Man, finally got some mods working with the game and its a blast. I just wish i can get red of this stupid teture pop in, its hideous. It'l like Rage, where every time I turn some testures will pop in after a second.
It's funny, the last time I played GTA IV, I don't really recall texture pop-in being this bad, but I started playing a few days ago again (on PC) and it is pretty terrible.
Coincidentally, their graphics engine is called RAGE!
Steam/Origin: Shimshai
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
You can also put an opposite arrow on a line to have it 'bounce' back, useful for repeating a set of lines and very useful once the sensing branches start opening up (4th planet, I think?).
Another thing I just learned today: if a waldo is stuck over a symbol, it'll keep repeating that symbol infinitely. So if you put, say, the blue start one space from the edge and going straight off screen with a symbol in that last spot, it'd constantly flip that symbol -- like a bond symbol, for example, since those affect the entire grid.
I learned the bouncing trick while playing around on this level (3 Hydros to the carbon), but I can see where it will come in really useful. The constantly triggering thing, as you described it, isn't something I have used yet. It's amazing how this game made my head hurt, and still does, but now I'm seeing all these creative as hell ways to utilize my waldos and the environment.
And I love beating the bell curve of my friends!
Edit: For those who want to get it? Humble Indy Bundle. Go. DO IT. NAO!
want to completely blow your mind.
you can make either track control the input/output for either top or bottom elements. ie. red can input on Beta and vice versa
Pfft. I've been doing that since the first world. No, really. Sorry I didn't reply sooner, as I said in the Spacechem thread, 5 frakking hours on the final level of world 4.
Related question: Should I still definitely play the first Witcher before Witcher 2?
I have not played the second one(arrrg, time and money, really really want to though!) but the first one is one of the best RPG's in the last few years. It is one of my all time favorite RPG's. The story and aesthetics are amazingly put together.
It has problems with being a bit grindey if you want to collect stuff and don't do the quests in "the right" way (there are "Kill 10 rat" quests but you're going to complete all of them in the course of doing other stuff so don't bother worrying about it). The combat is commonly seen as repetitive (imo you will have a better/more enjoyable time with magic over swordplay since you're going to have less of a "click on them until they die" experience) and was one of the things they really tried to improve in the second
What really gets the game a gold star from me is the way that the choices mold the story. It is rare in an RPG when I find myself really caring for (or hating) particular NPCs, but this game seems to do it quite well. Most importantly though is the morality of the game, or rather the lack of morality of the game. When most games give you moral choices they are black and white and have clear advantages and disadvantages. In this game you choices tend to be between grey, more grey, and greyest. And even though it might seem like there is a "good guy" path in the end it isn't nearly as good as it will seem.
The second area (the hamlet outside of the main city) is the toughest part of the game to get through because travel times are longest and the plot hasn't started moving along yet. It is worth it though.
Wrt choices, trying to be as non-spoiley as possible but might reveal too much
specifically there are a few factions that you're going to have to deal with. One is the demi-humans... they're waging a war of rebellion against the King who is oppressing them. But they're also murderous so its hard to say what is causing what. The other side tends to have negative views towards the demi-humans but iirc you don't really have to end up siding with that part of their faction and end up cleansing it(been a while since i played though, so i could be wrong on that). No matter what choices you make though nothing will end up right
If you have any more questions let me know, i would be happy to answer them
I bought Space Siege this afternoon and I am pleasantly surprised, especially with all the negativity surrounding it. The game looks good on my 1920 x 1080 42 inch monitor, and I haven't hit any bugs within the 2 hours I've spent with it. Only thing I've come to dislike is the lack of levels, you get skill points at various points throughout the game. New skills also seem to be thrown about to be picked up like powerups. However there is a good deal to do with the customization parts dropped by nearly every enemy, in some toolboxes, and destructible boxes. You can upgrade the parts of your character you'd expect to with these parts, including your weapons. Once you get your robo-buddy HR-V (pronounced Harv apparently), you can upgrade him pretty extensively too!
Oh, and play the Witcher in Polish with English subtitles. Maybe its because i don't speak the language but the voice acting simply "sounds" better in the games native tongue to me.
Oh, and play the Witcher in Polish with English subtitles. Maybe its because i don't speak the language but the voice acting simply "sounds" better in the games native tongue to me.
I say play the game in English and turn the subtitles off.
But I never finished the first one and don't even own the second one.
Is that important? Do they have stories that follow each other?
I don't actually think it's important. I think the most that comes out of continuity in those games are some passing references. Like, I think they all take place hundreds of years apart from each other.
Oh, and play the Witcher in Polish with English subtitles. Maybe its because i don't speak the language but the voice acting simply "sounds" better in the games native tongue to me.
I say play the game in English and turn the subtitles off.
If you enjoy less good experiences you're free to do so.
Oh, and play the Witcher in Polish with English subtitles. Maybe its because i don't speak the language but the voice acting simply "sounds" better in the games native tongue to me.
I say play the game in English and turn the subtitles on.
Every game is better with subtitles on. Unless it's 100% visual with no dialogue you need to follow.
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
Ok, in my opinion Space Siege is good shooty fun for under four bucks. IF you can play with the control set they give you. I can really see that being the big divide with this game. If you need WASD to move around, you'll hate this. If you like being able to remap controls, you'll hate this. If you can live with the rclick to shoot/lclick to move scheme and not being able to fire while on the move, then you can play this game without wanting to kill yourself.
Personally I like the fact that there is no loot, and that skill points come at certain points in the story. It makes everything move along nicely. There's no wondering if I should hang back and grind, or check every little nook and cranny. Also appreciated is the ability to make medkits and grenades at workbenches. I don't feel like I have to horde any of this stuff. The ship feels pretty well realized too, but it is a bit samey. HAR-V, your robot sidekick is pretty neat too, with his own long list of upgrades as well. And if he gets all busted up another one is really cheap to build.
I like it. It's not super deep, but I'm finding it fun, and it's rare that we get a sci fi game of this type.
But I never finished the first one and don't even own the second one.
Is that important? Do they have stories that follow each other?
I don't actually think it's important. I think the most that comes out of continuity in those games are some passing references. Like, I think they all take place hundreds of years apart from each other.
It's more like eighty years between Fallout and Fallout 2, and only 36 years between Fallout 2 and Fallout 3, but you're right, you can play through F3 just fine without playing through the older games. The third game takes place on the other side of the country, and is barely a sequel at all.
Keep in mind that "real" Fallout fans (read: The retards at NMA) will judge you harshly for not playing through the first two though.
It's more like eighty years between Fallout and Fallout 2, and only 36 years between Fallout 2 and Fallout 3, but you're right, you can play through F3 just fine without playing through the older games. The third game takes place on the other side of the country, and is barely a sequel at all.
Keep in mind that "real" Fallout fans (read: The retards at NMA) will judge you harshly for not playing through the first two though.
But I never finished the first one and don't even own the second one.
Is that important? Do they have stories that follow each other?
I don't actually think it's important. I think the most that comes out of continuity in those games are some passing references. Like, I think they all take place hundreds of years apart from each other.
It's more like eighty years between Fallout and Fallout 2, and only 36 years between Fallout 2 and Fallout 3, but you're right, you can play through F3 just fine without playing through the older games. The third game takes place on the other side of the country, and is barely a sequel at all.
Keep in mind that "real" Fallout fans (read: The retards at NMA) will judge you harshly for not playing through the first two though.
I'm usually anal about these things.
But I'm currently playing Fallout: New Vegas having never beaten Fallout 2 or Fallout 3. In fact, I got farther in Fallout 3 than I ever got in Fallout 2. I did beat Fallout 1 twice, though.
That said, and as others have pointed out already, I was asking about Fable, not Fallout.
But thank you for taking the time to respond anyway.
Fallout 2 was...hmm. I like it? But it's kind of all over the place. And the intro is way too long. Cave of Trials my ass. Kind of sours my memory of the game.
Oh, and play the Witcher in Polish with English subtitles. Maybe its because i don't speak the language but the voice acting simply "sounds" better in the games native tongue to me.
I say play the game in English and turn the subtitles on.
Every game is better with subtitles on. Unless it's 100% visual with no dialogue you need to follow.
I...don't agree. For instance, I absolutely HAD to shut the subtitles off in the new Sam and Max games (or at least I did in Season 1 and 2). They were way too distracting and I found it hard to follow the vocal dialogue with them turned on.
I find subtitles to be a distraction if you can follow the dialogue without them. If you can't, then yeah, subtitles on for sure.
The only game I would consider turning them on now for is Assassin's Creed II/Brotherhood because there are little translation glitch-type easter eggs peppered in the subtitles. But even in AC2/B it's kind of distracting.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
However the time-jumps are similar...
Maybe bigger between Fable 1 & 2...
But yeah, there's no real connection between them.
Fable 1
Your mother was a great Hero and decides to retire and raise a family. You and your sister are that family. Guys come in, kill your family and you decide to attend your mother's alma mater (Hero Academy) and then fight the guy that killed your family.
Fable 2
Many, MANY, years later, the Hero Academy is destroyed and forgotten about when people decided that they didn't need people with special abilities running their lives. As a orphan, you learn that you're descended from a line of Heroes but your bloodline causes you to get caught up into someone's schemes. It can be said that here, the world enters it's Dark Age.
Fable 3
About 20 years after Fable 2, and your parent (the hero of that game) has become ruler and led Albion into it's Industrial Revolution. Your brother is currently on the throne and running the country into the ground. After making a tough choice (either your loved one or some innocent townsfolk will die) you decide to overthrow him. But there are other dangers to worry about, both on the road to the throne and afterwords.
I remember enjoying the intro, but then I got to the real "game" and it quickly became appallingly tedious. Yay an MMO but single player, just what I always wanted. Is it still worth playing if this area, the side quests, and the cumbersome crafting screen make me want to slit my virtual wrists?
Related question: Should I still definitely play the first Witcher before Witcher 2?
I have not played the second one(arrrg, time and money, really really want to though!) but the first one is one of the best RPG's in the last few years. It is one of my all time favorite RPG's. The story and aesthetics are amazingly put together.
It has problems with being a bit grindey if you want to collect stuff and don't do the quests in "the right" way (there are "Kill 10 rat" quests but you're going to complete all of them in the course of doing other stuff so don't bother worrying about it). The combat is commonly seen as repetitive (imo you will have a better/more enjoyable time with magic over swordplay since you're going to have less of a "click on them until they die" experience) and was one of the things they really tried to improve in the second
What really gets the game a gold star from me is the way that the choices mold the story. It is rare in an RPG when I find myself really caring for (or hating) particular NPCs, but this game seems to do it quite well. Most importantly though is the morality of the game, or rather the lack of morality of the game. When most games give you moral choices they are black and white and have clear advantages and disadvantages. In this game you choices tend to be between grey, more grey, and greyest. And even though it might seem like there is a "good guy" path in the end it isn't nearly as good as it will seem.
The second area (the hamlet outside of the main city) is the toughest part of the game to get through because travel times are longest and the plot hasn't started moving along yet. It is worth it though.
Wrt choices, trying to be as non-spoiley as possible but might reveal too much
specifically there are a few factions that you're going to have to deal with. One is the demi-humans... they're waging a war of rebellion against the King who is oppressing them. But they're also murderous so its hard to say what is causing what. The other side tends to have negative views towards the demi-humans but iirc you don't really have to end up siding with that part of their faction and end up cleansing it(been a while since i played though, so i could be wrong on that). No matter what choices you make though nothing will end up right
If you have any more questions let me know, i would be happy to answer them
I don't really want to spoil myself on any of them, so I probably won't click those.
But if there really are no story links between them, then that's fine.
However, someone DID tell me recently (this was a totally random conversation with a friend of my cousin's at a birthday party) that Fable III was less open-world than Fable 1 or 2? Is that true?
They didn't seem to have a good opinion of the game. At the time I kind of tuned them out because I hadn't even played Fable 2 yet.
If there's really no continuity though, and thus no real reason to play Fable 2 at this point, I guess I'm okay with jumping straight to Fable III. Provided it's good.
I remember enjoying the intro, but then I got to the real "game" and it quickly became appallingly tedious. Yay an MMO but single player, just what I always wanted. Is it still worth playing if this area, the side quests, and the cumbersome crafting screen make me want to slit my virtual wrists?
Related question: Should I still definitely play the first Witcher before Witcher 2?
I have not played the second one(arrrg, time and money, really really want to though!) but the first one is one of the best RPG's in the last few years. It is one of my all time favorite RPG's. The story and aesthetics are amazingly put together.
It has problems with being a bit grindey if you want to collect stuff and don't do the quests in "the right" way (there are "Kill 10 rat" quests but you're going to complete all of them in the course of doing other stuff so don't bother worrying about it). The combat is commonly seen as repetitive (imo you will have a better/more enjoyable time with magic over swordplay since you're going to have less of a "click on them until they die" experience) and was one of the things they really tried to improve in the second
What really gets the game a gold star from me is the way that the choices mold the story. It is rare in an RPG when I find myself really caring for (or hating) particular NPCs, but this game seems to do it quite well. Most importantly though is the morality of the game, or rather the lack of morality of the game. When most games give you moral choices they are black and white and have clear advantages and disadvantages. In this game you choices tend to be between grey, more grey, and greyest. And even though it might seem like there is a "good guy" path in the end it isn't nearly as good as it will seem.
The second area (the hamlet outside of the main city) is the toughest part of the game to get through because travel times are longest and the plot hasn't started moving along yet. It is worth it though.
Wrt choices, trying to be as non-spoiley as possible but might reveal too much
specifically there are a few factions that you're going to have to deal with. One is the demi-humans... they're waging a war of rebellion against the King who is oppressing them. But they're also murderous so its hard to say what is causing what. The other side tends to have negative views towards the demi-humans but iirc you don't really have to end up siding with that part of their faction and end up cleansing it(been a while since i played though, so i could be wrong on that). No matter what choices you make though nothing will end up right
If you have any more questions let me know, i would be happy to answer them
So...you're talking about Witcher 2 here?
I'm so fucking confused. We're all talking about various RPG series with multiple games in each series.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
Drez, go ahead. It's pretty non-spoilery (I think) and just mainly what you'd find on the back of the box.
I was always depressed that the plot synopsis for fable 3 sounded so awesome in concept and at least to me it never really delivered.
Then again I only played a bit of the first, not liking it and never touched the second so maybe the plot wasn't the problem and it just wasn't my type of game or something.
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
edited October 2011
To be honest, I bought all 3 and have played 1 & 2 to completion. I became ruler in 3 and then just kinda... stopped.
EDIT: Part of it was having a lot of the 2nd half of the game tied to economic problems, but thanks to friends and some wise investments/land management, I never had to worry about it.
I remember enjoying the intro, but then I got to the real "game" and it quickly became appallingly tedious. Yay an MMO but single player, just what I always wanted. Is it still worth playing if this area, the side quests, and the cumbersome crafting screen make me want to slit my virtual wrists?
Are you talking about the Witcher? IMO, yes.
Also, you can craft by just clicking on the recipe. (so long as you aren't picky about secondary attributes) It will bring all the required ingredients into the mix.
The Witcher is worth playing for the story and atmosphere alone, but it really doesn't get good until act 2. Once your actions start to have consequences, and you are presented with difficult moral choices you should be hooked.
Fallout 2 was...hmm. I like it? But it's kind of all over the place. And the intro is way too long. Cave of Trials my ass. Kind of sours my memory of the game.
I should play through it some day, though.
Same here. I really need to find out if there's a mod out there to skip that goddman cave.
I remember enjoying the intro, but then I got to the real "game" and it quickly became appallingly tedious. Yay an MMO but single player, just what I always wanted. Is it still worth playing if this area, the side quests, and the cumbersome crafting screen make me want to slit my virtual wrists?
Are you talking about the Witcher? IMO, yes.
Also, you can craft by just clicking on the recipe. (so long as you aren't picky about secondary attributes) It will bring all the required ingredients into the mix.
Yes, Witcher 1, just jumping on the discussion. I was having a reasonable amount of fun but then it was all downhill after the opener. MMO style questing completely lost me. Bioware has me a bit spoiled on writing.
Yes, Witcher 1, just jumping on the discussion. I was having a reasonable amount of fun but then it was all downhill after the opener. MMO style questing completely lost me. Bioware has me a bit spoiled on writing.
Bioware has you spoiled on writing and you stopped playing the Witcher before you started the first major quest?
Picked up Space Siege to play it with a friend. Figured for $4 and co-op available it can't be that bad. Couldn't make a GPGNet account after like 5 attempts, and then tried LAN through hamachi. When ever I went into the LAN Menu my entire PC would slow down to a crawl, taking 20 seconds to finish typing out messages, letters appearing once a second per word. It was crazy.
Played like 5 minutes of single player, and it doesn't seem horrendous, but not being able to get MP working severely depreciates the worth of it for me.
CorriganX on Steam and just about everywhere else.
Yeah. Unless you're not playing a melee character, in which it's doubled because NOTHING DIES. Plus it's still really friggin' boring.
Like someone in D&D chat said a little while ago: the Cave of Trials is five minutes long...not counting the forty-five minutes of not hitting things,
Or dying to radscorpion poison.
Or so on.
The Cave of Trials is a terrible intro. By far the worst Fallout intro, though I'm not a huge fan of the vault/Megaton in FO3 or Goodsprings in FONV either,
Fallout 1 had the best intro. There was no intro. You listen to Ron Perlman and then you get locked out of your vault with a tiny cave of rats before you are set loose in the open world.
The Cave of Trials pretty much sucks. But, I still love Fallout 2 like my own child. It has its issues, but we are of the same blood. I grew up playing the damn game.
Yes, Witcher 1, just jumping on the discussion. I was having a reasonable amount of fun but then it was all downhill after the opener. MMO style questing completely lost me. Bioware has me a bit spoiled on writing.
Bioware has you spoiled on writing and you stopped playing the Witcher before you started the first major quest?
Well it wasn't good. It stuffed me in an open world with questing and exploration with profoundly repetitive combat that was less fun than just quitting and staring at my desktop. I didn't give a shit about any of the characters, and most of the conversations I encountered were tedious. I just wanna know what the good part is, and if I hadn't experienced it yet or if other people are just better at ignoring the bad.
Posts
Oh... Oh my god. Why has no one said this before?
It's funny, the last time I played GTA IV, I don't really recall texture pop-in being this bad, but I started playing a few days ago again (on PC) and it is pretty terrible.
Coincidentally, their graphics engine is called RAGE!
Pfft. I've been doing that since the first world. No, really.
I have not played the second one(arrrg, time and money, really really want to though!) but the first one is one of the best RPG's in the last few years. It is one of my all time favorite RPG's. The story and aesthetics are amazingly put together.
It has problems with being a bit grindey if you want to collect stuff and don't do the quests in "the right" way (there are "Kill 10 rat" quests but you're going to complete all of them in the course of doing other stuff so don't bother worrying about it). The combat is commonly seen as repetitive (imo you will have a better/more enjoyable time with magic over swordplay since you're going to have less of a "click on them until they die" experience) and was one of the things they really tried to improve in the second
What really gets the game a gold star from me is the way that the choices mold the story. It is rare in an RPG when I find myself really caring for (or hating) particular NPCs, but this game seems to do it quite well. Most importantly though is the morality of the game, or rather the lack of morality of the game. When most games give you moral choices they are black and white and have clear advantages and disadvantages. In this game you choices tend to be between grey, more grey, and greyest. And even though it might seem like there is a "good guy" path in the end it isn't nearly as good as it will seem.
The second area (the hamlet outside of the main city) is the toughest part of the game to get through because travel times are longest and the plot hasn't started moving along yet. It is worth it though.
Wrt choices, trying to be as non-spoiley as possible but might reveal too much
If you have any more questions let me know, i would be happy to answer them
So yeah tl;dr its worth 3.75.
I say play the game in English and turn the subtitles off.
But I never finished the first one and don't even own the second one.
Is that important? Do they have stories that follow each other?
If you enjoy less good experiences you're free to do so.
Every game is better with subtitles on. Unless it's 100% visual with no dialogue you need to follow.
Personally I like the fact that there is no loot, and that skill points come at certain points in the story. It makes everything move along nicely. There's no wondering if I should hang back and grind, or check every little nook and cranny. Also appreciated is the ability to make medkits and grenades at workbenches. I don't feel like I have to horde any of this stuff. The ship feels pretty well realized too, but it is a bit samey. HAR-V, your robot sidekick is pretty neat too, with his own long list of upgrades as well. And if he gets all busted up another one is really cheap to build.
I like it. It's not super deep, but I'm finding it fun, and it's rare that we get a sci fi game of this type.
It's more like eighty years between Fallout and Fallout 2, and only 36 years between Fallout 2 and Fallout 3, but you're right, you can play through F3 just fine without playing through the older games. The third game takes place on the other side of the country, and is barely a sequel at all.
Keep in mind that "real" Fallout fans (read: The retards at NMA) will judge you harshly for not playing through the first two though.
It appears I am too drunk to post.
I'm usually anal about these things.
But I'm currently playing Fallout: New Vegas having never beaten Fallout 2 or Fallout 3. In fact, I got farther in Fallout 3 than I ever got in Fallout 2. I did beat Fallout 1 twice, though.
That said, and as others have pointed out already, I was asking about Fable, not Fallout.
But thank you for taking the time to respond anyway.
Well I got a good chuckle out of it.
If that makes you feel any better.
Which I doubt.
I should play through it some day, though.
I...don't agree. For instance, I absolutely HAD to shut the subtitles off in the new Sam and Max games (or at least I did in Season 1 and 2). They were way too distracting and I found it hard to follow the vocal dialogue with them turned on.
I find subtitles to be a distraction if you can follow the dialogue without them. If you can't, then yeah, subtitles on for sure.
The only game I would consider turning them on now for is Assassin's Creed II/Brotherhood because there are little translation glitch-type easter eggs peppered in the subtitles. But even in AC2/B it's kind of distracting.
Maybe bigger between Fable 1 & 2...
But yeah, there's no real connection between them.
Fable 1
Fable 2
Fable 3
I think that's them in a nutshell.
But if there really are no story links between them, then that's fine.
However, someone DID tell me recently (this was a totally random conversation with a friend of my cousin's at a birthday party) that Fable III was less open-world than Fable 1 or 2? Is that true?
They didn't seem to have a good opinion of the game. At the time I kind of tuned them out because I hadn't even played Fable 2 yet.
If there's really no continuity though, and thus no real reason to play Fable 2 at this point, I guess I'm okay with jumping straight to Fable III. Provided it's good.
So...you're talking about Witcher 2 here?
I'm so fucking confused. We're all talking about various RPG series with multiple games in each series.
Then again I only played a bit of the first, not liking it and never touched the second so maybe the plot wasn't the problem and it just wasn't my type of game or something.
EDIT: Part of it was having a lot of the 2nd half of the game tied to economic problems, but thanks to friends and some wise investments/land management, I never had to worry about it.
Are you talking about the Witcher? IMO, yes.
Also, you can craft by just clicking on the recipe. (so long as you aren't picky about secondary attributes) It will bring all the required ingredients into the mix.
Yes, Witcher 1, just jumping on the discussion. I was having a reasonable amount of fun but then it was all downhill after the opener. MMO style questing completely lost me. Bioware has me a bit spoiled on writing.
Bioware has you spoiled on writing and you stopped playing the Witcher before you started the first major quest?
Played like 5 minutes of single player, and it doesn't seem horrendous, but not being able to get MP working severely depreciates the worth of it for me.
CorriganX on Steam and just about everywhere else.
Like someone in D&D chat said a little while ago: the Cave of Trials is five minutes long...not counting the forty-five minutes of not hitting things,
Or dying to radscorpion poison.
Or so on.
The Cave of Trials is a terrible intro. By far the worst Fallout intro, though I'm not a huge fan of the vault/Megaton in FO3 or Goodsprings in FONV either,
Fallout 1 had the best intro. There was no intro. You listen to Ron Perlman and then you get locked out of your vault with a tiny cave of rats before you are set loose in the open world.
Well it wasn't good. It stuffed me in an open world with questing and exploration with profoundly repetitive combat that was less fun than just quitting and staring at my desktop. I didn't give a shit about any of the characters, and most of the conversations I encountered were tedious. I just wanna know what the good part is, and if I hadn't experienced it yet or if other people are just better at ignoring the bad.