finn

It's funny that the PC version is more stable than the console versions. From what I've heard, that last console patch caused 3 minute long loading times for most people.

The game however, is excellent. If not for the technical issues, I would say that it's GOTY material.

@Mach2

KOTOR2 was a gem of a game that was ruined by the fact that LucasArts forced Obsidian to finish it within one year, which is no exaggeration by the way. I really liked how it did something different with the Star Wars license with the wound in the force stuff.

I haven't played NWN2 but from what I've been told the expansion packs greatly improve the game. Not having played it I can't comment on the story.

Chris Avellone, NV's senior designed, also designed Planetscape: Torment, which had one of the best stories I've seen in video games.

Bethesda's plots are usually pretty bad, though I liked Morrowind's. The last quest of vanilla FO3 was just poorly written (had to die even though there were better alternatives that actually followed the lore Bethesda had set up).

My two problems with Fallout 3 were the poor main-quest line, and the fact that the game got really easy, really fast. Obsidian writes some of the best stories in the industry, and I know they've made the game harder, so I already pre-ordered the game.

This game is sort of cursed though. A Bethesda-Obsidian collaboration using the Gamebryo Engine? It's the worst possible combination.

The Situation would probably be good for conflicts in the workplace.

@hxcaleb

He could mean a lot of games really. Anything from the WW2-era Medal of Honors to this year's Battlefield: Bad Company 2.

Is anyone else seeing my display picture?

The "value" argument is used a lot in relation to DLC. I really hate it though, mostly because it fails to consider genre expectations and average utility/hour.

Also I don't think Justin was being a jerk in his apology.

I used to use WLM to video chat with my relatives overseas for free. I doubt its a feature the average user will use though.

@jcar302

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was a Battlefield game on a much smaller scale. The other battlefield games (BF2, BF1942, BF Vietnam, BF2142) featured wide-open maps (bigger than Atacama Desert) with 32 players on each team. I think DICE tailored BC2 to the console experience, while still releasing it to the PC since it had been a while since the PC had received a Battlefield game.

MoH is a marriage between Battlefield and the Modern Warfare series. There is much more focus on the individual, as well as on short firefights and close quarters combat. Whereas you could still contribute to your team in BC2 by repairing, healing, reviving and resupplying, the only way to gain support actions in MoH is through killing or getting assists. The maps are all much, much smaller than the ones in BC2, and there is no spotting, so you can get into firefights if you want and as long as you win, feel no negative effects. The gameplay, at least in the beta, was more twitch-based than BC2, where you actually had a chance to win a firefight even if you didn't shoot first.

I'm thinking that MoH will replace BC2, as DICE is also working on Battlefield 3, which is supposed to be a return to the wide-open game play of the older Battlefield games. If you have paid attention to the patching issues they have had with their game (go to the game's UK forums, you'll find a dev post why patching BC2 becomes more and more difficult due to a mistake on their part) they screwed up, and I still don't think the game is that well balanced (what with the Carl Gustav EX MK2 beating everything in that game). I think they're too thinly spread, and it might help if they had just the MoH multiplayer and Battlefield games to work on.

I loved the art from the SSX games. Best of luck to O'Ready and Montynero, hopefully his company will turn out better than RTW did.