Thrik

No, no — it's clearly CorelDRAW!

They don't seem bad to me. The style is definitely a divergence from the first game's re-release, but it still looks well done and seems more in line with the game's own style. I really don't like the drawing they used for George in both games. The hair is a complete mismatch to how it appears in the game and original close-ups, and it just generally looks a bit lacking in character. Kind of lame that the shape of the waiter's hair in this shot is more akin to how it was originally depicted than in George's own drawing (which has some kind of lame attempt at detailing on the hair that destroys its intended shape): http://www.dotemu.com/sites/default/files/screen2_7.png

Same guy AFAIK, some professional comic artist. The George face looks to be the same one from the director's cut, and I wouldn't say the others are of a lesser standard. Personally I think he's done a pretty good job of matching the style the actual original game used for close-ups, with the exception of George weirdly enough who I thought looked way better in the original close-ups: http://gscanner.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/BrokenSwordShadowoftheTemplars-1.gif Quite disappointed that the remainder of the game seems to feature its original low-resolution art, though. What exactly makes this worth having apart from the comic panels?

To be honest the whole full disclosure argument has been beaten into the ground a million times across a million mediums over a million years. You're either for it or you aren't. I personally think it's the way to go because: It forces companies to prioritise the fixing of things black hat communities are already using against people on a small scale and going undetected It gives consumers the chance to protect themselves from the aforementioned bastards rather than sit there vulnerable to it for months on end while it's fixed The completely reasonable counter-argument is that it temporarily opens up more people to the exploit than would have been otherwise exposed — but that's only based on the assumption the hole is ever patched or is patched a relatively short time after exposure, and I know from experience that isn't always the case. Companies can and do sit on security holes for months or even years because they think they can get away with delaying it until X is done, then it becomes after Y is also done, then Z, then A, then B, etc. Usually they're not even bad companies — they simply don't take it seriously enough. Such complacency is easily remedied by full disclosure. It can also be dangerous for white hat hackers to get too involved with trying to resolve things with companies, because companies sometimes get nasty and start trying to do the guy in for hacking them even though he was really helping them out. As such white hackers usually keep a healthy distance from companies when exposing flaws, even if privately.

I am absolutely an advocate of full disclosure and believe this guy deserves no flak whatsoever for revealing this. I'd rather know the vulnerability exists so I can make as sure as possible I minimise my own exposure to its effects before black hat assholes figure it out, and the fact it's now out there in the wild will make Valve prioritise its resolution. Don't give a shit how fixing it might slot into their overall agenda and management — it needs sorting out yesterday. If one of our sites is hacked we don't sit around with our fingers in our asses working on our usual project schedule; those other things unfortunately have to get delayed momentarily.

No I meant the Steam version of Portal 2 comes with a gift copy of Portal 1.

Well you'd be paying five quid extra for that privilege and wouldn't have a free copy of Portal to gift, so it probably works out.

The second scan indicates that the platforms are 360, PS3, and PC.

So, turns out McCaffrey is now coming back. Also it looks like the game has been completely overhauled aesthetically since its 2009 incarnation. Max Payne 3 scans Gotta say, I'm fairly reassured. It looks like it does still largely take place in Brazil, but we're going to see the events between him being a somewhat restored NYC cop and a ruined private security agent in Brazil. Considering the main theme of Max Payne has always been him losing everything, this should work quite nicely. I'd glad we get to experience that, rather than simply starting the game as this bum like everyone assumed. The key thing is that aesthetically the game now looks pretty awesome and completely in the vein of Max Payne. Pretty much all the screenshots have a distinctly shadow-filled noir atmosphere, and some of them look like they could have come right out of the preceding games. We're inevitably going to see some daytime stuff, but it seems clear that it's going to be less rather than more — and even there it looks a lot more dreary than the 2009 shots. Hope rising.

From what I can tell its wireless technology is the same as the DS, in that it supports B and G but not N. However most modern wireless routers support all three simultaneously so this shouldn't be an issue. What will screw you up is the fact that the original DS and DS Lite only supported WEP encryption, which is shit and not actively used by 99% of routers for the last five years. As far as I'm aware the DSi onwards fixed this, allowing you to connect to WPA routers (ie: most). Dunno what you mean about the wireless dongle, though. Never had a wireless dongle for my DS Lite.

Yeah in Crysis 1 they'd hear you even when approaching from behind if you were running. Crawling solved the issue nicely.

If there's one thing I've seen proven time after time after time after time, it's that being an early adopter of a console is fuckin' stupid. Every single time I've done it I've been frustrated by a lack of good games, whereas every time I've waited (360) there's been a plentiful library of games sat there for me to enjoy. In my experience it feels great to have a new console with so many good games you can hardly choose, whereas it feels absolutely shit to have a new console with practically nothing worth playing and you're hanging on for every new release so you can finally get some play out of your kit — and by the time you can it's gone down in price anyway. Early adoption is for the rich and those who crave disappointment.

I can see myself trying to play through Crysis 2 like Metal Gear Solid, in that I attempt to avoid pissing enemies off whenever possible and instead take them out silently. This is something I was able to do in Crysis 1 and I really enjoyed it, as this self-imposed disciplined way of playing the game made it last a lot longer and it felt a lot more satisfying. Playing it on a high difficulty made it pretty much lethal to get caught in any kind of firefight anyway. Is it possible to play Crysis 2 in this way? Additionally, is there any kind of incentive for doing so? MGS does a great of dotting fun little collectables around every area so you're encouraged to explore every nook and cranny — and consequently having to spend a lot longer taking enemies out so you can get to those areas.

That RPS article is an absolutely fantastic piece of satire. The way PC fans are so obsessed with the graphics to the point where its accomplishments as an actual game are literally ignored is hilarious. Like Chris said earlier, the same thing happened with Crysis — so much that most people just wrote Crysis off as a graphics orgy with nothing else to offer, which is so far from the truth it makes me despair.

From what I've heard Crysis 2 is completely like that, and having briefly played a preview build last year my own experience would back that up. It's not as open as Crysis 1, which was so open you could literally just walk around most battles in the game. I enjoyed it, but it could make the game seem lacking in direction at times when you could just ignore most of what was there — it was very much a game you had to go out of your way to make the most of. Crysis Warhead got the balance better IMO, in that it had areas roughly as open as Crysis 1's environments but did a better job of funnelling you down routes that made you have enemy encounters, and also had more set-pieces. Granted you could still take enemies out in all your various ways, but you had little choice but to engage in order to meet objectives. It gave you the freedom Crysis 1 fans love if you wanted it, but a bit more of the controlled progression that your typical Call of Duty fan might desire. Crysis 2 just seems to have refined that further. You have large sandbox areas with an entrance and exit where you can deal with enemies in many different ways, but each sandbox is smaller which means more set-pieces and more rapid storyline progression. Bit like Metal Gear Solid 4, actually.

Might be. One thing I noticed in Crysis 1 is that it's kind of more fun when you crank the difficulty up, because the AI and everything becomes much sharper, and it also made the enemies talk Korean instead of English which felt more realistic — I felt like I had to be very careful. If you're finding it too easy I'd experiment with pushing it up. I recall Crysis 1 allowing you to adjust difficulty at will so you could always lower it again if you get stuck against some ridiculously overpowered boss.

Unreal Engine certainly makes producing a dirty, dark game a streamlined affair. It's default texture and lighting configurations are geared towards the games Unreal Engine 3 was designed for in the first place: Gears of War and Unreal Tournament 3. Enough said I think. With that said, not making a UE-powered game vibrant and aesthetically pleasing is a developer-driven outcome led by whether or not they can be bothered and their chosen art direction. Enslaved is a perfect example of a game on the engine that isn't dark and grotty, and there are even more considerable examples the names of which escape me right now (posting from iPhone so not going rooting).

Yes, a sad day indeed to see Duke Nukem Forever of all games delayed! Wait, what?

hahahahahahahajhgjbhrgjitdhjryjyhkdftkgyjrdrhrjftgjjkjdhkhmfjtdhthfgh

You might want to check this thread out, for much quality advice was dispensed: http://www.idlethumbs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7049 I have a Logitech G9, it is excellent. I also had a Logitech G5, it was excellent. I have a Microsoft Sidewinder X8, it's a bit shit.

I'm not sure how you ascertained that I think it's the PC's fault it's treated like shit Kingzjester. I don't. I don't know who or what to blame for it being in its current state, but you guys being surprised by or disappointed in Double Fine for not releasing games on it puzzled me. I'd have thought you'd be used to good games not being released on it by now, because most aren't or are do so badly.

What, because I used a couple of swear words? I wasn't attacking anybody, and I explained my points. Even if you disagree with them you should have had the common decency to respond respectfully. I've posted here regularly for seven years and I think by this point most people know I'm not some random fanboy who deserves to be spoken to like a dickhead. It might be worth clarifying that I'm an avid supporter of all platforms, and own a highly-specced gaming PC in addition to the 360 and PS3 (although other than for Team Fortress 2 and the eventual Battlefield 3 it was hardly worth building). I regularly play PC games and am fully aware that the platform still gets games released on it. Not all of them are even bad (ports). I'm not a fanboy of anything. Or maybe I'm a fanboy of everything. I don't know. The point is the platform is held back significantly and is treated like a piece of shit by most publishers and developers, rather than being the arena of innovation and cutting-edge technology it used to be. Bad Company 2 had issues that it shouldn't have had because it was — as admitted by DICE — not treated as a lead platform; Crysis 2 is full of horrible issues that are indicative of second-class treatment; and the strategy games you named are always going to be decent on the PC because it's the only platform you can feasibly play them on right now. And that's still a paltry number of games in comparison to the consoles' releases.

Is there a reason you're being so abrasive towards me Patters? Unless you fancy mounting a proper and respectful argument, piss off.

No.

I don't understand why you guys are all arguing about this. Have you not noticed that during the past half decade or so the PC has become an absolute joke as a gaming platform? Unless you like adventure, retro, or low-budget European games there's pretty much fuck all to play. The PC receives a fraction of the games released on consoles, and even when one does come along it's usually a very sloppy translation with sluggish controls; graphics that're hobbled by being control-centric; and a general lack of sheen. Almost every PC port I've played in recent years has simply felt... broken. BioShock was the first I remember being like this, and it's not gotten any better since really. Yeah it's a shame Double Fine isn't releasing on the PC, blah, blah, blah. But this is a general shift the entire industry has taken, publishers and developers alike. Double Fine is largely reliant on publisher support now (especially after the brutallising their funds would have taken from having to finance large portions of Psychonauts' and Brutal Legend's development) so it's not like it's even them getting to make the call. Regardless of what factors caused it, the PC is a pretty shit platform for playing games on nowadays. Maybe it was piracy; maybe it was people preferring the unified, simplistic approach to hardware of a console; maybe it was the advent of online experiences like PSN and Xbox LIVE. Whatever the case, it's done. The PC is bollocks for gaming and has been for years. A console is pretty much an entry ticket to being able to play modern games properly.