FadedC

I do remember playing this game and being really impressed with some parts of it. Unfortunately I also remember the horrible AI standing out. I know that AI is a weakness in many 4X games, but I seem to remember that the AI in SE wasn't just "normal" bad, it was at that completely horrible level where it's painfully obvious that the AI doesn't have the slightest idea how to play the game and can't even pretend to put up a fight. If patches were able to improv

If you scroll down a bit, Tom Chick has 2 articles describing the unique features of the Dwarf and Undead factions here http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/ It certainly looks extremely exciting with such incredible difference between factions. Of course my first thought when I read it was that Dominions looked incredibly exciting too but I hated actually playing it. But if this has more of a single player focus and less micromanage

[quote who="TorinReborn" reply="82" id="2995633"] This only means that you need a better computer Graphics are ugly in DEHR, there is no denying that. They don't need to be Crysis or Witcher2 level but they need to be better then this. And Riddick is also a stealth based FSP most of the game but it still have a much better melee system. [/quote] Well I was really arguing for DEHR's optimization rather then it's graphics. I

I definitely have no problem with a single Q. I agree with Heavenfall that a single Q feels better, but in actual play it doesn't always work well. In Galciv it just meant that instead of building a colony ship in 4 turns and then a factory in 4 turns, you were instead building both after 8 turns, which is far less efficient. Ultimately realism is nice, but gameplay and balance are always more important to me. Other then that, I love the idea of random building choices whe

[quote who="Kamamura_CZ" reply="79" id="2994694"]Well, the game also looks like an ugly street urchin, compared to Witcher 2. BTW what combat system? Chronicles of Riddick had a good combat system - you could make various attacks, you could block, you could counter.Mount and Blade has a combat system. Combat systems are about timing, blocking, dodging, and attack variety. All this is absent from the game, it's close combat is identical to Pacman. And finally - the ending

I've seen plenty of people praise the hacking mini game, I have to agree with them that it's probably the best one I've seen, but I also agree with you that it gets pretty old by the end. I have no problem with the close combat system other then the awkwardness of the energy system, certainly seems more cinematic then running up to someone and whacking them over the head with a katana until they drop. As for optimization, I had to lower a few settings due to my olde

[quote who="Kamamura_CZ" reply="71" id="2993928"]For me, the game is a mild disappointment. The only interesting area is the story and the gameworld lore - both are superb. Even the characters are interesting. However, from purely gameplay perspective, the game is mediocre. It suffers heavy consolitis in all the worst aspect we know it. The cover system among them, the game tries to guess what you want to do, often ducking the wrong direction. There is no melee combat system whatso

[quote who="unacomn" reply="66" id="2993573"]I understand that, but in DX1 you could short-circuit certain events, like plating a bomb under Anna Navare and saying bye bye, or just skipping over certain situations, like the hostage rescue in the subway. You can't really do things like that in Human Revolution. It's a much more linear progression that doesn't allow you to screw with the plot. It even keeps all the critical characters locked in cinematics or in areas you can't u

Yeah I don't think it has much replay value, but it was a lot of fun for the time I played it. Certainly worth the $15. I virtually never replay games anyway unless it's 5 years later.

[quote who="kryo" reply="10" id="2990854"] Quoting FadedC, reply 9 and I think that's a feature with a huge amount of promise Not so much. The problem is that if you're playing any kind of game where timing matters, you shouldn't be looking at the keyboard in the first place. It's an interesting concept for big applications with lots of obscure commands (such as photoshop), but for games it's just a gimmick. [/quote] <

What is cool about it is that it looks like the buttons on the right side change their picture depending on what you map to them. I think I've seen that with a Razor tablet before too, and I think that's a feature with a huge amount of promise.

[quote who="kryo" reply="1" id="2990185"]Doesn't seem like it'd be terribly useful since it would require you take your hand off the mouse or not use one at all. Maybe if the LCD buttons were on the left side, though. Also, no numpad. [/quote] Well it looks like that's a touch pad on the right side of the keyboard. I guess the idea is that while your using the touch pad you can hit one of the buttons up on top of it with the same hand. Personally I hate tou

[quote who="VistArtXPosed" reply="4" id="2987424"]This is totally unexpected! (Maybe it was expected and I just wasn't following) I wonder if Apple will become the new Microsoft and slowly decline over the years, after Bill Gates stepped down way back in the day. If so, who will replace Apple? Linux? But Linux is non-profit, as they sell their OS for nothing, so that's not it. Maybe Google will (I hope not). [/quote] Well many have already c

[quote who="Savyg" reply="43" id="2987416"] Quoting FadedC, reply 38 Have you tried hitting the middle mouse button to aim? I had a hard time hitting anything with my tranq rifle without doing that. Also important to note that if you fire from behind cover without popping your head out first with one of the arrow keys, then you will fire blindly and it's unlikely you will hit anything. I know all that, I'm an avid game play

[quote who="Savyg" reply="37" id="2987300"]I can adjust my DPI on the fly. It's not that I can't aim, its just that the accuracy spread is horrible at first. I can understand why they went with this system it just feels really wack. [/quote] Have you tried hitting the middle mouse button to aim? I had a hard time hitting anything with my tranq rifle without doing that. Also important to note that if you fire from behind cover without popping your

[quote who="Savyg" reply="34" id="2987229"]Shady things that most people don't care about anyway. Woo. I like the game but damn. Admittedly I have barely upgraded my armor/aim tech at all but the shooting just feels wonky, from the moment I loaded the game up. [/quote] If the mouse feels less responsive then it should then you may want to adjust the mouse sensitivity. Some people have mentioned that adjusting the DPI of their mouse helps too (I think yo

[quote who="ZehDon" reply="24" id="2986645"]I don't like to say this, but the Elemental Beta Testers were told a similar thing. "Don't worry, it's all fixed in the Gold code." None of it was fixed, which is why a large portion of the player base are still waiting for the 'real' release. [/quote] I've seen that a few times before with strategy games and MMOs, and it's pretty much always turned out to be a disaster. It sounds like the r

There's an article on PCgamer about the advertisiing, apparently it wasn't in the review copy, which would explain the lack of complaints. But still they say they saw mock ups of what it would look like, and they didn't think it was that noticable. Basically there are billboards setup in places where it would be logical to have them, which advertise companies like Coke. It is worth noting though that the article writer was still against it on principle. Someone else did ma

Well I think was Deus Ex where a designer had said that all level showcases will by nature have an on-rails feel because the person going through them is doing so in such a practiced fashion and has a rest of things they are trying to demonstrate in a short time, rather then wandering around and looking at everything in the way that a player would. They had promised that it would not feel remotely on rails in actual play. But of course you can't always trust what someone clos

[quote who="tetleytea" reply="181" id="2982429"]I don't really understand the pie thing, but games were out in force well before the late 80's, and that includes epically long SP games. I lost a couple summers to Wizardry. The Ultima series was the same way. Eamon was out in the 70's, and the only reason that wasn't bigger was only because computers were so expensive and there weren't more people owning them. [/quote] Wow you started ev

[quote who="ZehDon" reply="174" id="2981169"] Unforutnately, 15 hours would be a heaven sent in today's world, and I wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm not attempting to argue for 40 hours single player games in all cases - so, I'm honestly sorry if that's how I'm coming across. That's not my position. What I'm talking about is the fact that we're down in single digit hours for all single player content.&nb

I prefer single player as well, and I think a lot of people do. But i think that how popular it is depends on the genre. RTS gamers tend to lean more towards multiplayer for example while, TBS gamers lean more towards single player. So a game company is usually going to take that into account and not create a 40 hour single player campaign for a genre where most of the players only play it for the first few hours to learn the game. It's just a hunch, but I strongly suspect th

Well it's actually not necesarily true that we are getting less now for our money if we don't buy the DLC. It depends on a lot of factors. How much development cost a game is willing to incur is directly related to how much profit the game is expected to make. Obviously your not going to spend 4 million dollars to make a game that is only expected to make 3 million. But lets say a company had DLC and they expect to make 3 million off their main game and 3 million off

Well I can't really speak about Crysis 2 which I never purchased. I do hate the idea of the extra map packs, especially if they were produced along with the game. However I would question your statement that you "had" to pay for them. You could have just not bought any DLC at all. Then it would have cost the same as usual. From your description it sounds like they were pretty awful anyway, so why buy them in the first place? Meanwhile I agree that there are people who will b

Well I don't like DLC either but I don't think it's fair to add the cost of all possible DLC you could evenr buy to the cost of the game to determine it's true cost. I almost never buy DLC and when I do it reminds of why that is. Most DLC is either pointless or poorly made and not up to the quality of the original game. It's just an attempt to milk money out of the franchise. For the record most of the recent games I've bought have cost somewhere in the $1