Doh, this isn't a reply to the question about HL2, but about the link to the Playboy game story....

Donald Case may well be with Arush, the publisher, but Jay Adan is with Cyberlore, the developer of the game. A minor and very nitpicky detail

This comment was edited on Jun 17, 12:14.

I dunno, any online game with the word "Lagheim" in its title sounds a bit dicey.

New skins, yeah; new data for the formations, weapons, armor, etc? Nope. That's what you're paying for, research and art time.

Ever design historical games at all? I have; it's hard, and it takes far more time and effort than you ever get paid back for.

"Tooth-grinding shooters?" Um, that's not terribly appealing. Makes me think of root canals or cavities or something.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/07/technology/vivendi_code.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Reuters, via CNN, quotes VU spokesman as saying April 2004 now for HL2, to rewrite the code....

This comment was edited on Oct 7, 09:07.

"Why? Troika didn't have a contract that extended to making a patch. It shouldn't be surprising that it took them this long to work out the deal to do so."

Um, it's not everyday that fans patch a game, eh? And given that there was essentially no official comment whatsoever on the sorry state the game shipped in, this just rubs salt in the wound IMO. Few developers seem to have contracts requiring them to patch a game, but even fewer get beaten to the punch by a bunch of fans....

...and this, while welcome, comes a day after the release of an unofficial, fan-generated patch to the public.

Make of it what you will, but it must be a bit galling to Atari and Troika that fans were able to patch a significant bit of the game's problems before they could even announce the official patch....

Yes, Troika, with all the good and ill that entails. I love those guys, but they are a bit...quirky sometimes. ToEE is more polished and overall more accessible than Arcanum (and hella better looking) but it's not for the faint of heart either.

Jesus in a box no; but it's at least John the Baptist in a Font. Definitely good even with its warts.

".. so the launch pad version will be free, right? "

Nope. Just like that EQ expansion Ykesha or whatever with the Frogloks. You can download it no problem, but to activate it you gotta shell out the zuchinnis.

I talked to these guys a couple of E3s ago. Seemed very committed, very big on this project, and it sure sounded good. Very much a Jagged Alliance vibe, only in WWII. Fingers crossed.

Those boxes are an integral part of gameplay, actually. Whether for good or ill, well, that's a choice each of us will have to face, kinda like Frodo and the One Ring. Or not.

During play those boxes function as a sort of sixth sense, in their marketing speak. They tip you off to stuff your avatar, who is much more bad ass than we are, notices. They also provide part of the comic book flair, with that inset-box aesthetic that is sooo graphic novel. For good or ill, again, depends on your taste.

I rather suspect Roper was instrumental in a lot more than just Diablo, given that he was a VP there and the guy that got trotted out to do all the interviews for WarCraft III, Ghost, etc. What his role in developing all of those games was I'm not 100% sure but it sure seems he had an impact across the board, not just on the Diablo line.

But that doesn't answer the question of what impact this departure will have on the rest of the company, that's true.

Stand alone, yes. So you don't have to have NOLF 2 to play.

I saw this game at E3 2002, the same time I got my first hands-on play of BF 1942. It looked pretty ok, I guess; it was real early on of course. The action looked decent and if they actually put in the stuff they said then they were going for--like blowing a bridge in one mission meaning that the enemy had to take the long way around in a future fight, or never showed up at all--then it could be intriguing. But who knows?

I got in, I played maybe a week, I got frustrated, I left. Hardly enough for a review that would be worth anything. It was enough to convince me that my money is better spent elsewhere. Not being a SW fanatic, and having little patience with EQ-style games, it just wasn't my cup of tea. Nor did I care for the Byzantine interface, immersion-jarring "EQ-isms," and horrendous bugs and instabilities (though these I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt about until a while after launch at least).

Of course, I currently play no MMORPGs, after having spent some time with EQ an DAOC and dabbling in UO over the years. I'm no longer interested in this sort of game model really. But SWG really didn't do it for me either.

Iran. Islands off Iran. And Iran has bunches of 'em, with and without oil facilities. We skirmished with them during the Tanker War of the 1980s, you might recall, when Boghammers and choppers duked it out.

This is at least the second time the game has "gone live." It went live maybe a year ago or more; they were giving away copies of the game to some people at GenCon a couple of years ago, I remember. I jumped in for a look (they were rather vague as to whether it was in beta or released; as press (at the time) I didn't worry about whether they were charging yet but they were somewhat vague about that too). Then, it was fairly horrid, in terms of performance, looks, and whatnot, but I chalked that up to being (no matter what they said or didn't say) very beta.

The game itself has been advertised in the "big three" PC games mags for several (I mean, at least four) years now, off and on. I'm moderately curious about how it looks these days.

"Both of the lights have a crispy and solid color to them..."

Mmm, crispy color. Ya know, I really can't think of anything more essential to good gaming than a timely review of lights for the inside of my computer.

"Does it support casting magic missile at the darkness?"

Only if you can find the cheetos.