankfully, GameRanger, a free game access service for some Mac games, worked well to link up Mac users. Next, while the Mac and PC versions essentially did and used the same resources, the use of DirectPlay for the PC version and coding changes with the Mac version made it impossible to play with PC users, nor was it possible to port character or game files from PC version to Mac, or vice versa.

    That, and stability was a problem in some configurations. Overall, I enjoyed it for many months--it was actually the first game that broke my routine play of Diablo II, after I played that game and its expansion for almost 3 years.

    Neither Diablo II nor Dungeon Siege hold a candle to Neverwinter Nights and its 2 expansions. Being an online adaptation of the D&D world, this game was designed for storylines, but does not slouch on game play in the slightest. And, although the official Mac versions of the two game expansions are not yet available, Mac OS X users can install the Linux game components to play both expansions without issue. Character and game files are easily transportable, and Mac, Windows, and Linux users can play and host without issue (only the Windows users can create worlds as the toolset was made only for this platform).

    Still, I would appreciate a DS II if it arrives for Mac OS X. However, since GPG (and the Mac company, MacSoft, that ported the game) has not worked to bring its single expansion of DS I, called Legends of Arrana, to Mac OS X, I doubt it may show any earlier than 1 year--if at all--after DS II arrives for the PC. And, after enjoying the diversity of NWN, I'd be more cautious on the quality and usability of a GPS game.

    --
    Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
    1. Re:DS I, Mac Version: C by meadowreach · · Score: 1

      I disliked two things about NWN - the load times between each area (it made it hard to have a big town with lots of buildings you could enter when it took a few minutes to load each transition in or out) and it didn't have hills. To make a mountain you had to build a bunch of steps, and a little sloped path went up the middle of each one. Did they ever fix that? (I haven't played since the first month or so it was out).

    2. Re:DS I, Mac Version: C by Quarters · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's playability was stronger due to a typical Mac's better-than-standard-issue video card (in my case, initially a GeForce 4MX 32MB).

      I can't tell if you are being funny or if that is some misguided Mac zealotry. A GeForce 4MX 32MB as standard issue? Such a card is standard issue on a Mac? That somehow qualifies as a way to make the playability of DSI on a Mac better than on a PC?

      A GeForce 4MX (64Mb, as the 32s aren't available any more) goes for a paltry $40.00. It's not even a GF4 level card as it lacks pixel and and vertex shaders. It's a renamed GF2 card.

      It was behind the curve when it came out 2+ years ago. It was strictly a budget card. If that is "better-than-standard-issue" for a Mac I'd hate to know what you consider to be standard issue.

    3. Re:DS I, Mac Version: C by Colazar · · Score: 1
      I am not a developer by any stretch of the imagination, but I have been told by an actual cross-platform developer that the way that Windows and OS X handle graphics are very different. The bottom line (which was all I was really qualified to understand) was that the quality of the graphics card is less important on the Mac then it is on the PC, but the speed of the CPU is more important. Which is why I can play Shadowbane with an 8MB graphics card (ugly as sin, but it works), while a PC user who tries it with less than a 32MB graphics can't do a thing.

      So I think what he's really suggesting is that the performance of the standard graphics card on the Mac side is better than the performance of the standard graphics card on the PC side, even if objectively speaking the Mac card is worse. Now if only we could get good cards over to the Mac faster, then we'd be set! (Oh, and of course, games to play on them.)

      --
      He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
    4. Re:DS I, Mac Version: C by Quarters · · Score: 1
      That is, if true, patently ludicrous. Why would the speed of the CPU matter when even that lowly GF4MX has a decent GPU on it. If the Mac handles graphics on the CPU, therefore not needing as much of a video card as a PC then it is doing things incorrectly.

      There is no way that a Mac of a given MHz can outperform a PC of the same speed with an equal or better card.

      That card, whether it is in a Mac or a PC understands textures and vertices -nothing more. there is no way a Mac can make better use of it, as it has to give it the same data as a PC does.

    5. Re:DS I, Mac Version: C by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Thats pure Jobs reality distortion field, Macs do have an edge but it's not a huge one. It's simply has a cleaner memory architecture and thus a slightly more efficient transfer of info to the GPU the CPU co-ordinates but it's the GPU who does the heavy lifitng. The edge is somewhere in the region of 1% overall performance boost in equivalent hardware and equivilent machines. which is very hard to get. Price wise their about equal now. And performance wise in most areas. Only graphic work with huge images does the Mac still lead. As for compatibility, you never mentioned what comps that games on. A G4 with a piddly Card will run it better then a P2 300 with a GEforce 4 ti 256.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    6. Re:DS I, Mac Version: C by Colazar · · Score: 1
      You know, I tried to explain this again, as I remembered the explanation better, but then I realized I could boil what I was trying to say pretty simply.

      It doesn't matter how good your hardware is, if the code that is running on it is poorly written for that platform. If what the original poster says is true, the Mac version of the game probably makes better use of the hardware it has than the PC version did. (This is actually often the case with Mac games--because they come out later, the release version is often cleaner, cause they killed most of the bugs that were in the PC release.)

      The argument I was trying to make (and which I admit is over my head) was about differences in how OpenGL is implemented on the Mac & PC side (even though it is a standard, it is not identical), and is probably not at all relevent to this discussion.

      --
      He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
  13. Wow - good game!!! by JMZero · · Score: 2, Funny

    I like the large selection of races/classes. I think there's some interesting possibilities there - although I'm going to try to get through it with my Runeloremaster before I play with any other stuff (it won't be easy, but it'll be worth it!). I like the streamlined game mechanics. The interface is very well thought out - and loads of variety.

    Thanks!

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
  14. Copylocking annoyances? by Thinkit4 · · Score: 1

    This should be discussed with features. Does it require the CD? Can you at take it out after the check (full HD install)? If the next one drops the CD-check, I'd be much more likely to buy.

    --
    -I am an elective eunuch.
    1. Re:Copylocking annoyances? by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

      There are a few trends with most modern games:
      1. They all require a full installation of game/data files.
      2. They all have SafeDisc/SecuROM/custom copy protection.
      3. Removing the CD after it passes the inital check has no ill effects. (Data streamed from the CD can be a problem - you need to find a way to has it come from the HD or find a way to ensure that the stream becomes a harmless option. )
      4. The NO-CD crack gets released within 24 hours of the latest patch. Unless you are playing Warcraft III, there are no ill effects for a "trusted crack".

      I'm sure the developer of Dungeon Siege 2 doesn't like the current state of CD checking - however, the publisher generally makes the requirement for such checks, not the developer.

  15. DS = Quake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DS had a beautiful engine. It's a shame nobody made any decent games on it.

  16. Re:Argh! Another Pokemon/charabom/capsule! by MilenCent · · Score: 1

    But pet ownership has been tacked on to SO many games. That's the important element here, tacked on to.

    However, I'd largely agree with your joking argument concerning FPS games and follow-the-leader RTS games. Not that they're a fad mind you, because sadly they're probably not.

  17. Re:Argh! Another Pokemon/charabom/capsule! by fireduck · · Score: 1

    ya know, Diablo 2 had pet ownership; at least in the sense that it was described in the article. You could hire a minion (4 different types?), level them up with you, whereupon they gain new abilities according to their occupation, plus you can give them weapons for additional power.

    So, really this isn't all that different from D2, except that it's a "pet" rather than a minion.

  18. Re:Argh! Another Pokemon/charabom/capsule! by MilenCent · · Score: 1

    Hmmm... interesting comparasion, you might be right on that. However, Diablo 2's minions are a bit more complicated than the basic pet model, aren't they? (Not having played it, I can't say.)

    You can get Diablo 2 companions resurrected endlessly and easily, correct? Compare that to Nethack's pets, who are usually dead forever once they snuff it. That at least brings an element of risk into it, which better aids the player in grow ing attacked to the little ASCII character.

    (Well, they're dead forever unless you have a wand of undead turning....)

  19. Dungeon Siege SUCKS by aeoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, the guy is a brilliant computer game engine maker, but he wouldn't know a good game if it bit him where the sun doesn't shine.

    They've never heard of the word "gameplay", never played Nethack or Angband, thus they do not know their roots and in general, they have no clue.

    Like many others, I was astonished at how great the engine was, how smooth and pretty and how there was no load time, etc...but THE GAME??? What about the GAME? Where is the gameplay?

    I'm not going to buy DS2 unless the reviews rave about *gameplay*.

  20. Re:Exotic pets eating items? reminds me of somethi by OpenSourceOfAllEvil · · Score: 1

    There was another little feature of this game to prevent hoarding. Once a player became too overburdened they would randomly start dropping items and gold on the ground from their bulging pockets. If you payed attention you might notice and pick it back up, otherwise you'd be scratching your head later about it.

  21. Item management by Mantrid · · Score: 1

    I liked Dungeon Siege- it was enjoyable, the real problem I had was later on - when you were carrying a ridiculous amount of items with various requirements and trying to remember who I wanted to have what - hopefully there'll be some sort of way to automate this later on.

  22. Graphics vs Gameplay by Gamelore · · Score: 1
    Another example of game companies peddling to the LCD:

    I've been saying the EXACT same thing about World of Warcraft to people. It's the most fantastic engine I've ever seen. The graphics, music, sounds, and engine are incredible. Stormwind Keep looks like it cost them at least $1 million to construct. Yet, the game is completely watered down to the point of absurdity.

    Somewhere along the line they forget they're making a GAME with two little things called "chance" and "consequence."

    Dungeon Siege : Diablo :: World of Warcraft : Ultima Online ('99)

  23. virtual CDs by Thinkit4 · · Score: 1

    A virtual CDs should solve both problems. Never used one myself--proabably "illegal" or something.

    --
    -I am an elective eunuch.
    1. Re:virtual CDs by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

      Virtual CDs only only work in most cases. depending on the one you choose, there are some applications that are still incompatable with the image in one way or another. SafeDisc 2.51 and SecuROM are good examples - most first generation imaging software can't handle them without emulation.

      Homeworld: Cataclysm is one of the more interesting ones. Not only does it not work under Nero ImageDrive (should replace it, but it's the only one that's integrated with burning software), but it doesn't even give an error message - almost as if something is missing from the image/copy, which is something unusual for an unknown protection system. I'm sure that using one of the other imaging software could work, but those are usually commercial and cost money.

      Also, Virtual CDs are not really considerd illegal, especially since some licences state that you can only use the original media for backup purposes while still rquiring the CD in the drive.

  24. Those BASTARDS killed my Cow (The Sequel) by rtrifts · · Score: 1

    Well. Lots of new pretty graphics and maybe even high res textures this time around.

    *yawn*

    In the end, there was not a story in sight in the first game and it is plain and obvious that they have no intention of *pretending* they've added one in its sequel.

    The plot from DS1, without any real exaggeration, was basically "They killed my cow, the bastards."

    This gets a sequel?

    Last time they tried this, NeverWinter Nights was released 2 months later and DS fell into the bargain bin in short order. (Not that NWN had a great story by BioWare's standards, but at least it had one).

    Sad thing appears to be, no large CRPG on the horizon for this summer, such that DS might make decent money this time and encourage DS3: Return of the Bovine Murderers.

    That's a shame, but it's not the REAL shame. The REAL shame is that GPG can technically make good games.

    These are NOT talentless developers making the best game they can which just happens to be crap. These are devs with TONS of talent making a crappy game out of CHOICE.

    How do you do that? How do you get up in the morning all perky and up-and-attem to drive into work to make this game? I don't get it.

    Why would you go through the hell of being a start-up, work understaffed on DS1 under conditions which event Taylor admits was a family killing "epic crunch" (read: understaffed and over-featured to a scary degree) and then, THEN when you persuade a publisher like Microsoft to do it all over again...

    You STILL don't want to have a story in it? Even Diablo II had a story (and a pretty good one compared to DS).

    I don't get that. What makes a talented group of game developers want to do that? I really, really don't understand.

    --
    .Robert