I looked around, but I couldn't find any threads about this game yet. And really, it deserves one.
Anyway, I was checking out the games at my local Wal-Mart and this caught my eye. I'd played the original RoN, but I didn't really think very much of it. But, I'd heard some good things about RoL, so I decided to pick it up and see. I'm REALLY glad that I did, because this is an incredibly fun game and one that's well built [voice-acting aside]. The setting is a war between three rival species who are fighting for control. Not exactly anything new, but the three groups themselves are rather interesting. There's the Vinci, who use steam power; the Alin, who use lots of magic; and the Coutl, who are just really big and mean.
Gameplay is standard RTS stuff, but it's got some quirks that I like. For one thing, some units will have multiple characters in one group. So, if you select one, it will select them all. Also, I noticed that your units will often form up with the strongest units in front with the weaker, ranged units behind them and the hero characters in the back. Which is much better than having your archers run in front of everyone and get themselves killed. ases are centered around cities, which can be upgraded with various districts that attach to it and increase the number possible troops, amount of resources you can have at once, and so on.
The graphics in RoL are very good, although you'll need a fairly high-end rig to get it to run well. Things like buildings being ripped apart by explosions, the lush landscapes, huge cities, and individual units all look really good and the game itself has a great art style.
In other words, it's a good game and fun to play. The voice-acting is kind of bad though...
A deranged sex-fiend, but a genius nonetheless. I say this on the basis that lazy has helped me quite a bit in my writing. Basically, was holding fast to my belief that I was writing my story the way it should have been and disregarding everything else. I had quite a long dialog with lazy and I was hesitant at first to take his advice. Needless to say, lazy was absolutely right and since then I've completely changed my style of writing. My story has gone from a meandering, light tale of "what would life be like in the future" to a much more mature work of scifi adventure. And it's slowly becoming somewhat depressing. But that's okay, because the story itself has a lot more potential now than it ever did before.
So, if lazy tells you do to something, then you'd better do it! Unless it's something really crazy like he says sometimes...
Quote:Warner Home Video has disentangled the rights issues for Blade Runner to pave the way for a September reissue of the remastered "Director's Cut" version, followed by a theatrical release of a version promised to be truly Ridley Scott's final cut.
Variety says that Warner's rights to Blade Runner lapsed a year ago, but the studio has since negotiated a long-term license. The film, now considered a sci-fi classic, has had a troubled history from the start: When Scott ran overbudget, completion bond guarantors took control of it and made substantial changes before its 1982 theatrical release, adding a voiceover and happy ending. That version was replaced by the much better-received director's cut in 1992, but Scott has long been unhappy with it, complaining that he was rushed and unable to give it proper attention.
The helmer started working on the final cut version in 2000, but that project was shelved by Warner soon after, apparently because the studio couldn't come to terms with Jerry Perenchio over rights issues.
The trade adds that the restored "Director's Cut" will debut on home video in September, and remain on sale for four months only, after which time it will be placed on moratorium.
"Blade Runner: Final Cut" will arrive in 2007 for a limited 25th anniversary theatrical run, followed by a special edition DVD with the three previous versions offered as alternate viewing: Besides the original theatrical version and director's cut, the expanded international theatrical cut will be included. The set will also contain additional bonus materials.
So there's a vaccine for certain forms of HIV out which is being put up as one of those required to attend school. Aside from the fact that we HAVE A VACCINE FOR CERTAIN FORMS OF HIV, this isn't all that unusual. Lots of schools require innoculations before kids can attend.
Here's the kicker. There are some people who have this odd religious belief that this would be BAD for the kids somehow. Apparently they believe teens would suddenly go on huge orgy sprees without the fear of a sexually transmitted disease (which is still there, this just mitigates it). Evidence that this would happen is notibly absent. They just believe it to be the result of this. Do guard rails on bridges cause drivers to weave back and forth off them like pinballs since they don't have to worry about falling to their deaths? Does the V-Chip suddenly cause kids to watch TV much more frivilously because they know they won't ever encounter violence or swearing?
Stupid stupid stupid... All this does is protect people from something horrid in the event they do decide to have intercourse. How immunity to something can be construed as "encouraging" behavior that exposes someone to it is beyond me... I may gain an immunity to antifreeze, but I'm not going to use that opportunity to take a drink of the stuff just for that sweet sweet taste.
I won't. I read as far as the first chapter before my absurd-o-meter kicked in and I closed the book forever. Just in that one chapter I determined that Dan Brown is a bad writer, and I had too many other books to read to waste time on that shit.
So, no movie based on shitty book. And, there's a damn Da Vinci Code videogame now.
"Genji 2 is an action game based on Japanese history...the stages of the game will also be based on famous battles which actually took place in ancient Japan...so here's this giant enemy crab...attack its weak point for massive damage..."
Quote:High street games shops have been told by Sony that
there will be no PS3 pre-owned sections in their stores as it will
be illegal for customers to sell any next-gen PlayStation games
that they've bought, retail sources have revealed to GamesRadar.
It seems that Sony is planning to adopt a licensing system that
will mean gamers won't own the PS3 titles that they've paid
money for. Instead, they will only be purchasing the licence to
play the game and that the software itself will still be Sony
property - meaning that the disc won't be the customer's to sell.
We assume that the thinking behind this move will ultimately
be to stop PS3 games being resold several times - which
currently snatches potential sales away from Sony - and to
counter the impression in consumers' minds that games are
only really worth their pre-owned price and are not worth
buying new.
When we contacted Sony, it issued us with the following s
tatement: "We have made all of the official announcements at
E3 and cannot make any further comments at this time. We will
be announcing more news running up to PlayStation 3's launch."
![[Image: 132.gif]](http://www.wii60.com/uploads/132.gif)
![[Image: 179.gif]](http://www.wii60.com/uploads/179.gif)