I thought it had. As far as I can remember, they had a professional writer for both games. I still haven't read the BG2 novel I bought back then, but I'm pretty sure there's a book released based around BG1 as well.
Yes, especially when BG2 looked so much nicer... to top it off, I also have Planescape: Torment still lying around and I never really played much into that, neither.:( Aaah, time...
Yeah, but you see... it just seems like such a waste of a good story. I wanted to finish BG1, but for some reason I burnt out I guess. And seeing as how BG2 starts where BG1 finishes (if I recall), it seems like a big spoiler and BG2 seems much more fun if you've finished BG1 (and you could import your chars if I remember right!).
I think I've only played through the starter dungeon up until you end up in Baldur's Gate.:( I never even finished the first Baldur's Gate, but I got through to about chapter 5. Somehow the first seems a bit dated now with the low resolution and inability to hide the UI elements, but I'm afraid that I'm missing out if I just head to BG2 again, skipping the rest of BG1. What'd ya think?
Absolutely. Some memories will never have their equivalents. Many modern first-person shooters are much better than Doom. Will Doom ever lose its glory in my mind? Never! You can't replace the first time you see a Cyberdemon or play a deathmatch game. That said, you can be objective about it and enjoy more recent titles.
I never understood how some people somehow take things personal when they don't like the direction something has taken and act all offended about it.
Ah, I don't know. I guess it's what you expect or are used to. Hell, I can barely tell a difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS, anyway. Or maybe more like 40 FPS and 60 FPS.
I suppose I have a high tolerance level, too, because I've used older hardware with newer games for long periods of time.:) I'm just glad I don't have to put up with 15 FPS and lower anymore.
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ nVidia GeForce 6800GT 1 GB DDR dual-channel...and the game runs fine with good quality. The FPS will sometimes (but not that often) dip below 20, but it still plays very well. As in Morrowind, but even more so, you can do marvellous things with the Oblivion.ini file and people in community have already started tweaking the hell out of the game.
You'll be fine, mostly, but cranking every damn setting up to max will probably bring your computer to a crawl. But you'd notice only small improvements in the visual quality.
Yes, but do areas in Eve become as crowded as in World of Warcraft? Does Eve's world contain as detailed environments and artwork as in World of Warcraft? Is the world as big and empty as in World of Warcraft?
Q: What is a Virtual Appliance? A: A Virtual Appliance is similar to a 'traditional' Computing Appliance and is designed with a specific function in mind. The major difference is that instead of being built on a physical computing device, a Virtual Appliance is built using virtual machine and can be run on VMware Player, VMware Workstation, VMware Server, or VMware ESX Server.
I've seen so much debate about this whole mess and both raiders and non-raiders always sound one-sided. The truth is, of course, that there are many more types of "casuals" and "hardcore" players than this. I could be described as a raider. I wouldn't like the raid in your example and I would think many more would agree. Sure, there are some that are only out for the loot, just like there are casuals that are addicted to it. I, for example, couldn't be arsed to grind the instances for those blue sets. And I don't care. Only those obsessed with character progression and PvP put too much importance on items. Those, are of course large portions of the game, but there are others.
What the game needs is both more raid content and more content for smaller groups. Not everyone is content with running through the same instance dozens of times, be it 40-man or 5-man. Unfortunately, the discussion ends with the fact that Blizzard cannot make content as fast as players can consume it, so you get repeatable content-- this lies at the heart of the issue.
How about some content for *both* the raiders and non-raiders? That's what Blizzard wanted to offer all along, anyway. There are enough people that do like the raiding instances as well as players that are more into the smaller instances. Stop prolonging this war.
Are you kidding? I enjoyed Wing Commander 4 *because* of the cinematics. The gameplay wasn't *that* bad, but I wanted to finish the missions just to see what happened next in the awesome story. Of course, I think I may have enabled some sort of god mode at one point...:) Still, I remember this game fondly.
I haven't seen the new benchmarks yet, but what's wrong with that, exactly? There hasn't been any revolutionary new graphics card feature since last year except for faster cards. These stress your graphics card just a little more and are up-to-date versions of last year's benchmarks. Besides, not all games are fast-paced, thank god.
While I guess this goes for the majority of an MMORPG's playerbase (which will be the reason they complain so much-- they both hate and love the game at the same time), there are people playing for other purposes: challenges. Specifically, challenges in large groups. Progression through the game becomes the goal, not progression of your character's strength per se; of course that will be one of the necessities of achieving your goals.
The people that are the loudest, most obnoxious players in any online game are those that play just for themselves, because they need to upgrade their online representation all the time. They are driven by jealousy, greed and addiction. People like me want to avoid these players.
This is not to say MMORPG's are all fun and games all the time, but surely there are redeeming qualities that make it worth playing (even at end-game) for some part of the community.
I see you didn't mention any other MMORPG's. I don't know that many of them, but I can tell that most of them were even less inter-active than WoW. The boring and repetitive gameplay is something you will find in most MMORPG's for several reasons. It's a real challenge for game companies to improve upon the genre in this respect. In single-player games you can do so much more. But this is a whole new discussion. We were talking about the graphics having an impact on gameplay, not the genre.
However, in the right context good 2D art is superior to mediocre 3D modeling.
Heheh, that's pretty obvious. How about good 2D art vs. good 3D modeling? That's a question of taste, especially since 3D modeling today has become pretty detailed (as has 2D art, of course).
I've got a lovely Sony about two feet from me. I've been out looking at and lusting over wide screeens. I can't remember the last time I turned it on, but I do remember times when I've left it on for days at a time, because at that time it interested me that much.
Was this before or after your girlfriend left you and took the TV with her?:)
". ..better graphics. .."
Are, like art, subjective.
Of course, but as I said, better graphic cards and faster computers up the possibilities of what's possible. You could, for example, recreate old 80's graphics. You can also recreate the feel and make them beautiful at the same time. Several games have done this, but I can't remember their names (I don't play them, neither).
Some modern games' art will attract you, others will not. A good consideration might be World of Warcraft, with it ultra-unrealistic graphics, versus Everquest 2, or whatever. You can even do 3D cartoons these days! Gameplay need not suffer, but of course every game these days is 3D and you might not like that and prefer your platform games. You have these too, but not as much as in past years I admit.
I can't remember the last time I turned on my television, but it's not something I'd go around mentioning. It's not an "issue" for me. I've been more interested in other things. Games, music, engineering,literature, they're all just more interesting at most given moments.
He's right! You sound exactly like that guy in the Onion article!:)
Nonsense. I like sims. They are highly dependant on grapics. They are not, however, dependant on photorealism. There's this stuff called "art." You can do a lot with it with comparitively little.
Pretty graphics don't need to be photorealistic. They're art. Better graphics cards offer a bigger palette to create this art. Photorealism is something some people strife for, because it's interesting for creating highly immersive worlds. Gameplay is totally separate from this.
Simply put, better graphics allow better presentation of art. Better graphics, in most cases by far, will not negatively affect gameplay (unless you dislike pretty graphics for some obscure reason).
Slashdot Mirror
Aw, come on. You gotta admit that this UN*X-like OS in JavaScript thing is pretty cool. :)
Kill Xenu? You can't say that about my religion! I'm gonna sue you! I'll see you in court!
I thought it had. As far as I can remember, they had a professional writer for both games. I still haven't read the BG2 novel I bought back then, but I'm pretty sure there's a book released based around BG1 as well.
Hey, thanks!
Yes, especially when BG2 looked so much nicer... to top it off, I also have Planescape: Torment still lying around and I never really played much into that, neither. :( Aaah, time...
Yeah, but you see... it just seems like such a waste of a good story. I wanted to finish BG1, but for some reason I burnt out I guess. And seeing as how BG2 starts where BG1 finishes (if I recall), it seems like a big spoiler and BG2 seems much more fun if you've finished BG1 (and you could import your chars if I remember right!).
I think I've only played through the starter dungeon up until you end up in Baldur's Gate. :( I never even finished the first Baldur's Gate, but I got through to about chapter 5. Somehow the first seems a bit dated now with the low resolution and inability to hide the UI elements, but I'm afraid that I'm missing out if I just head to BG2 again, skipping the rest of BG1. What'd ya think?
Absolutely. Some memories will never have their equivalents. Many modern first-person shooters are much better than Doom. Will Doom ever lose its glory in my mind? Never! You can't replace the first time you see a Cyberdemon or play a deathmatch game. That said, you can be objective about it and enjoy more recent titles.
I never understood how some people somehow take things personal when they don't like the direction something has taken and act all offended about it.
I think I read it somewhere in an interview in a Playboy article. "A Star Wars movie wouldn't be a Star Wars movie if it had good dialogue."
Quit your whining already. I actually enjoyed Episode II and III's stories.
Ah, I don't know. I guess it's what you expect or are used to. Hell, I can barely tell a difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS, anyway. Or maybe more like 40 FPS and 60 FPS.
:) I'm just glad I don't have to put up with 15 FPS and lower anymore.
I suppose I have a high tolerance level, too, because I've used older hardware with newer games for long periods of time.
My machine is a:
...and the game runs fine with good quality. The FPS will sometimes (but not that often) dip below 20, but it still plays very well. As in Morrowind, but even more so, you can do marvellous things with the Oblivion.ini file and people in community have already started tweaking the hell out of the game.
AMD Athlon 64 3500+
nVidia GeForce 6800GT
1 GB DDR dual-channel
You'll be fine, mostly, but cranking every damn setting up to max will probably bring your computer to a crawl. But you'd notice only small improvements in the visual quality.
Yes, but do areas in Eve become as crowded as in World of Warcraft?
Does Eve's world contain as detailed environments and artwork as in World of Warcraft?
Is the world as big and empty as in World of Warcraft?
I've seen so much debate about this whole mess and both raiders and non-raiders always sound one-sided. The truth is, of course, that there are many more types of "casuals" and "hardcore" players than this. I could be described as a raider. I wouldn't like the raid in your example and I would think many more would agree. Sure, there are some that are only out for the loot, just like there are casuals that are addicted to it. I, for example, couldn't be arsed to grind the instances for those blue sets. And I don't care. Only those obsessed with character progression and PvP put too much importance on items. Those, are of course large portions of the game, but there are others.
What the game needs is both more raid content and more content for smaller groups. Not everyone is content with running through the same instance dozens of times, be it 40-man or 5-man. Unfortunately, the discussion ends with the fact that Blizzard cannot make content as fast as players can consume it, so you get repeatable content-- this lies at the heart of the issue.
How about some content for *both* the raiders and non-raiders? That's what Blizzard wanted to offer all along, anyway. There are enough people that do like the raiding instances as well as players that are more into the smaller instances. Stop prolonging this war.
This just shows your level of addiction. To me, spending 10+ a week on any one activity is a pretty serious investment of my time.
Are you kidding? I enjoyed Wing Commander 4 *because* of the cinematics. The gameplay wasn't *that* bad, but I wanted to finish the missions just to see what happened next in the awesome story. Of course, I think I may have enabled some sort of god mode at one point... :) Still, I remember this game fondly.
I haven't seen the new benchmarks yet, but what's wrong with that, exactly? There hasn't been any revolutionary new graphics card feature since last year except for faster cards. These stress your graphics card just a little more and are up-to-date versions of last year's benchmarks. Besides, not all games are fast-paced, thank god.
While I guess this goes for the majority of an MMORPG's playerbase (which will be the reason they complain so much-- they both hate and love the game at the same time), there are people playing for other purposes: challenges. Specifically, challenges in large groups. Progression through the game becomes the goal, not progression of your character's strength per se; of course that will be one of the necessities of achieving your goals. The people that are the loudest, most obnoxious players in any online game are those that play just for themselves, because they need to upgrade their online representation all the time. They are driven by jealousy, greed and addiction. People like me want to avoid these players. This is not to say MMORPG's are all fun and games all the time, but surely there are redeeming qualities that make it worth playing (even at end-game) for some part of the community.
Cry more, noob. :)
I see you didn't mention any other MMORPG's. I don't know that many of them, but I can tell that most of them were even less inter-active than WoW. The boring and repetitive gameplay is something you will find in most MMORPG's for several reasons. It's a real challenge for game companies to improve upon the genre in this respect. In single-player games you can do so much more. But this is a whole new discussion. We were talking about the graphics having an impact on gameplay, not the genre.
He's right! You sound exactly like that guy in the Onion article!
Pretty graphics don't need to be photorealistic. They're art. Better graphics cards offer a bigger palette to create this art. Photorealism is something some people strife for, because it's interesting for creating highly immersive worlds. Gameplay is totally separate from this.
Simply put, better graphics allow better presentation of art. Better graphics, in most cases by far, will not negatively affect gameplay (unless you dislike pretty graphics for some obscure reason).
Ya rly?