The Silver Lining Team is only releasing the first chapter of a game, not the full game. If Hero6 had chosen to release only chapter 1, it would have been released years ago.

Actually... it's the first 3 chapters(which comprise Part 1: Shadows). Yeah, I'm nitpicking(and late), but I felt the need to say it.

Well, I like the idea, PHattiE, but we really need to plan this carefully, or we'll wind up having a similar situation to what Bioware's having with their contest at the moment, where people were confused by the vague rules and the rules continued to shift around even after the contest deadline.

Which reminds me... when DOES the voting end for it(the Bioware contest)? I've been planning to vote... but haven't quite got around to it yet.

and I'd actually join in the(Adventure game) contest... but I don't have the time. :-\

As a final note(to stay on-topic)... considering the amount of time it has taken for many retail games to be created(where the staff works full time, I might add), I fail to see any reason to complain about however long this game takes to make.

Oh, and... "The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to Ship March 20, (Hooray!)"

Not sure about getting around to playing it... but I plan to buy it.

I'm honestly more interested in the AI( among other things ) than the graphics though. And the books... Wabbajack, Wabbajack, Wabbajack.

Sadly, I'll be unable to join ya'll on your quest...

so I wish you luck.  

No, the one you're thinking of is So You Want To Be A Hero.

In which case...

*doesn't vote, because he's not sure if he's thinking of Hero's Quest or Quest for Glory*

I'd guess it was Quest for Glory though.

I don't know if I can make it to the RP sessions, but if I can...

This Nord is ready for battle.

EDIT:

Almost forgot...

Wabbajack, Wabbajack, Wabbajack  

*sends the thread back on topic*

Assuming Trial By Fire is the one that had the rat and wizard, the building with the eyeball, and the faries that danced you to death... that's the first one I played(I lost the discs long ago, so I can't start the game to be sure).  

If you want to defeat boredom, you should go to the land of :)s instead.

*points to the map, and shows them they're only 10 feet away from it*

*taps Reish on the shoulder*

You started becoming inaccurate after

as long as you didn't try anything that changed its dynamics

That part is true( just trying to make a modern gun in  the game, makes that quite clear ).

you CAN have locational sound

With ease.

you CAN make a new FMV

If you can make it in the correct format, I don't see why you'd have trouble doing it( though I've never tried this one ).

you CAN change a corpse into a movable body

Making the 3D graphics work together would be a tad tricky( odds are the body would end up partly inside the player character, unless you really knew what you were doing... which is the tricky part ), but quite doable.

but it's a TON of work and STILL very limited.

Limited I'll agree with( but considering the ease of use... it seems like a fair trade to me ), but not so much the "ton of work"( minus doing something insane, like the Morrowind multiplayer mod, almost everything is easy to do... by comparison to most games with mod tools ).

and unless you have the actual source( which very few companies release with the game ), you are going to have a considerable limit to what you can do.

Now that I've said my peace( which may have it's own inaccuracies, but I'll let someone that's tried the FMV thing decide that )...
*returns to the shadows*

They do?

Yes, we do.

In my case, it's simply a matter of wanting an HD-DVD console to exist, not so much which one I'd prefer to have in my gaming  system( I don't plan to buy either of them, at any point in time ).

Also, as far as what you've said about the storage of Blue-Ray goes, it's correct. Although it lacks the ability to use the newer mpeg format, which results in the HD-DVD being just as good(if not better) as a replacement for DVD( which is what I'm hoping replaces DVD   ). Considering the cost to completely rework manufacturing in order to produce Blue-Ray, instead of HD-DVD, I'm sticking with HD-DVD as my prefered optical-drive format( and I prefer the companies involved to recieve my money ).

and I may agree with you, that the PS3 is better(as far as hardware goes), but only time will tell which is the better console(and that will most likely be a matter of opinion ).

and since, like I said, I don't care too highly for either console(just trying to throw our off-topic discussion into a proper thread), I think I'll just go back to lurking in the shadows.

HD-DVD is teh best, down with Blue-Ray!

In other words, I'll go with the Xbox(though HD-DVD is not definite, as far as I know).

hmm... though I wouldn't mind more info on Nintendo's next console.  

Somehow, I suspected that you'd be replying to my post soon.

Win 2000 allows FAT, NTFS too. No differences there

Thank you for correcting me on that.

I looked into it after reading your post though. Windows2000 can create FAT32 partitions larger than 32gb, without being roundabout(XP requires a workaround), it would seem. Also, it cannot create FAT32 partitions on installation( XP can ).

XP does NOT allow 64 bit apps, unless you get their new x64 edition which came out a few months ago. Doesn't count as a difference.

"ignoring all but the latest versions of both"

Win 2000 is no longer a supported OS (obsolete and replaced by win 2003), so there will of course not be any "backporting".

Well, how is that inaccurate? You're agreeing with it yourself.

I'm not sure how you determined that the support was increased for XP users over 2000.

Even you said "obsolete and replaced by win 2003"

Besides, that's out of context isn't it?

I'm not sure what you mean by out of context... mind clarifying?

has nothing to do with OS differences.

Well, if I'm upgrading from Win98 to another OS it is(and an important one). :cheerygrin:

I think the only thing in your list that counts as a valid difference between win2000 and XP pro is:"better compatibility for DOS applications." But this only helps prove my point that XP is 2000 with a skin. As you probably know, win2000 is an upgrade from Win NT (microsoft's old server OS). The NT kernel never had good DOS support because it was a "true" 32 bit OS. Windows 95/3.11/98/ME all ran on top of DOS (16 bit). So making XP more compatible towards DOS was a nessecity due to migration needs of their customers (ie. win 98 home users who still had DOS programs they needed to run).

I think that you mean Win9x compatibility is the only valid point( it's MUCH more important than DOS support, which is extremely limited, and the vast majority of users don't even know what DOS is...much less still use it ).

and like I said, it's a matter of opinion of how similar they are( and our opinions seem to have very few similarities, if any, about this topic ).

I don't see you naming why you think the other details I mentioned are invalid, so I'll end my post here( and if anyone wants me to name more differences, which I highly doubt, I'll be happy to oblige XD ).

P.S.
It's quite late/early here, so please excuse my grammar/spelling, while I... zzzzz

Longhorn is simply the temporary/code name of the new version of Windows, as far as I know. I think Palladium is supposed to be a part of Longhorn, but I'm not completely sure.

I would say it's debatable about how similar they are (it greatly depends on your point of view).

Here are a handful of differences, between the two OSs( ignoring all but the latest versions of both ). I would name similarities, but I think everyone here agrees that the kernel( core coding/base code ) is the main thing that makes them similar(and nobody seems to have touched on the differences, which is the reason I'm posting here ).


Differences
1.WinXP has greatly increased Win9x and DOS compatibility
2.WinXP allows FAT, NTFS, and soon WinFS filesystems (WinFS should be public within a few months),Win2000 is only capable of creating NTFS partitions (to the best of my knowledge).
3.XP is capable of using 64-bit apps
4.XP has that weird cd-key/ownership validation( I'm not sure what the correct term is )
5.I understand that some Longhorn software/features will be "backported" to XP, such as WinFS filesystem, and not 2000( WinFS is the only one I can think of, off hand ).
7.WinXP has a more "user-friendly" interface(perty colours )
8.Increased software support (and increased support from Microsoft, compared to 2000)
9.I think there is more support for multiple users using one machine in XP, but I'm not completely sure


Win98SE/Win95
Even Win98SE has major differences to Win98( stronger USB support, for one ), and the differences between 95 is greater.
Example=some programs, such as Hijack95, were quite buggy in Win98(almost unusable).

Feel free to correct any errors I have made in this post( in reference to the subject/topic at hand ).