Sounds like you spent too much time trying to help out people that didn't really deserve the help which probably wrecked your enjoyment of some of the games.
I never got too much into morrowind due to not being on board with the art direction, I know people love it, but there are only so many mushroom houses I can look at before I get bored. Art wise, oblivion did a much better job giving you some variety to what you looked at.
Anyway my comment was to agree with you about how they are just gradually stepping away from what the whole point of elder scrolls was supposed to be.
I've always felt like daggerfall really set the message for why I keep buying elder scrolls games, hoping that as technology and game design experience improved, we'd actually get to the point of having daggerfall done right.
What I see instead is them stepping into a more fixed game experience, being 'realistic'. I would say fallout 3 really was a great game to play through, but ultimately it still felt like it was missing out on that expansiveness that was supposed to be elder scrolls.
With the announcement of skyrim, I'm worried we'll just see fallout 4 in oblivion's shoes.
I mean, to dig up the compass and unkillable NPC arguments again, I agree with you to a point, but I also agree with their design philosophy about never getting the gamer stuck. At the same time, killing every body in a town to only have one guy never die, just spoils the immersion.
What they should do is find other solutions for the problems the compass and unkillable npcs are solving.
For example, it doesn't make sense that a quest hinges on a particular person being alive (it makes sense from a game design perspective of coarse). If they had rewards to give you, those dont disappear on their death. If they had information to give you, it was only a stepping stone to the next location, which should still be there.
As a quest designer you could either have a secondary npc there to give you the information in another town to give the player some fall back, or some other way to know to move to the next step, even an anonymous note can work.
Next the compass/fast travel. I think fast travel for example is there to let you pop all over the world instantly. Perhaps what they need to do is design the game in such a way that moving locations is a significant activity, as it most likely would be in any world where horses are the fastest mode of transport.
Quest chains should be local. If you need to deal with things from afar assume there is some sort of infrastructure in the empire to move things. A primitive mail system, hell say the mage's guild does it, forcing low level recruits to run the mail system for a time, would even make some intro quests surrounding it.
You could have a guild of couriers who transport people and packages and get things, no questions. That could even be a faction with its own quests.
It also opens up more quest ideas for the main line story, ok we need to grab and question this dude half way across the empire. If the quest is to continue where that guy is located, you send the player there, make the trip somehow exciting, he ends up at the new hub, game continues.
If the quest sends you back to where you started, instead you go to "The Couriers", contract them to deliver a letter, or even have them kidnap the guy, wait some time doing other quests, and viola, info you need to keep going. You can even branch from there, we had the information but we were hijack by the "The Pigeons", our rival guild, and they are holding the information demanding twice the price. Then you can either go beat them up or pay them to get your information.
This is easy stuff, basically you neuter your world if you can get to all locations trivially, so make sure when the player has to travel, it is a big deal, and it is fun in of itself to try to arrive at the new location. Create the infrastructure a large empire would have. The tools to do it are there already.
Anyway, totally off topic rant, but seeing skyrim announced and your post here just got my brain going:)
People share a surprising amount of things with their friends. In peer groups people tell about cheating, drugs, drunken incidents, or any other number of illegal/immoral or whatever acts. The problem is that people putting it up on facebook forget the fact that someone who is not in their closed circle can easily stumble upon it and take action.
I think that is the disconnect, you might want to tell all your friends how high you are, but you forgot aunt mildred added you the other day, and whoops, now shes going to tell mom.
While information leaking via facebook is easy to detect, just because a person said they did something, doesn't really mean that they actually did, and that is important to consider too.
I second that. Had a version on the PC and it was the first time I got to play pinball without running out of money in 3 seconds. Anytime I happened to get a high score on a table my dad would be sure to crush it utterly though hehe.
Could do some neat stuff like there is a support ship in the fleet that provides navigational/aim data to the fighters, which would allow some cool interplay if that support ship is taken out, you lose your ability for an airspeed reference or any kind of auto aim.
Does nobody in the world have consoles and a pc? Sheesh? I like them both. I also know some people that could probably own me in their FPS of choice vs my keyboard + mouse with them using a controller. At the highest level of skill I do believe you can become faster and more accurate with a mouse, but hardly any of us play at that level.
I wonder if the real reason that interactivity between pc and consoles didn't exist is because devs might not have wanted to use LIVE! network libraries or there were too many in game features a live game needs that a pc game does not. Could I sell a PC game that used xbox live over steam? Would live and steam be fighting each other? Actually, dawn of war used both, and imho it was a stupid mess.
Anyway, I would like to see pc and consoles work together, the more gamers there are playing a title, the better for everyone.
This study also makes true the statement that global peace lies in trade agreements. As per the study, people hardly ever take hostile actions after they have made a trade.
This was my main problem with beta... I've PLAYED this game already, it is an old feeling RTS game, while it is streamlined beyond all measure, the game play is still war2/starcraft style, just well refined.
There is no new gameplay innovation here, just a really polished old school RTS experience. (In the multiplayer area at least).
I'll still pick it up though for the single player and mod potential, but overall I was very disappointed when picking up the beta.
Agree about the need for bumps on the scroll wheel. I hate the frictionless ones, but in the context of doing 3d modeling, I could see how having fine adjustment is useful.
Perhaps you should look into 3d mice for doing 3d work. There is one linked above in comments that is along that line, though I'm sure there are ones that are less overkill then that mouse.
I just got the naga and I might have hesitated had I heard about this warmouse. I would really really need to feel it in my hand before buying though, though I wished I had been able to with the naga.
Overall I like the naga but I haven't really put it through its paces yet. I just have been craving for a long time a mouse with more than 5 buttons on it.
I tentatively agree with the points brought up here but slightly different movements for my hands.
I have basically dismissed the m4 and 5 buttons on the left of the top, they are pretty useless imho on their difficulty to hit.
The first button I used was 4 and I find that the most comfortable, I leave my thumb resting between 4 and 1, from there I can hit 1, 2, 4, 5 very easily.
The rest I have to learn muscle memory. Right now I can find the buttons but I upset the mouse aim as I don't have the thumb dexterity to hit it yet, but I can see over time I would get it once I get more confident on button locations.
But yeah, the thumb pad is well done, but its not perfect.At the very least I have picked up a ton of extra buttons, even if I don't hit every one of them.
I wonder if the war mouse approach of having all the buttons on top is ultimately more comfortable, the test will be if you can hit the buttons without disturbing the aim point, which I think you could, Ah well, I made my choice, good to see some more options out there.
It seems many people have to first try to exist in a competitive game environment before they can understand the similarities. For anyone who has tried to improve at any type of game play this article's subject is frighteningly obvious.
In the same way that a football linebacker will not succeed in soccer, a gamer won't succeed at football. You aren't working on the same skills at all. But depending on the game, the mentality, rush of competition, and psychology of the other people you are playing come strongly into play and will be familiar territory.
Anything you do that requires mechanical input first requires learning muscle memory to the point that the actions you can take in the game are automatic, your body becomes trained to the point that your brain can figure out what is going on with the big picture, and you execute moves without hesitation, one flows into the next.
This frees you to take a look at everything going on with your entire set of moves at your command, and later, you will learn your own special set of them that you like.
This is true in a video game and in a sport. When I learned to play volleyball for real, I had to take some time learning how to spike, where to stand, how to pass properly, all of this. Once I learned how to perform most of these actions, it freed me up to see the bigger picture of the game, and playing in an environment where all competitors see this bigger picture, makes it a lot more fun.
I think with competitive games the bar to reach the skill plateau where the game gets deeper and becomes an exercise in psychology and strategy is much lower than having the physical fitness needed for sports to reach this level, which appeals to more people.
But at the end of the day, each thing is a game, and all games have a similar elements to them, including the mental processes it takes to operate at the professional level.
I mostly agree with you but that is more a representation of the mistakes made in other game-->movie crap movies then what could be.
One of the first problems you have is games are often set in quasi fanatasy and violate reality. I think a huge portion of america has a problem with fantasy. Either you laughed when they took off in the air in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, or you thought it was cool.
What filmmakers try to do all the time is ground the fantasy in 'reality' and it fucks up the entire movie. They always go out of their way to add a 'regular joe' character that is normal and that usually ends up somehow destroying the plot of the movie to keep this guy here to keep going 'woah woah' and to make people feel comfortable with the fact crazy shit is happening.
But yeah, the games that need to be turned into movies are ones that have well defined characters and plots. Psychonauts, secret of monkey island, one of millions of RPG games, Dragon Age? Mass Effect? Anything really, lots of room to write to that setting.
From there the writers can make a new plot set in the same world using the same characters, so long as they know how to actually capture the original characters personality. Also, they need to do the same thing games do to their audience, and that is, get the movie audience up to speed on the world and characters.
The final fantasy CGI fest that came out a bit ago would have appealed to a pretty broad audience had they started the "plot" in a place that people could understand had they not played the game.
But you are right, many game generas do not lend themselves to the movie format, esp ones that are about the mechanics rather than the people. But there are plenty of games out there ripe with interesting characters and plots that could be rolled into a movie.
But again, I would say it is only till about now that games I think are popular enough that paying $$$ to use a game's IP would actually be worth it to a movie company to have enough popularity out of the box. Otherwise it would just be int their best interest to make up their own stuff.
I bought dawn of war 2 + expansion after a nasty storm in the area. It had left comcast down for a few days, and normally I play mount & blade warband online as my game of choice. So facing the power outage I decided to grab a new game I intended to play for a few days while the internet came back up.
So I come home with my cd's out of the box, and lo and behold, I can't install the game in steam offline mode. There was just something extremely frustrating about holding the product and box in my hand, and having it refuse to install on my machine with no solution in sight to put it there.
So yeah, a couple days later I was able to install it, but the whole purpose of buying the game was to have something new to play while the net was down, and its pretty god damn annoying.
Also, I doubt we would really hear from people on an INTERNET forum about how they can't load games due to not having internet, since you know, you need the internet to post.
Honestly I think having a cd key is enough for single player, and then just go with the cd key check/registration when they want to go online with the game. I think that is a great balance between making the game playable for paying customers and still having a huge incentive to purchase the game to access the multiplayer portion.
I also understand how companies making RPG style games that don't rely on multiplayer would want to have some sort of DRM incentive going with them, but that hard limit of needing the internet for access to install is just too punishing imho.
Good thing we don't use an ancient book that is wildly outdated in different times with different morals, technology and values to set our moral compasses by... oh wait.
Well, warcraft 2 was released before battle.net even existed, and only had IPX support, and didn't know anything about TCP connections.
Kali made a lot of games playable over the internet, but all these games were made before there really was an internet, or the concept of multiplayer game was either new or unexplored.
Ahh war 2 kali, to find that gaming high again in my life, never again, never again:)
Each game trains specific skills. Your mentality playing the game has nothing to do with how fast your character can die in it. An FPS where you die quickly with one shot teaches you to play differently then a halo style game. I tend to be a fan of the ghost recon/ravenshield type games (well in the past) and even on n64 I would want to play bond on the 1 shot 1 kill mode. I liked it because I couldn't track and aim players that well.
In those games you sneak around, are clever, keep your weapon pointed to be the first guy to shoot on target. In a halo game, you need to track your target and keep sustained fire on them. It is a different skill to put a person down in a multishot game, and I would even say it requires better aim, because headshots become even more important when the chest shots will keep people alive twice as long. In the 'realistic' game you just hit them first and you win basically, spray in the chest, maybe get a headshot, no biggie, get the drop on them.
But people's attitudes when they play are different. Some people like to push themselves to become great, to always do better, other people just hop on and play, and some just get good enough to beat the masses and avoid the talent. It is like this in every game.
At the end of the day we'll never have an environment immersive enough to be reality on current hardware, a mouse, keyboard, screen, and headphones are not enough. You can rotate your head without changing your body orientation and you have peripheral vision, and that nice 6th sense which puts the hairs on the back of your neck up. Moreover, in a video game it doesn't take physical fitness into account, which is probably one of the largest factors in some types of actions that games simulate.
Anyway, you can be a competitor in any game, not just one that lets you die in one hit.
Tribes had a lot of cool stuff but for some reason I hated playing it. It didn't suck me in, tried tribes 1 and 2, maybe it was the artwork or something, dunno. Either way yeah it was way ahead of its time.
Actually one of the most interesting news about REACH that I read is bungie can FINALLY FINALLY do another game that isn't halo. I have loved almost everyone of their games, especially myth, the fallen lords, and I have always felt they had ideas outside the norm and executed them perfectly. I can't wait to see what they can cook up when finally unsaddled from generic halo FPS games.
Shadowbane failed due to not having the tech to support the point of the game. Whenever you put 200 players in one location the game would consistently crash to desktop. When the whole point of the game is to participate in city sieges, and then when you do, the game crashes...that'll drive people off... at least that is why I left. But I thought SB had a lot of potential and it was a well developed system... they just didn't have the $$ to pull it off imho.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like you spent too much time trying to help out people that didn't really deserve the help which probably wrecked your enjoyment of some of the games.
I never got too much into morrowind due to not being on board with the art direction, I know people love it, but there are only so many mushroom houses I can look at before I get bored. Art wise, oblivion did a much better job giving you some variety to what you looked at.
Anyway my comment was to agree with you about how they are just gradually stepping away from what the whole point of elder scrolls was supposed to be.
I've always felt like daggerfall really set the message for why I keep buying elder scrolls games, hoping that as technology and game design experience improved, we'd actually get to the point of having daggerfall done right.
What I see instead is them stepping into a more fixed game experience, being 'realistic'. I would say fallout 3 really was a great game to play through, but ultimately it still felt like it was missing out on that expansiveness that was supposed to be elder scrolls.
With the announcement of skyrim, I'm worried we'll just see fallout 4 in oblivion's shoes.
I mean, to dig up the compass and unkillable NPC arguments again, I agree with you to a point, but I also agree with their design philosophy about never getting the gamer stuck. At the same time, killing every body in a town to only have one guy never die, just spoils the immersion.
What they should do is find other solutions for the problems the compass and unkillable npcs are solving.
For example, it doesn't make sense that a quest hinges on a particular person being alive (it makes sense from a game design perspective of coarse). If they had rewards to give you, those dont disappear on their death. If they had information to give you, it was only a stepping stone to the next location, which should still be there.
As a quest designer you could either have a secondary npc there to give you the information in another town to give the player some fall back, or some other way to know to move to the next step, even an anonymous note can work.
Next the compass/fast travel. I think fast travel for example is there to let you pop all over the world instantly. Perhaps what they need to do is design the game in such a way that moving locations is a significant activity, as it most likely would be in any world where horses are the fastest mode of transport.
Quest chains should be local. If you need to deal with things from afar assume there is some sort of infrastructure in the empire to move things. A primitive mail system, hell say the mage's guild does it, forcing low level recruits to run the mail system for a time, would even make some intro quests surrounding it.
You could have a guild of couriers who transport people and packages and get things, no questions. That could even be a faction with its own quests.
It also opens up more quest ideas for the main line story, ok we need to grab and question this dude half way across the empire. If the quest is to continue where that guy is located, you send the player there, make the trip somehow exciting, he ends up at the new hub, game continues.
If the quest sends you back to where you started, instead you go to "The Couriers", contract them to deliver a letter, or even have them kidnap the guy, wait some time doing other quests, and viola, info you need to keep going. You can even branch from there, we had the information but we were hijack by the "The Pigeons", our rival guild, and they are holding the information demanding twice the price. Then you can either go beat them up or pay them to get your information.
This is easy stuff, basically you neuter your world if you can get to all locations trivially, so make sure when the player has to travel, it is a big deal, and it is fun in of itself to try to arrive at the new location. Create the infrastructure a large empire would have. The tools to do it are there already.
Anyway, totally off topic rant, but seeing skyrim announced and your post here just got my brain going :)
Generic console FPS game with some punchy one liners. Snooore!
People share a surprising amount of things with their friends. In peer groups people tell about cheating, drugs, drunken incidents, or any other number of illegal/immoral or whatever acts. The problem is that people putting it up on facebook forget the fact that someone who is not in their closed circle can easily stumble upon it and take action.
I think that is the disconnect, you might want to tell all your friends how high you are, but you forgot aunt mildred added you the other day, and whoops, now shes going to tell mom.
While information leaking via facebook is easy to detect, just because a person said they did something, doesn't really mean that they actually did, and that is important to consider too.
I second that. Had a version on the PC and it was the first time I got to play pinball without running out of money in 3 seconds. Anytime I happened to get a high score on a table my dad would be sure to crush it utterly though hehe.
Could do some neat stuff like there is a support ship in the fleet that provides navigational/aim data to the fighters, which would allow some cool interplay if that support ship is taken out, you lose your ability for an airspeed reference or any kind of auto aim.
Does nobody in the world have consoles and a pc? Sheesh? I like them both. I also know some people that could probably own me in their FPS of choice vs my keyboard + mouse with them using a controller. At the highest level of skill I do believe you can become faster and more accurate with a mouse, but hardly any of us play at that level.
I wonder if the real reason that interactivity between pc and consoles didn't exist is because devs might not have wanted to use LIVE! network libraries or there were too many in game features a live game needs that a pc game does not. Could I sell a PC game that used xbox live over steam? Would live and steam be fighting each other? Actually, dawn of war used both, and imho it was a stupid mess.
Anyway, I would like to see pc and consoles work together, the more gamers there are playing a title, the better for everyone.
This study also makes true the statement that global peace lies in trade agreements. As per the study, people hardly ever take hostile actions after they have made a trade.
This was my main problem with beta... I've PLAYED this game already, it is an old feeling RTS game, while it is streamlined beyond all measure, the game play is still war2/starcraft style, just well refined.
There is no new gameplay innovation here, just a really polished old school RTS experience. (In the multiplayer area at least).
I'll still pick it up though for the single player and mod potential, but overall I was very disappointed when picking up the beta.
Agree about the need for bumps on the scroll wheel. I hate the frictionless ones, but in the context of doing 3d modeling, I could see how having fine adjustment is useful.
Perhaps you should look into 3d mice for doing 3d work. There is one linked above in comments that is along that line, though I'm sure there are ones that are less overkill then that mouse.
I just got the naga and I might have hesitated had I heard about this warmouse. I would really really need to feel it in my hand before buying though, though I wished I had been able to with the naga.
Overall I like the naga but I haven't really put it through its paces yet. I just have been craving for a long time a mouse with more than 5 buttons on it.
I tentatively agree with the points brought up here but slightly different movements for my hands.
I have basically dismissed the m4 and 5 buttons on the left of the top, they are pretty useless imho on their difficulty to hit.
The first button I used was 4 and I find that the most comfortable, I leave my thumb resting between 4 and 1, from there I can hit 1, 2, 4, 5 very easily.
The rest I have to learn muscle memory. Right now I can find the buttons but I upset the mouse aim as I don't have the thumb dexterity to hit it yet, but I can see over time I would get it once I get more confident on button locations.
But yeah, the thumb pad is well done, but its not perfect.At the very least I have picked up a ton of extra buttons, even if I don't hit every one of them.
I wonder if the war mouse approach of having all the buttons on top is ultimately more comfortable, the test will be if you can hit the buttons without disturbing the aim point, which I think you could, Ah well, I made my choice, good to see some more options out there.
It seems many people have to first try to exist in a competitive game environment before they can understand the similarities. For anyone who has tried to improve at any type of game play this article's subject is frighteningly obvious.
In the same way that a football linebacker will not succeed in soccer, a gamer won't succeed at football. You aren't working on the same skills at all. But depending on the game, the mentality, rush of competition, and psychology of the other people you are playing come strongly into play and will be familiar territory.
Anything you do that requires mechanical input first requires learning muscle memory to the point that the actions you can take in the game are automatic, your body becomes trained to the point that your brain can figure out what is going on with the big picture, and you execute moves without hesitation, one flows into the next.
This frees you to take a look at everything going on with your entire set of moves at your command, and later, you will learn your own special set of them that you like.
This is true in a video game and in a sport. When I learned to play volleyball for real, I had to take some time learning how to spike, where to stand, how to pass properly, all of this. Once I learned how to perform most of these actions, it freed me up to see the bigger picture of the game, and playing in an environment where all competitors see this bigger picture, makes it a lot more fun.
I think with competitive games the bar to reach the skill plateau where the game gets deeper and becomes an exercise in psychology and strategy is much lower than having the physical fitness needed for sports to reach this level, which appeals to more people.
But at the end of the day, each thing is a game, and all games have a similar elements to them, including the mental processes it takes to operate at the professional level.
Yes I love this fear of wearing the brain out by using it too much.
Sounds like many people subscribe to this philosophy around the world...
I mostly agree with you but that is more a representation of the mistakes made in other game-->movie crap movies then what could be.
One of the first problems you have is games are often set in quasi fanatasy and violate reality. I think a huge portion of america has a problem with fantasy. Either you laughed when they took off in the air in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, or you thought it was cool.
What filmmakers try to do all the time is ground the fantasy in 'reality' and it fucks up the entire movie. They always go out of their way to add a 'regular joe' character that is normal and that usually ends up somehow destroying the plot of the movie to keep this guy here to keep going 'woah woah' and to make people feel comfortable with the fact crazy shit is happening.
But yeah, the games that need to be turned into movies are ones that have well defined characters and plots. Psychonauts, secret of monkey island, one of millions of RPG games, Dragon Age? Mass Effect? Anything really, lots of room to write to that setting.
From there the writers can make a new plot set in the same world using the same characters, so long as they know how to actually capture the original characters personality. Also, they need to do the same thing games do to their audience, and that is, get the movie audience up to speed on the world and characters.
The final fantasy CGI fest that came out a bit ago would have appealed to a pretty broad audience had they started the "plot" in a place that people could understand had they not played the game.
But you are right, many game generas do not lend themselves to the movie format, esp ones that are about the mechanics rather than the people. But there are plenty of games out there ripe with interesting characters and plots that could be rolled into a movie.
But again, I would say it is only till about now that games I think are popular enough that paying $$$ to use a game's IP would actually be worth it to a movie company to have enough popularity out of the box. Otherwise it would just be int their best interest to make up their own stuff.
I bought dawn of war 2 + expansion after a nasty storm in the area. It had left comcast down for a few days, and normally I play mount & blade warband online as my game of choice. So facing the power outage I decided to grab a new game I intended to play for a few days while the internet came back up.
So I come home with my cd's out of the box, and lo and behold, I can't install the game in steam offline mode. There was just something extremely frustrating about holding the product and box in my hand, and having it refuse to install on my machine with no solution in sight to put it there.
So yeah, a couple days later I was able to install it, but the whole purpose of buying the game was to have something new to play while the net was down, and its pretty god damn annoying.
Also, I doubt we would really hear from people on an INTERNET forum about how they can't load games due to not having internet, since you know, you need the internet to post.
Honestly I think having a cd key is enough for single player, and then just go with the cd key check/registration when they want to go online with the game. I think that is a great balance between making the game playable for paying customers and still having a huge incentive to purchase the game to access the multiplayer portion.
I also understand how companies making RPG style games that don't rely on multiplayer would want to have some sort of DRM incentive going with them, but that hard limit of needing the internet for access to install is just too punishing imho.
It seems as human beings we all tend towards boredom no matter what we are doing.
Good thing we don't use an ancient book that is wildly outdated in different times with different morals, technology and values to set our moral compasses by... oh wait.
Well, warcraft 2 was released before battle.net even existed, and only had IPX support, and didn't know anything about TCP connections.
Kali made a lot of games playable over the internet, but all these games were made before there really was an internet, or the concept of multiplayer game was either new or unexplored.
Ahh war 2 kali, to find that gaming high again in my life, never again, never again :)
Each game trains specific skills. Your mentality playing the game has nothing to do with how fast your character can die in it. An FPS where you die quickly with one shot teaches you to play differently then a halo style game. I tend to be a fan of the ghost recon/ravenshield type games (well in the past) and even on n64 I would want to play bond on the 1 shot 1 kill mode. I liked it because I couldn't track and aim players that well.
In those games you sneak around, are clever, keep your weapon pointed to be the first guy to shoot on target. In a halo game, you need to track your target and keep sustained fire on them. It is a different skill to put a person down in a multishot game, and I would even say it requires better aim, because headshots become even more important when the chest shots will keep people alive twice as long. In the 'realistic' game you just hit them first and you win basically, spray in the chest, maybe get a headshot, no biggie, get the drop on them.
But people's attitudes when they play are different. Some people like to push themselves to become great, to always do better, other people just hop on and play, and some just get good enough to beat the masses and avoid the talent. It is like this in every game.
At the end of the day we'll never have an environment immersive enough to be reality on current hardware, a mouse, keyboard, screen, and headphones are not enough. You can rotate your head without changing your body orientation and you have peripheral vision, and that nice 6th sense which puts the hairs on the back of your neck up. Moreover, in a video game it doesn't take physical fitness into account, which is probably one of the largest factors in some types of actions that games simulate.
Anyway, you can be a competitor in any game, not just one that lets you die in one hit.
The one thing I never understood about dating when I was free, that I understand now, is that something like this, if said correctly, would work.
Holy shit, hahah that is my new word, clam slam. God damn, that is hilarious. That is all.
Tribes had a lot of cool stuff but for some reason I hated playing it. It didn't suck me in, tried tribes 1 and 2, maybe it was the artwork or something, dunno. Either way yeah it was way ahead of its time.
who to be more angry with, the company, or the idiots that pay for it giving them a reason to justify doing it again.
What I read was after halo reach is released, is that they will next be doing an original IP game that is not in the halo universe.
Actually one of the most interesting news about REACH that I read is bungie can FINALLY FINALLY do another game that isn't halo. I have loved almost everyone of their games, especially myth, the fallen lords, and I have always felt they had ideas outside the norm and executed them perfectly. I can't wait to see what they can cook up when finally unsaddled from generic halo FPS games.
Shadowbane failed due to not having the tech to support the point of the game. Whenever you put 200 players in one location the game would consistently crash to desktop. When the whole point of the game is to participate in city sieges, and then when you do, the game crashes...that'll drive people off... at least that is why I left. But I thought SB had a lot of potential and it was a well developed system... they just didn't have the $$ to pull it off imho.