elmuerte

Good idea... and for the artistic look they should use rotoscoping so it will look just like The Last Express

Ford is only 65 years old. I wonder if Indiana Jones will also have a earring in the 4th movie.

well they only described ACT1 and from the looks of it resembles the first part of PoP SoT. But they tell a bit more of the story that you'll see in the game (because the game is pretty much non stop action). It's not just the dagger (which they changed a bit, no sand reclaiming?). In the beginning of PoP SoT you are on a quest to find the armory of the city you're attacking to find some hidden treasure. But it looks like they replaced Jafar with a brother of the hero.

'Maiket' is a great name for a cat. Or maybe even 'Nottadock'

meh... sounds like a direct game to movie adaption the game's story needs a lot of padding for it to become something usable for a movie. Although 90 minutes of parkour/art of movement/urban free flow stuff is also interesting. But since a lot of stuff done in PoP physically impossible it will probably be done with wires and computer graphics. Thus.. it's just watching a speedrun of PoP SoT? then again... it's not like the Spiderman movies had a lot of substance.

:campbell:

Well.. some magazines use detailed scoring and a formula for example: Sound (1x): 7 Graphics (1x) 8 Gameplay (2x) 6 which will have the result: 6.75 that would explain some of the odd scores

err.... Yeah but I'm not nostalgically attached to it. And that was what this thread was about. I was only playing that game to complete the PoP story line.. sort of. But I'll never play it again, but it was annoying as hell. As a matter of fact, I bought and finished Darwinia while I was still trying to complete PoP: WW.

but... I don't play games that are crap... or at least, I don't think they're crap...

Never cared much about the points given in reviews. It's the text that is important. A number (or any grading system) doesn't say anything. And when the grading system because very fine grained it's just retarded. Just like you said "Is a game worthy of 81% or 82%? Who can actually argue such a fine difference?" The score of a review is useless when you don't know the reviewer. If a reviewer doesn't like game X it wouldn't mean you don't like it. (or vice versa). A 5 level system would be good enough, but you should mainly focus on the highest, middle and lowest score. Use the 2nd and 4th only when absolutely needed. 5: awesome game, play it 4: just not awesome, but it's absolutely worth buying 3: meh .... good enough to spend money on this, it's enjoyable but it's not a great game. 2: worthy buying if you find it in a bargain bin 1: waste of time and money. This is my _personal_ grading system. Others can use it too, but it's sort of useless to me unless you know the reviewer good enough. In that case I could convert their score to mine. For example, I would put Half Life 2 at 3, Deus Ex at 4 (it might have been a 5 if I played it back in 2000), Farcry at 2, Prey at 3, Prey Demo at 5, Tron 2.0 at 5, ... Usage of "milestones" or "masterpiece" in a grading system is just bad. Because it adds an additional label to the grading.

er... what?! so.. it's like real life, but not like the real life that the wii imitates? anyway... my vision of the future of gaming is much like the online game they were playing in Futurama, the "A Bicyclops Built for Two" episode. then again, nothing beats sitting in a comfy chair playing a nice game

and nobody is suing Konami ?

I figured Jack Black was into card games.

really? how so? I know Robin Williams is really into games (he even named one of his kids after an game character).

Well... this must be the stupidest idea so far. How on earth can you create a movie from The Sims...

about their "test" in the mall, weren't those NDS's using the open WLAN in the mall? Because an adhoc WLAN is seriously limited in distance, and also a serious power drain.

jep... that PA comics sums it up quite well. people should be held liable when they don't read the manual, that would be an awesome move and solve a shit load of problems most people have with technology (since nobody bothers to read manuals).

Syndicate is still the brainchild of Sean Cooper and not Molyneux.

Well, that doesn't do any good for their depression. But and an interesting find nonetheless

It makes phone sex much more interesting, or not...

there was no "up" in descent but no, the engine was a bit like the Duke3D engine when it comes to geometry, you couldn't have two rooms on top of each other and look at them at the same time. Descent used deformed cubes to build the levels, all cubes had to be convex. Every room was a cube, and so were the tunnels. You couldn't really arbitrary stack cubes, a side could only be connected with one other cube. Because of this odd shaped rooms were not really possible, unless you fake it using an 3D object just like it is done in System Shock. Ofcourse the enemies were true 3D models, but that has been done long before Descent (weapon and ammo pickups were still sprites though). In the end it doesn't really matter, since it's the perception that counts.

ultima underworld and descent did feature polygon stuff, but were not true 3D. they were both 2.5D, no real room over room support that are both visible at the same time. although... looking at the system shock screenshot it looks like it doesn't have room over room support either. It looks more like an 3D object strategically placed near walls to fake the effect of real 3D. So the XnGine used for Terminator Future Shock was the first true 3D engine afterall

that's not true, both System Shock and Terminator Future Shock were true 3D, ofcourse they used sprites for various things, but the environment and a lot of characters were polygon based. But iirc quake also used sprites for certain special effects.

oh right.. System Shock, always forget that one

Quake wasn't the first, Terminator Future Shock was the first to have true 3D Duke3D supported room over room, but only when not both rooms were visible at the same time.