SplaTtzZ

Equilibrium - Now there's an FM I'd like to see remade/remastered with the DarkMod.

I'd recomend SoA over Baldur's Gate I; though back in the day I always thought Baldur's Gate was the ultimate. Get ToB as well, it has great closure to the whole story, though there are some references to BG 1 in it. Once you finish SoA you should also play the first Icewind Dale, which is an awesome game as well, though not as good SoA or ToB. Hands down, one of the best rpgs if not games of all time is Planescape:Torment (also by Black Isle studios). If you can still get a hold of it you should definitely play it. You'll probably end up playing it through more than once; since the game is pretty deep. I miss Black Isle's rpgs now all we have these days is Diablo clones like Neverwinter Nights. Though I'm very interested in seeing what Obsidian Entertainment can do, as that company was apparently formed by ex-Black Isle developers. Oh and make sure you get Jan Jansen in your party. And Korgan!

Thats right. I visted the Australia Zoo only once when I was a little younger, but even then I was amazed at how Steve both educated the public but also made his shows (namely the crocodile feeding) so much fun, even with creatures mundane or 'grotesque'. His contributions to maintaining the australian ecosystem, not just in the salt and freshwater rivers, but also the barrier reef, the desert, wetlands and numerous other habitats will be sorely missed.

Well, if 'Jesus Camps' are that bad; I don't even want to think about Muslim ones.

Wow, that Jesus Camp clip is really scary. The baptist/pentecostal christian movement, (i.e. Bible Belt in the states) is even here in Australia now. I went to a school where it was regular to see 'the holy spirit!!!1!!' come down and make people convulse, 'speak in tongues'(which always sounded like a load of gibberish to me) and act like they were retarded. I always thought it was hilarious, but others in the school, including most of the staff, took it dead seriously like those guys in that clip. Hell, we even went to school camps that were on similar lines. A study camp i attended (designed to teach you study techniques etc. for final exams) was mostly indoctrination and 'prayer' to do well in your exams. This non-denominational form of christianity, which I like to see as post-modern christianity, is catching on fast, with churches (like Hillsong) acting as gigantic global corporations, spreading their agenda and dogma to millions whilst making a massive profit. Using Hillsong again as an example, you're looking at a pre-reformation Catholic Church, but with seemingly more insidious methods for spreading its dogma and with much more clout and influence.

Wiping out religion wouldn't solve anything. All you would do is remove a convenient excuse to go to war. There will always be violence and war; without religion we would just be more frank about it. Money, power, land, politics, race, gender even; there will always be something different we can find to kill each other about, i would say its very much a part of human nature. The Crusades for example, were no more than a grab for land and wealth, most soldiers simply wanted the chance to murder, rape and pillage; the church simply wrapped this up as a "crusade" to suck in a few poor and pious souls to the fight. Anyone who thinks that religion has anything to do with war is deluding themselves to the fact that we enjoy killing each other and stealing others resources for ourselves, nevermind that we don't like their god and our god told us to do so.

Bought CoD 2 today; singleplayer sucks but the multiplayer is still good as far as i can tell. Its a little bit different (it certainly looks better with DX9) in that there is no more health bar; and they have taken out a few features that were in the United Offensive expansion pack. Theres no more sprinting, and no more vehicles. The health bar has gone because in singleplayer they have adopted Halo's approach to recharging armour; which, given the WW2 context, is even more ludicrous than having instant-heal health packs lying around the place. It does have one advantage though, in that you will never be stuck halfway through a level with only a tiny bit left on your health bar. For realism i suggest playing the single player on hardest difficulty; its more one shot one kill though the enemies are uncannily accurate. What galls me the most is the lack of a German campaign. It's stupid that they have the start the game at the end of 1941; considering that the war had been raging with massive Axis victories for a few years already. And the battlefield "chatter" hasn't been resolved; they might as well have left it out. Hearing my Russian comrades shouting "Die Fascist!" over and over is really grating on my nerves. I didn't think the russians would bother saying fascist at that point anyway as their own communism was just as bad. They woudl have been better leaving the Russians speak Russian, and I can't wait to see what the americans have to say. Whats even worse is the AI and the infinite respawn points. Ah well, you can't have everything and I'm still quite happy with the Multiplayer which i will be playing on the Aussie servers for quite a while yet

Sure, Sure. "We mean gay as in happy here, people!" Questioning the meaning of existence sure takes alot of thought, so i say we also include something like the "Existentialist Arrow" to do the same to guards to distract them.

You guys really need to include that Dram arrow in the mod...

F.E.A.R is a great game; but whats really frightening is the cost of the hardware needed to run it at max settings I don't manage to get it at full settings; but it still looks awesome and is lots of fun. I find it to be one of the more scary games that i've ever played, much more so than Doom 3 or Quake 4. FEAR's setting is alot more believeable and immersive; and i like the pyschological horror they try at points. Often your character starts hallucinating, which can be pretty freaky. Doom 3's "scares" wore off for me after the third imp jumped out when i opened a door; after that it became ridiculous. I find Fear tends to keep you more on your toes; you don't always know what happens next. And the comabt is lots of fun and looks great, though it is like a John Woo movie as the developer's said. Have you played it multiplayer Spar? I thought it wasn't all that bad; though the novelty of it would wear off after a time, i don't think i could play it as long as some of my other multiplayer games.

I bought it; its been released for a while, at least in Australia. The single player is kind of so-so; its what you'd expect from an fps in the Quake series. Its very similar in feel to Quake 2; but it has some points; like the intermissions aboard the Hannibal, which can be a welcome break form all the running and shooting (much the same as unreal 2). Its actually lots more fun than Doom 3; with none of the stupid "Boo!! hahaha! OMG scared you!!" crap thats supposed to make me afraid; the plot is somewhat better than Doom 3's, though I don't know it seems to carry on form Quake 2 rather than Quake 3. AI is terrible though; a step backward from Doom 3, and probably not as good as FEARs. They just jump around; it makes me fell like im in a shooting parlour. Though having some mates around to cover your back or die instead of you is a good addition. Multiplayer is ok too; all the more traditional weapons from quake 3 arena are around. The engine looks superb though, i must say; and in Quake 4 they tend to push the bar a little by making some long tunnel/elevator/chasm areas (ala interior missions in Halo) that I found were lacking in Doom 3. Raven seem to have been a bit more creative than Id, and in the end it made some missions more enjoyable to see different architecture; it makes e very eager to see what you guys in the Dark Mod team are going to create.

I suppose I figure that without meaning there is no purpose to existence. Does existence need a purpose? i would assume so. First there was nothing, an oblivion; then there was everything. Why? Belief in some sort of religion; or that there is an omnipotent force or set of rules or anything that gives our existence a purpose, is how I (And presumably others) cope with the concept of oblivion, or inifinity or death. Besides, finding the answer to the question of life gives me something to do; and everyone, when they live and experience their life; is in a way doing the same. Even if there wasn't an answer I didn't waste my time, I lived it; and I'd get bored if i didn't have some conundrum to ponder

Celibacy is also an issue with other christian faiths too; at least outside of wed-lock. Did you know, my school didn't even teach us anything about contraception or STD's? Their answer was "Abstaining is the best form of contraception". I suppose thats true but it also seems rather negligent on their part. Im supposed to wait till i marry before i learn this stuff? Paedophiles amongst catholic priests wouldn't be a problem if they were allowed to marry; the church can be quite open minded (The pope having acknowledged, for example, the existence of evolution as the most reasonable theory behind human life; something the christian fundementalists have yet to do) but it can also still be quite archaic. I foresee that in time priests will be allowed to marry; and then this won't be a problem. Besides which, this is in no way unique to only catholicism; have you ever been to a christian youth group? Scary stuff. I acknowledge the existance of a creative force (im not a Creationist though, in the sense that i'm an Evolutionist) behind the existence of the universe; as science has yet to give me any answer as to why and for what purpose we, or anything for that matter, exist. I suppose that creative force could be termed a God; but i really don't bother about the semantics of it. Catholicism is as good a route as Islam, Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism in my opinion; belief in something is what is important, and is the only thing that matters to me. The bible reads more like a book of jewish mysticism than anything; so i don't really pay much attention to it. I respect the church for what it has done (even if i don't like all it has done) and its immense power and wealth as a political organisation. I think maybe the world might be at least a more lawful, if not better, place if the church still had the power it had. Having said that; dictatorships can be great with a good leader; but hell without one. So i suppose its better having the church be an advocate for peace as much as it can.

Well the reason i turned Catholic was whilst the church may have done alot of bad things for much of its life; at this point in time Catholics bother me far less than Christians do (If that makes any sense?) and whilst the Catholic Church is incredibly wealthy they don't (or they haven't as yet to me) demanded any of my hard earned cash. That havign been said I don't go to church very often and have studied the bible relatively intensely (at least in comparison to thers at my school) which is probably why I was so annoyed at school because I thought I knew more than the teachers there did. Besides which the Catholic mantra (or at least the late Pope's) these days seems to be "Peace" which I think is probably a good idea for a religious institution; and is alot more sensible than what some of the gigantic American Christian churches seem to be preaching. Whilst any religion in any form is debatable as to its authenticity; the power of belief is something very powerful indeed. Who knows, perhaps we do create gods for ourselves if we believe hard enough. As it is none of us can know what anyone else's reality is really like; there is just no way for us to truly comprehend each other. Maybe some people do see ghosts, in some quirky Matrix-like way; all our senses are controlled by our brain, if their brain thinks it sees a ghost then maybe they do. Maybe they can see, hear or feel demons or god because thats what their brain is telling them? The KKK scene in John Vs. God was hilarious; i also loved the bit where he went to India to find a guru, and found some guy who could teach him the meaning of life btu he had to ask the right question; he kept getting caught up in the semantics

I've heard alot of similar stories to this one too. Having gone to a Christian school most of my life i know some of the crazy stuff alot of people get up too. Its hard to describe what denomination the school was, being something like pentecostal/baptist; their motto was "We don't have a Religion with God; but a Relationship". Go figure, they were all completely insane, which is what drove me Catholic; at least the Catholics don't ask for 10% of my yearly earnings like those Hillsong people do. And they don't froth at the mouth and have a fit and "speak in tongues" everytime they're touched by the Holy Spirit, which was just one of the weird but funny things i've seen at the church when they have an altar call. Anyway each one of the teachers at my school and the really rabidly fanatic students all assert to have seen ghosts or demons at one point in time. Alot of them center around figures visiting them in the night while they're asleep, standing at their bed or in their room. Its hard to verify the truth or not. Often people also talk about what feels like a body or force holding them down onto their beds; which seems to have been a common theme surrounding demons. The people at school were definitely crazy; which is the scary thing, it seems to be a trend in the kind of modern christianity. If any Australians are here, particularly the ones in Sydney; you might remember a show on SBS, John Saffran VS. God. The last episode had him visiting this guy in the states who performs exorcisms on people regurlarly; its become onoe of those cash cows the pastors are so happy about. He actually gets people in and they all sing those modern christian rock songs/hymns, then he flicks holy water on the possessed guys and beats them over the head with a bible while they scream and contort and say gibberish. Saffran had done road tests of all the religions he could find (including a voodoo ritual in Africa where they sacrificed a live chicken and poured the blood all over him) and this exorcist nut had said he was the most possessed individual he had ever seen. My favourite quote was the exorcists going "YOU'VE BEEN TO AFRICA!?!?! YOU HAVE AFRICAN DEMONS!!!!". Pretty much any religion or country on earth had a demon that could posses you; this guy could probably find possesed pets or cutlery or something crazy like that. The really scary part about this little story was the exorcist had pictures on his wall visiting state leaders and shaking the hands of people like Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell; who he described as great leaders. As a catholic i believe in the supernatural, or at least in an afterlife and creator of some sort; but most of what you see or hear about ghosts and demons seems to just be a load of crap. It seems a bit silly that God or the Devil would even bother to play around on the earth putting on white cloth sheets and making spooky noises. Though i can't disprove it, i still doubt it. Why would the devil possess people when they basically are already doing what he wants anyway?

You're right. The D3 setting didn't really allow for expansive spaces (though Hell was very impressive), which i think the game might have benefitted from. The Mars space station felt like one big maintenance crawl space, hardly suitable for anyone to live in. I wonder how the F.E.A.R engine might have catered for the Darkmod. The ambience is dark enough, and some of the special effects were awesome; the demo managed to scare the sh*t out of me. And it already comes with support for a whole truckload of spooky stuff like freaky ghosts walking on the ceiling and invisible baddies that i'd just love to put in a Thief FM I don't know whether it has quite as an accessible SDK as Doom 3 does however; and of course it hasn't even been released yet which makes me happy you guys chose the D3 engine for the darkmod. Otherwise i'd be old and grey before i'd even get a chance to learn how to map my Thief FM

Indeed. It is good to see that the Doom 3 engine isn't vertically challenged; and that it can handle large open spaces as well.

It certainly is a heavily scripted and cinematic game; much like the first one. I really didn't like the AI in the first one at all, or in this demo. To me it seems the dev's decided to make every enemy extremely easy to kill, and just put lots of them in there (and with respawns); I think thats a hollywood/american thing because by the end of it all you have a few hundred kills to your name and so you feel like a one man army. Its this romantic/action view of the war that really gets to me, and i think it really limits the gameplay and AI. CoD has all this hype about being 'realistic' but in reality it shoots itself in the foot by having this 'action blockbuster' feeling. I suppose I also dislike the single player so much because the multiplayer is so good. Like you Sparhawk, I really enjoyed alot of little things about CoD (like being able to aim your gun close to your face), and played the multiplayer religiously for a very long time. When you are up against human intelligence the game becomes alot more enjoyable and the gameplay and controls are awesome. Besides the whole whizz-bang factor of the graphics and the cinematic experience the singleplayer game didn't really offer much depth for me. I'm still waiting for a WW2 shooter that has both a good story to tell and really fun gameplay. I actually thought Return to Castle Wolfenstein was more fun than CoD singleplayer, because it didnt try to be realistic at all. I find it hard to suspend my belief and get into the game (which I can usually do quite well) for CoD's campaign.

Just downloaded the single-player demo for COD 2. I'd recommend a download of it to see whether you like the game. I thought I might post my thoughts on the game and each element of it. Graphics - Technically very good. The game is visually very impressive (Like its predecessor) with all sorts of smoke, shrapnel and nice looking explosions. It has quite good particle and decal effects, the textures look authentic and the character models and animations can be quite expressive (Usually on scripted occasions). COD 2 uses an engine that could be very effective for a WW2 game. Sound - Music doesnt seem such an important feature for this demo, though it does have some nice sound effects (typically explosions and gunfire - alot of sounds seemed to have been recycled from the first game). The voice acting is also passable. Gameplay - This is where I really get hung up about this game; and IMO its the game's greatest downfall. The AI seems to be exactly the same as the first one. I suppose its a bit better than most FPS's in that it requires you to take cover instead of being a gung-ho maniac; thought there are times when you can do this. However the way it makes you simulate taking cover is by giving the AI (particularly on higher difficulty settings) unerring accuracy, and an uncanny ability to know where you are, even in a massive gunbattle. This, coupled with your amazing accuracy, makes the game feel more like leap-frog than WW2; with you basically moving from cover to cover; standing up, firing and instantly killing an enemy before ducking back into cover where they cant hit you. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. To me it makes the game tedious; i enjoyed Half Life 2's AI that moved around alot more. The AI for COD 2 is sometimes beyond a joke as well; with enemies and teammates finding the most ridiculous places to take cover (though to be fair; most of the time they seem to do ok, even if they're a little bit slow about it) and hopping on grenades or running into your field of fire. And no wonder the Axis lost the war if their sole tactic was "rush"; particularly into choke points. I know about the Blitzkrieg and all; but the AI either acts like its storming a beachhead or has a "not one step backward" plan of defense. AI that move around a little more would be alot more fun. And the whole teammates "talking" to you feature; yeah i think its a great idea but they overdid it a little. I think its good when an AI teammate shows me an enemy i didnt know was there or highlights a grenade to my attention; but when i've been focusing on the one house for a while using my stand-up and instant kill method it grates on my nerves to hear the same British accent voice-over say, for the twentieth time, "Jerries in the house...second floor...left!" when I and 20 of my AI teammates have already been firing in that direction. I hope this feature is toned down a little for the realease. COD 2 plays like COD 1; in fact there was no real difference besides an updated graphics engine and some new stages and a few vehicles. I think i will still buy it; mostly for the multiplayer which i thought for COD 1 was really enjoyable; IMO the multiplayer makes up for whatever the single player loses out on. Overall the singleplayer seems to play like a Hollywood Action movie; COD 1 is the epitome of how hollywood treats WW2, and i think COD 2 will also be like this. The lack of an Axis campaign really doesn't work well in the game's favour either. COD 2 is a very cinematic experience; if you like that then I'd recommend it. For me though, i need proper gameplay; and the COD games always spouted rubbish about soldiers in war "never fighting alone", but by the end of the 1st game and the demo I felt like a one man army. HL 2 was much better because although I also felt like a one man army, at least the AI was a bit more challenging. Perhaps im being overly critical, but i don't think COD is really doing the World War 2 genre any justice by conforming to Hollywood standards.

I assume we're talking about Fable: The Lost Chapters here, and not the X-Box version? I played Fable when it first came out; and it certainly does have alot of charm. The way you can change the appearance of you character based on age and different aspects of his physique i thought was a really nice touch. The overall graphics were great; even for the xbox version, and the storyline (whilst nowhere near as complex or dynamic as the older rpg's) was still competent. One thing that annoyed me though was the hype generated around it. Molyneaux promised a hell of alot in terms of gameplay and realism; and in the end these were all cut back on its release on xbox. Hopefully the Lost Chapters will give something more akin to what was said about it whilst it was in development. But it definitely still has alot of features that other rpg developers could take note of; the changing character appearance, the 3rd person viewpoint, the easy to use controls and combat, and the way that your character interacts with the rest of the world. I'd recommend playing it.

This is true. Whilst a parent should reserve the right whether or not to allow their child too see certain movies; they should be able to rely on ratings and classifications to know what their child is or isnt seeing. Myself personally; i was exposed to alot of 'gritty' stuff at a young age. My only brother is 10 years older than me; and was often the one who looked after me. As such i saw alot of movies not suited for me; i saw films like Aliens and the Candyman at the age of 5; and alot of violence and swearing in other movies. Whilst the short-term effects were highly traumatic (nightmares for months on end sometimes) in the long-term I don't feel any worse for it; better if anything (though i couldnt speak for every other child doing the same). It was the same for video games; as i was growing up games were just developing into what they are now. So i was playing GTA at the age of 14-15; before then games with that level of graphic, gratuitous violence hadn't really developed into a fad. it's kind of inconceivable to me that anyone would use a video game or music or a movie or whatever to commit acts of crime, which they know are wrong; in my mind thats just an excuse. Hence ratings and bans and censorship of video games seems pointless to me; i don't feel like bombing something just because i saw it on Television or played it on Playstation. Again however; i couldn't speak for every child; and i played games as a teenager, not as a young kid. But theres no way i would let my children if i ever have any watch Aliens or horror movies of that like until they're in their teens. As I mentioned, no long-term effects; but it certainly mind-fucks you when your 5 years old I too enjoy shooters; but only for their gameplay and storylines. Games like GTA have elements of FPS in them; but are no where near as fun or interesting to play. So i would probably stay away from GTA; the only word i think that can describe it is: gratuitous. Everything about it is unnecessary.

To me ratings don't pose much of a problem. If some kids goes out and blows up a cop car or whatever after playing GTA, i would say that he is somehow mentally imbalanced anyway; and if GTA didn't set him off who knows what could? The colour red, or seeing a clown; who knows? But GTA as a game I thought was crappy anyway; I mean what's the point of it? The entire objective of it was basically to drive cars around and kill a few people. After the first few missions i forgot who the hell my character was; and every mission after that was just one blur. It had no sense of class or style; its big kick was that it was a modern and graphical crime simulator. And the Sex Simulation? I still don't understand why the hell Rockstar put that in. They're a bunch of juvenile deliquants the lot of 'em. Who the hell wants to watch poorly rendered graphical pornography? All their games have this massive amount of negative hype generated about them; which is what gets their sales. At first I thought the gameplay was fun; but after a few hours i found it to be overly boring and repetitive. One game i did like in the style of GTA was Mafia. This game was set in 1930's chicago; it had a good blend of action and driving, was classy and had a passable storyline. If you like (or don't like) GTA try Mafia; its a whole new league above. Heh; now we need a worst games ever thread.

Ah my bad; you're right, L. Ron Hubbard is the scientologist guy. I still think Tom Cruise is a nutter though . And why isn't Michael Ironside in any more films? He's not that bad an actor, though I suppose Splinter Cell might take up some of his time. I think he makes a good Sam Fisher.

Hehe; i agree with Obscurus about Starship Troopers. The Media broadcasts that occur throughout the movie are brilliant; they remind me so much of Fox News its not funny. I often wonder though whether Heinlein's original novel was cast as being a sattire of modern american society. I have yet to read; has anyone else? Even if you didnt see the satire, Starship Troopers IMO wasn't that bad anyway; it had alright action sequences and the no-name actors actually filled their gung-ho, moronic marine roles quite well. Starship Troopers 2 on the other hand looks to be another disgusting sequel that Hollywood enjoys churning out after every movie they make. Hell i haven't even seen it but just by looking at its cover I know its gonna be bad; real bad. Talking about Heinlein; we should start a thread on the worst actors in the industry . Tom Cruise takes the cake for me; not because hes a bad actor as such, (I enjoyed watching some of his movies, like the Last Samurai) but because he's completely fucking insane. You have to be; to be a scientologist. I love the way he's so arrogant; and that because hes an actor that makes him a genius and a god among mortal men.

And the Matrix; well i thought the first one was great, especially above the sequels. I think it was because the Martial Arts were more realistic in the first one. The second one had alot more fake stuff; and the final battle at the end of the third one? IMO that fight was just retarded. I'm quite a big fan of the old (and new) chinese Kung Fu and Wuxia movies where guys are flying through the air and doing totally impossible martial arts stuff. I think its because they're either humurous or artistic; like Hero; and also because they don't abundantly use CG actors. The 2nd and 3rd Matrix's took themselves way to seriously to be funny; and used far too much CG Neo to warrant what I would I call a good fight scene (though i'll make an exception for the Neo vs. Seraph one). The movie series which started out so promising ended up shooting itself in the foot. Another movie that did the same thing was Blade 2; which had some CG department butcher the fight scenes into something resembling the game Virtua-fighter, only with worse graphics. I preffered the 1st and 3rd movies much more. I know CG stuff is hard, but it has to be done well in a fight scene otherwise it looks crap; in that case I would prefer actors flying through the air with strings attached to them.