Chris

Are you sure? Try telling it to update the podcast from your "Podcast" category. Are you subscribed?

I totally forgot to do a Molyneux impression. I actually want to talk about Fable II one more time next week because there was some cool real estate stuff I wanted to mention, so maybe I'll remember then. The newest one is first! It's hard to say, but it looks like a few hundred people. It's still pretty small. Does anyone know a way to reliably track how many times a file has been downloaded from a server, regardless of how it got there? Right now we're (roughly) tracking RSS subscriptions (through iTunes or otherwise) and (roughly) tracking direct download clicks via the front page, but it's hard to get a conclusive figure.

I mean, like, figuratively. With jokes. Does his life end? I'm not telling.

They weren't developed by Rockstar North though, so they don't really factor into the development timeline for purposes of divining GTA5's release.

I will be there, as will Nick I assume. Hopefully there's no embargo, then we can talk about it on this week's episode.

It's extraordinarily generic. You're a hero, prophesied or destined or whatever with power beyond that of most humans, and there's a really evil dude who wants to enslave the world, and you kill him, and there's a vague and plot-convenient all-seeing guide character who can talk to you telepathically and help you out in all sorts of ways whenever a deus ex machina is required.

It is hard as shit. Seriously, it is fucking difficult, at least it was for me.

Not as much as I was expecting. It's a lot more ambitious in the way it handles things like the interrelationships between your character's traits and the world, but the thing is, those changes aren't really all that visible and tangible in the end user play experience. It still FEELS quite similar. I mean they definitely improved it, no question, it just doesn't feel revolutionary or anything.

In retrospect, I kicked off this discussion bitchfest in a ridiculous way that clearly could only have ended in tears, so I apologize for that--truce?

Everyday Shooter is rad, and one of my favorite PSN/XBLA games. I've actually bought it twice now, once on PSN and once on Steam to play when I'm out of town.

Yeah it was pretty much the least absorbing part of the game for me. I mean you can make a dozen people fall in love with you simultaneously just by dancing around for a while when they're all within a few yards, which kind of dulls the impact.

For those who are interested, here are my impressions: http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/10/in_depth_on_fable_ii_real_estate.php

Cool, I appreciate it.

This is exciting and encouraging news!

I'm not defending Crysis. Think whatever you like about Crysis. Think it's the ugliest shit that's ever been shat. Feel free. My issue is what I see all the time on internet forums--using it as the default go-to game to dismiss, in comparison to the True Path embodied by TF2 or whatever game happens to be in question. I mean, this is a PS3 game. It uses the goddamn Cell and its seven SPUs. It's hardly pulling off a WoW-like feat of succeeding visually on sub-par hardware. Crysis is surely more demanding, but so what? Are the graphics good because they're less technically demanding than Crysis, or are they good because they're actually good? Obviously, Cigol believes the answer is the latter, but the initial claim to me reads less like actual praise of one game, and more like snarky backhanding of another--I don't take issue with liking this game or disliking Crysis, I take issue with the false and frankly gratuitous comparison.

You didn't mention ANYTHING about the style except that there is one. I don't even understand what the technical side has to do with it AT ALL. This is a PlayStation 3 game, not a PC game, so what difference does it make? It's not like as a result of the lack of technical wizardry (which is total conjecture on your part) has any relevance. What difference does it make what's underneath, especially when none of us know? They obviously weren't "arbitrary," as demonstrated by the second half of this quoted sentence. I don't understand your point here. If Crysis is "a lifeless husk" and if it's just some shitty-looking game, and it has no atmosphere, then why compare it to a game that you think looks "fucking great"? That's hardly strong praise is it? "I think Crysis looks like dogshit, but at least this game looks better than that." I don't have an English degree either, and my head would explode if I were to learn that millions of people visited the Idle Thumbs forums. Okay?

God I hope you're being facetious.

Why does this matter? Why can't you just prefer how one game looks? Your implication is that somehow graphical capability is inherently crass. It's like some kind of badge of honor--"Don't worry guys, I know Crysis is less attractive, I'm not suckered in!" I see this attitude among certain gamers all the time. Valkyria undoubtedly has to do a whole lot of technical whizbangery in order to achieve its look--and yet, since it's not photorealistic, it becomes the nontechnical underdog with heart against big dumb realistic Crysis. "It looks and moves fucking great nonetheless," you say--the implication there is that it's simply assumed by everyone that we're still in an era where the most pixels win, except you and your fellow discerning gamers know that Team Fortress 2 and Valkyria Chronicles look better than that over-technical, lowest-common-demoninator trash. Why "nonetheless" why not just "It looks and moves fucking great"? It's just the overarching narrative about TF2 vs. Crysis that really gets me. It pops up all the time. Your post reads like it's self-evident that graphics that are exaggerated or that use unusual color palettes are simply better than those that don't, and that was the extent of your comments on the graphics. You didn't say a single thing you like about how this game looks. All you said is that it looks better than Crysis and is similar to TF2, and you said it's "stylistic." EVERYBODY KNOWS this isn't what Crysis does. Crysis, believe it or not, does have a style, it's just not this one. Personally, I love the pencil-hatch overlays and almost watercolor-like smoke effect I see in one of those shots. I don't like what appears to be painfully typical huge-eyes anime character design, at least as seen in the second screenshot in your post. There's my quick take, no TF2 or Crysis comparisons needed.

"Whilst it might not be a technological juggernaut like, say, the less attractive Crysis" Oh give me a break. Can the Class of Discerning Gamers please stop indiscriminately shitting on Crysis every two seconds for attempting a particular kind of high graphical fidelity? Who are you informing with that comparison? (Meanwhile, once again, TF2--indeed a fantastic-looking game--gets another basically unnecessary shoutout. Is all of gaming visuals now just a spectrum with Crysis on the shit end and TF2 on the holy grail end and everything else somewhere in between?) Crysis is a fucking great looking game with goals that are 100% completely different to the visual goals of this game. Even if you don't think it looks good, what does it have to do with this at all? God, if I were one of the visual designers of that game I'd be so depressed by reading gaming forums and seeing this kind of crap everywhere.

Review embargo is up tomorrow.

Vintage me posting a thing I just posted yesterday http://twitter.com/IdleThumbs

http://twitter.com/IdleThumbs Follow the Thumb on Twitter. It'll have episode notifications as well as dumb first-hand updates from industry press events and functions. Thanks to Wrestlevania, who created the thing before I (and presumably other Thumbs staffers) co-opted it.

This game wasn't built to your order.

I've seen a lot of people comment that the game isn't enough of a "horror" experience. It's a fair observation I suppose, but why not just play the game for what it is, rather than what you thought it might be? (This is the reason I enjoyed Fable while a lot of people criticized it for failing to live up to whatever Molyneux was spouting.)

This seems like a minor point to make, but it's more of a guess or an assumption than an opinion. We really have no actual frame of reference from which to form a credible opinion on that particular comparison.