Kingdoms of Amalur has an 82 rating on Metacritic (or as I type at least 51% of the time, "Meatcritic"), so that's going pretty well, anyway.

He's the new Goose Gossage.

“A lot of that is on us,” Schilling said. “It’s on us as players. It absolutely falls on guys like myself and other guys who didn’t cheat to not doing anything about it. We’re a players’ union. We could have done something about it. We chose not to. That falls squarely on us.”

Finally someone says the obvious. It wasn't on the MLB, owners, GMs, Managers, the FBI, or congress.

It was on the guys who allowed their brethren to use the CBA to shield their PED use.

Sure, except that players did make public statements, and did speak out privately, and even attempted to torpedo the omerta (the White Sox "let's all fail" plan). All of it was a whisper in the wind to a business that didn't care to change, a media that didn't care to notice, and customers who just plain didn't care.

Front offices explicitly made decisions based on steroids or lack of same, the Commissioner of Baseball came out publicly against the reporter who broke the McGwire andro story, the media in general was as gleeful about the long ball as they are dry-drunk ravenous to avenge it today, the fans turned PED use into a jokey chant 10 years before "anybody could have known"... only Paul the Soccer Predicting Octopus has enough fingers to point at those responsible.

I like Curt Schilling as a free-spouting blabbermouth, but I also like Ozzie Guillen and Charles Barkley for the same junk foody reason. However, I can remember a day back in 2005 when he was unusually dead-tongued. I would have been a lot more interested in what 2005 Schilling had to say, when his stream of consciousness egotism might have actually mattered, than I am in 2012 Schilling's lukewarm leftovers.

the White Sox "let's all fail" plan

They've been doing that for decades.

Yes, ValueA (#3). I find it likely that the majority of ballplayers were using PED's and wanted to take advantage of the minority who didn't want to. I have no information to back this up, other than the players had numerous chances to vote within the union on the issue and chose not to.

From TFL:

Choose your path and battle through a sprawling world featuring intense, responsive, and customizable RPG combat.

Spare me the sprawling world. I'd much rather have engagingly designed set pieces any day, if the alternative is mile after mile of not terribly interesting landscape.

Imagine being a roider on that White Sox team? I bet those guys were really happy about their teammates plans. "You think we should all fail? But that everyone will know for sure that we're all actually clean, and laud us as heros? That's a great idea!"

Spare me the sprawling world. I'd much rather have engagingly designed set pieces any day, if the alternative is mile after mile of not terribly interesting landscape.

That's probably my pet peeve in video games right now. LA Noire was terrible for this: they clearly spent a lot of time creating a world that you can drive around in, and it's all completely meaningless and useless. The entire city is filled with stores and buildings that you can't go into. There's people walking on the streets, and you can't really interact with them at all. You can drive from one side of LA to the other on a mission, but all that'll do is hurt your rating if you accidentally hit something or someone while you're taking what's probably a long drive to the mission start point. You can drive around in free play mode, but the only thing that let you do was complete quick side-missions that you could've completed during the storyline missions, and even that (IIRC) didn't accomplish anything useful. The only thing the open world accomplished was allow you to listen to the game's (admittedly excellent) soundtrack on your car's radio. It felt like a complete waste, a beautiful city that was completely shallow and a waste of time.

Imagine being a roider on that White Sox team? I bet those guys were really happy about their teammates plans. "You think we should all fail? But that everyone will know for sure that we're all actually clean, and laud us as heros? That's a great idea!"

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The White Sox plan was for them to skip the test en masse, thereby triggering automatic testing. A roiding Sox player wouldn't have any more reason to object to the plan than a roiding non-Sox player.

And color me skeptical that the Hall is the furthest thing from Schilling's mind, or anywhere in the top million furthest things from his mind.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The White Sox plan was for them to skip the test en masse, thereby triggering automatic testing. A roiding Sox player wouldn't have any more reason to object to the plan than a roiding non-Sox player.

And color me skeptical that the Hall is the furthest thing from Schilling's mind, or anywhere in the top million furthest things from his mind.

I think the idea is that the walkout was a way to gracefully fail a test the player would have failed anyway, and rather than become a pariah, they would be lauded for it.

I agree completely with your second statement.

That's probably my pet peeve in video games right now. LA Noire was terrible for this: they clearly spent a lot of time creating a world that you can drive around in, and it's all completely meaningless and useless...

I found Fallout 3 similarly plagued. By the time I bought it the game had been out for months, plenty of time for maps and walkthroughs to appear. I found myself in a part of the city so convoluted it was impossible to navigate, didn't seem to be mentioned in any of the walkthroughs, and from which it was impossible to find my way to an identifiable landmark. I never bothered to finish the game, though part of that was because of the dull opening. Sometimes a game designer comes up with something that earns her a ton of credit. Fallout 3, despite the hoopla, never came up with that thing, so I was happy to be done with it--I just didn't expect that if I found my way out the experience would change significantly. Sure, I could have started over from an early saved game, but I don't expect I missed much.

Have you played any games in the last year or two that dispensed with the "sprawling world" format in favor of a tighter game experience?

I think the idea is that the walkout was a way to gracefully fail a test the player would have failed anyway, and rather than become a pariah, they would be lauded for it.

Thanks. I was reading sarcasm in Darren's post that wasn't there.

Have you played any games in the last year or two that dispensed with the "sprawling world" format in favor of a tighter game experience?

Mass Effect 2. Streamlined, focused, tight. Some folks missed the removal of some of the more traditional RPG elements, but I thought it was extremely well done.

Speaking of video games:

The new Marlins park in MLB 12 the Show, including the home run celebration monstrosity!

Sounds like my kind of game, TGF. I'll give it a look.

Mass Effect 2. Streamlined, focused, tight. Some folks missed the removal of some of the more traditional RPG elements, but I thought it was extremely well done.

ME2 was an excellent game, but ME1 was so infinitely better it isn't even close. They completely dumbed down the game.

I'm really into Streets of Rage 2 on my iPhone. Mostly because I was really into it on my Genesis.

Have you played any games in the last year or two that dispensed with the "sprawling world" format in favor of a tighter game experience?

The Dragon Age games have done this. The locations you go to are pretty big, but you just fast travel between them.

I don't know anything about programming, but I imagine this allowed them to make the combat system, which is my favorite of the recent RPG's I've played (have not played any of the ME games), more robust. The dialogue in the game is actually decent, too.

Alpha Protocol got somewhat deserved backlash from critics for occasionally faulty controls, amongst other issues, but it was a really fun TPS/RPG hybrid. Mission based, very set piece heavy.

Obviously, the Uncharted franchise fits the bill as well. Unfortunately I think those games are toooooo set piece heavy, feels more like you're playing an interactive Indiana Jones film than a game. Once you get to the point of millon cutscene games, I'd rather play the Yakuza franchise.

I don't know anything about programming, but I imagine this allowed them to make the combat system, which is my favorite of the recent RPG's I've played (have not played any of the ME games), more robust.

Dragon Age was the best rpg I have played in at least 10 years if not longer. Dragon Age 2 was a total abomination. Would be really interested in which one you were talking about.

Mass Effect 2. Streamlined, focused, tight. Some folks missed the removal of some of the more traditional RPG elements, but I thought it was extremely well done.


ME2 was an excellent game, but ME1 was so infinitely better it isn't even close. They completely dumbed down the game.

I felt that way at first too, but the more I played, the more I appreciated the choices they made. Everything about ME2 just felt right to me. Part of that may be the improved game engine and more responsive controls when compared to ME1, but I can't say that I really missed playing the "manage your inventory" mini-game, or the "wander aimlessly on planets looking for identical structures filled with generic bad guys to shoot" aspects.

They were both excellent games, but ME2 will always be better to me.

Dragon Age was the best rpg I have played in at least 10 years if not longer. Dragon Age 2 was a total abomination. Would be really interested in which one you were talking about.

I don't like either Dragon Age at all. Area of Effect spells are far too powerful and become the only realistic way to handle combat. I'd like a game where a variety of options worked just as well.

Part of that may be the improved game engine and more responsive controls when compared to ME1, but I can't say that I really missed playing the "manage your inventory" mini-game, or the "wander aimlessly on planets looking for identical structures filled with generic bad guys to shoot" aspects.

I hated that they basically removed all the inventory and item upgrade aspects to the game, as well as the lack of ability to control your companions. I didn't mind at all that they removed all the wander around on random planets stuff. The controls and engine were fine in both games, although I played them on PC, not xbox, so that might be the difference.

Dragon Age was the best rpg I have played in at least 10 years if not longer. Dragon Age 2 was a total abomination. Would be really interested in which one you were talking about.

The first one was much better, but I don't think I would call 2 an abomination. They obviously rushed it out to capitalize on the popularity of the first and stripped too much out of it. I didn't like the way they trimmed down all the gear for the party members (I'm one of those people who is happy to spend an hour messing with everybody's armor and weapons) and there weren't enough locations. You certainly got a lot less for your money, so in that sense, maybe abomination isn't a terrible description.

That said, the combat system, as far as I recall, was the same and that is the thing I like best about those games. You can hack 'n slash if you want, but being able to easily pause and queue up moves and combos for the harder battles, almost like a turn based system, was great.

The combat system in DA2 was nothing at all like the one in the original. It was dumbed down, button mashing garbage. It was a totally different game, not a sequel. If they wanted to do that fine, but then make it a different series in the same world and also create an actual sequel to Dragon Age.

Cool! It's been too long since we've had a juicy gaming thread.

ME2 was an excellent game, but ME1 was so infinitely better it isn't even close. They completely dumbed down the game.

I was going to ask TGF, or anyone else, is it important to play 1 before 2, or is more a Call of Duty type franchise, where the two are only thematically related?

Have you played any games in the last year or two that dispensed with the "sprawling world" format in favor of a tighter game experience?

I don't play many games these days but I agree with the recommeendations of Mass Effect 2. I'm playing the PS3 version right now and it has a lot of planets to visit but they're all very targeted. When you land somewhere, you can shop, or talk to someone to start a mission, or there's enemies to fight. All the missions are very straight-forward (there's a few places where you can turn to find weapon power ups), but the combat's a lot of fun and the different choices you can make are interesting. The only sprawl-y stuff in the game is scanning planets for missions/side-quests, but I've never found a need to spend too much time looking for resources and if you do find a sidequest on a planet it'll usually lead to one or two more on other planets that will appear on your map without having to search for them.

The only downside is (IIRC from when I played the Xbox version) I don't find it that much interesting or useful to play the evil side of the game, and the game throws far too many characters onto your team. It might've been better if they'd followed the KOTOR model of exclusive good/evil powers. Also, I've used the same two people for almost every mission so far, and it annoys me that I never want to or need to use anyone else. Other than that, it's pretty much the most enthralling game I've played on this generation's consoles.

Edit: I was going to ask TGF, or anyone else, is it important to play 1 before 2, or is more a Call of Duty type franchise, where the two are only thematically related?

For the XBox (I think, I only borrowed it and don't own it), choices you make in ME1 change the world in ME2. On the PS3, the game starts with a boring interactive comic that guides you through the choices you could've made in ME1 (which wasn't released for the PS3) and the world and your character changes accordingly. Your character can then be plugged into the upcoming ME3, and so on. I wouldn't say it's important to play 1 before 2 (the game lets you ask questions if someone refers to something that happened in the first game and you have no idea what they're talking about), but if you have the opportunity to play them in order I'd do it that way.

Dragon Age
Uncharted
Alpha Protocol

Thanks for the recs.

Anyone else strongly prefer first- to third-person shooters? I find that third-person loses a lot the immediacy, the immersion, for me. One of the many things I appreciate about modders is the occasional mod I find that converts a third- to a first-person shooter. Someone, bless 'em, did that with Max Payne 2. Not a great game, but the mod helped. Anyone else spend more time playing mods that the games themselves? There was an incredible modding community that grew up around Half-Life. Some of the work is incredible.

I'd also love to see an option (it can't be TOO hard to implement) that lets me streamline the inventory process. I come to play. If I want to micromanage I'll balance my checkbook or relabel my file folders. Having a game grind to a halt until I drop three bullets on the floor, or having to stash weapons and retrace my steps to relocate them just isn't that much fun for me.

There was one sword and sorcery game that handled inventory brilliantly. It was an odd, terrific mix of RPG and FPS, and came out around 2000 or 2001...? You play a female character, and one of the great touches was a boss battle where the trick was to realize the boss's moves were something of a mirror to yours. It had a famous glitch, where about 4/5ths of the way through you're defending a dungeon against attack but can never trigger the attack so you wait for a literal eternity.

EDIT: The Wheel of Time? What a great, little known game. A blast to play with a smart story.

Thanks, Gch. Yeah, I doubt I'll have a problem finding ME1 before 2, and I'm cheap too when it comes to games, so I may wait for ME2 to drop to $20 if it hasn't already. The only game I ever paid list for was Half Life 2, and life usually gets in the way so it's often a year between bouts of gaming. Games are like cars. Once you get out of the model year or take it off the lot they drop in price nicely if you're a miser like me.

That said, the combat system, as far as I recall, was the same and that is the thing I like best about those games. You can hack 'n slash if you want, but being able to easily pause and queue up moves and combos for the harder battles, almost like a turn based system, was great.

That sounds promising. I lean towards FPS in part because too many of the non-gun oriented games feel unstrategic, that the speed I can mash the enter key governs my success.

That was sort of my problem with Left 4 Dead. The zombies are so fast a lot of the strategy got lost. It's just "blast as fast as you can".

Edit: I was going to ask TGF, or anyone else, is it important to play 1 before 2, or is more a Call of Duty type franchise, where the two are only thematically related?

For the XBox (I think, I only borrowed it and don't own it), choices you make in ME1 change the world in ME2. On the PS3, the game starts with a boring interactive comic that guides you through the choices you could've made in ME1 (which wasn't released for the PS3) and the world and your character changes accordingly. Your character can then be plugged into the upcoming ME3, and so on. I wouldn't say it's important to play 1 before 2 (the game lets you ask questions if someone refers to something that happened in the first game and you have no idea what they're talking about), but if you have the opportunity to play them in order I'd do it that way.

Personally, I'd strongly recommend playing through ME1 first. Aside from the whole "decisions made in ME1 affecting the gameworld in ME2" thing, which for me is significant, playing ME1 will better help you get immersed in the game world and give you all sorts of background information that should help make sense of things. My wife played ME2 first and was constantly bugging me with questions that she would have known the answers to if she'd played ME1 first.

Also, I'll second the recommendation for Dragon Age 1. Outstanding game, and perfect for somebody who wants a more focused experience and dislikes open, sandboxy type games.

If anyone is into MMORPG games Guild Wars was a nice option. I say was because GW2 is on its way and I have no idea if there is much of an active community anymore. I liked it because you don't actually have to play with others, you can have computer controlled followers instead of actual people. And there is no monthly fee which is great. It's been a while but I would liken the combat to Dragon Age 1.

so I may wait for ME2 to drop to $20 if it hasn't already.

I got a PC download for $5 from amazon.

I was going to ask TGF, or anyone else, is it important to play 1 before 2, or is more a Call of Duty type franchise, where the two are only thematically related?

You miss a ton of story and on PC at least, you can carry your saves from ME1 to ME2 (it lets you pick a different character class if you want) and the choices you made in the first game have effects on the second. You also get bonus money/gear to start out if you carry over a save.

Most excellent. I'll start with ME1, then. Thanks.
JJ--I didn't realize amazon had game downloads. Then again, is there anything they don't have?
TGF--you have a wife who plays video games? Well done, sir. Well done!

TGF--you have a wife who plays video games? Well done, sir. Well done!

It's not all sunshine and roses. She's demanded the rights to the first play-through of ME3 when it comes out. Something about me taking too long and being lousy with spoilers. I'm thinking we just won't talk to each other for the week or two it takes her to finish.

Plus she has questionable tastes... thought Planescape:Torment sucked and loves the Fable games.

@35: Do you two ever try games you can play contemporaneously, or try multiplayer for two?

The GF I was seeing when I splurged on HL2 (she went a mile out of her way on foot to pick it up for me, bless her) had never played video games but was interested in what they were all about. She watched me play for about an hour and said, "it's wild, but I didn't realize you had to kill people". With that, she left the room and I understood it would never last. Sure enough, four years later, we split.

My wife likes games, of a sort, but is uninterested in combat. We actually met thanks to computers and gaming, though this was over 25 years ago so things were different.

Her favorite C=64 game was one called Little Computer People; it probably was the first sort of "virtual pet" type game; you had a little person you had to feed and take care of, etc. Didn't really interest me, but she loved it. The game I think she likes the most is The Sims (and subsequent versions). She'll spend hours designing her house, playing with her character, and so on.

She just isn't into shooting things.

@35: Do you two ever try games you can play contemporaneously, or try multiplayer for two?

Once in a while, but cooperative shooters quickly degenerate into mildly acrimonious discussions about whose suckitude is dragging down our effectiveness more. We tried Gears of War III, but she quickly renamed it "One damn thing after another" and lost interest.

Currently trying SWTOR together... she wanted to be a Jedi Knight and I was going to be a Han Solo knockoff. After two days, she said the Jedi was "boring" and demanded we switch roles. Unfortunately, she was right; Jedi ARE boring as hell, but I suppose SWTOR is a different rant.

Honestly, the best part of having a partner who also likes games is that they "get" the hobby and don't give you grief for spending a few hours playing your game of choice... it just gives them a window to play their game of choice.

She just isn't into shooting things.

Wasn't Portal supposed to be heaven for these folks?

If you play games with other people and aren't extremely excited for Borderlands 2, you are insane. The first game was a really fun affair and the second looks great. Basically FPS Diablo with a hint of MMO elements.

I bought my wife a Tamagotchi a couple years ago, because I thought it was a hilarious present. When were they all the rage, 1996? It only caused misery. The damn thing kept dying, despite her best efforts. Once it happened on my watch - I was actually "babysitting" the Tamagotchi - and, 20 minutes after I had ensured that it was happy and well fed, it died. Sudden Tamagotchi Death Syndrome.

@38: yeah, I love the GFs who have their own pursuits and can respect mine. Clingy gets awfully old awfully fast.

Wasn't Portal supposed to be heaven for these folks? Probably so. Couldn't get into it myself, though, although I get its appeal.

DV--is there a SP aspect to Borderlands?

Most excellent. I'll start with ME1, then. Thanks.

If you haven't purchased them yet, Amazon has the PC version of both ME1 and ME2 for $5 each today. link

DV--is there a SP aspect to Borderlands?

You can play Borderlands single player if you want, but it's one of those games that's just more fun with a buddy or 3.

She just isn't into shooting things.

Wasn't Portal supposed to be heaven for these folks?

Portal and Portal 2 should be heaven for anybody with even the slightest interest in games.