I have no idea what's so great about achievements compared to trophies. I only have a PS3, but from what I've seen of the 360, its achievements seem completely unexciting. I'd much rather work towards levels with some significance and division into various levels of trophies instead of looking at a generic gamerscore. It's very satisfying to bring up my PSN card and see that I'm level 12, that I have 7 platinum trophies, that I have 26 gold trophies, etc. Seeing that I have, say, a gamerscore of 25390 would only be a number without meaning and wouldn't catch my interest.

Isn't "droid" trademarked by Lucasfilm?

I wouldn't be so worried about the spoiler. It doesn't really spoil the plot except for showing a short glimpse of what you'll go through. I suspect it's from very, very early in the game anyway. It doesn't show you any plot twists or reveal anything about any characters.

[Spoiler]

Somewhat spoilerific for both games:

Spoiler for Hiden:

The "monsters" serve a very clear purpose in both games. They show what happens to those who get tempted to abuse the powerful artifacts the antagonists are looking for. Without them, the consequences of failing your quest would be much harder to show. Also, they provide a welcome respite from the regular fighting, and especially in Uncharted 2 they don't appear for very long.

Steam will supposedly start pre-loading the game tomorrow, according to a reply someone got from Steam support.

What zombies? There have never been zombies or anything remotely close to it in Uncharted.

Did you play the first game?  They were pretty much zombies.

Really? They weren't undead. They didn't shamble. They didn't eat people. They were intelligent (at least enough to build traps). They observed the intruders quietly for a while before mounting a full, organized attack. They could breed. They couldn't infect people (except through breeding). They weren't rotting.

So tell me, how were they "pretty much zombies"? It's an honest question, because I simply can't understand how you could compare those two things.

What zombies? There have never been zombies or anything remotely close to it in Uncharted.

[Spoiler]

Spoiler for MAJOR ENDING SPOILERS:

  I don't know-  is there that much difference between the Yeti and the Guardians in terms of being a "monster"?  I don't have a problem with either (and really liked the reveal) but for people who seem opposed to inhuman enemies in the series I'm not sure if that distinction matters.

Spoiler for WHAT HE SAID:

It made a huge difference to me.  I was a little disappointed to see the series heading into the supernatural.  Not that I'm against supernatural elements in games, but it seemed out of place for Uncharted.  It was a big relief and nice surprise to see that they were sticking to their roots after all.  I admit that I'm making a big assumption that SL will feel the same way, but I think he probably will.

Spoiler for Hiden:

I don't see how you can call the Yeti "supernatural" even if they were the real deal.

Anyway, Naughty Dog have stated that they consider the "monsters" an integral part of the Uncharted experience, so I suspect we will keep seeing them. Pulp is supposed to be larger than life, but Uncharted doesn't go into the supernatural territory.

Actually, there haven't been any real monsters at all in the two games we've seen so far. The creatures in the first game were just the results of humans being infected with a powerful virus, followed by several generations of cross-breeding. The "monsters" in this game are merely humans who've drunk from the Tree of Life all their lives, greatly mutating their bodies.

Not sure this is a good thing. I'm skeptical towards any attempt to MMORPGify the Fallout universe, and I'm doubly skeptical because Interplay is behind it, which is now mostly just a shell of a company.

It's real.

And BANG! I was waiting for the first person to forget the spoiler tag. Oops, Ridah?  

Why look for an old out of date L4D1 thread that would not have a title anywhere resembling my problem

Because that's what pretty much ANYONE else on this forum would do. Think about it.

Oh, and "Daehawk abuse"? Seriously? You can't tell that I'm actually trying to be as polite as I can about this issue? That I'm not attempting to insult you?

But sure, go ahead and be defensive. If you won't learn from feedback, I guess that's your choice. Don't be surprised if the "Daehawk abuse" continues then.

yeah, I dont really get the issue? Its a thread, if you dont like it, ignore it... Its not like the forum is made for people who only have nobel prizes in writing and excell in making interesting posts...

I wasn't saying anything about Daehawk's writing abilities. Just imagine what would happen if all of us started new threads when we had a question related to a game. The forum would become useless and cluttered.

Sometimes folks like to know how a problem was solved and I left it in case someone asks.

Yeah, that reminds me of another thing that annoys me with this thread. You present a problem, then immediately say that you have a solution without presenting that very item. It makes the thread even LESS interesting to most of us.

Please PLEASE make a habit of starting less threads and instead using the ones already present. Your initial post in this thread would have been welcome in a proper L4D thread.

Also, "..." and  "!" should should be stricken from RPG vocabualry.

Thank the Japanese.

Now that I think about it, the Japanese should be stricken from the list of countries who are allowed to make RPGs. The only ones they've made that have managed to catch my interest are the Mario ones, and I could live without those.

...

Why is this a new thread and not simply posted in the existing threads for the game? There's nothing here of interest to the general readership of this forum, if I may be so bold.

There may be some truth to that. The fight ended shortly after I stormed their spawn area in desperation, having nearly given up out of frustration. I took some big chances but picked off tons of them at once, nearly getting onto the stairs before the whole thing was over.

[Spoiler]

That final big battle *does* have never ending spawns.  I'm not sure what trigger it uses.

Spoiler for Hiden:

I watched a YouTube video of someone finishing the fight from the initial vantage point (on Crushing), only running down to grab ammo three times or so (and he started with only half ammo). That didn't work for me at all. Something was messed up.

Yessss! The Platinum is mine!

Those were some really tense battles in the end. I think I had a bug with the last big battle before the end boss, because I seemed to have what felt like neverending spawns when I haven't seen that before. I think my opponents respawned about 10-15 times before the battle was over, forcing me to use nearly all the ammo that was possible to pick up. They only respawned about 3-4 times on earlier playthroughs. And then the game crashed afterwards, further confirming my suspicions.

Man, I'm completely spent right now. I need to relax for a bit.

Windows 7 does require those of us with old habits to rethink them. Things like the new taskbar require that we discard our old habits and try to use available features in the way they were meant to. If you're upgrading to Win7 and finding that you're having a hard time doing something the way you're used to, it might be time to try a new way instead of growing increasingly frustrated that it doesn't do things the way you want in the way you want them.

When I first installed Windows 7 I was aware of this and decided to throw away all my preconceptions of how to use the OS and its features. I found it worked out well, and the new way of doing things felt natural within just a few days.

Nothing.

Don't quit when you've got to the final boss. Compared to the rest of the game, it's very easy to do. Watch a YouTube video of it if you want reassurance. I have to say I agree that it's an annoying fight since they don't give you any feedback about whether what you're doing is helping or not. I struggled with that battle for a while before I gave up and went to YouTube. Before I saw someone else playing it I had no idea what I did that was wrong and what was right.

Yes they can. What is your point, exactly? Are you not familiar with the word "should"? 

Are you saying with confidence that Win7 doesn't have any bugs?

No, I never said anything remotely close to that.

It hasn't been without its problems though.  It's just not as stable yet as XP was after a couple of service packs.

Yes it is. You should check that you're not having hardware or driver problems. Win7 shouldn't crash at all, and hasn't for me on 3 different systems since the RC release.

Oh yeah, and despite all the "you wanted fewer clicks" rhetoric, it now takes bloody ages to dig out the defragger!

Here's an important part of the Win7 interface that you need to learn: Want to do something with it, for example access a specific part of the Control Panel? Just hit the Windows key and type its name, or part of it. Typing "defrag", for example, brings up the Disk Defragmenter shortcut. You can use Enter to start the shortcut too, so if you only get one hit you can quickly hit the Windows key, type a search word, and hit Enter. Once you get used to this, you'll never open the Control Panel again.

Question.  If an installed game doesn't automatically go into the Games library, how do I force it in?

The same way you add links elsewhere. Just drag the game launcher in there.

Yeah, good work indeed! I'm nearly halfway through my playthrough on Crushing now, and I have all the other trophies. Looking forward to that platinum trophy.

One in the monastery I can't believe anyone found, especially considering it takes an absolutely perfect jump to reach it and many would think that you aren't supposed to go there after you fell to your death a couple of times.

Yeah, that one is pretty bizarre. You actually have to let Nate run a couple of steps past the edge of the platform before jumping, which makes very little sense.

[Spoiler]

Spoiler for Hiden:

It's definitely Max Payne. Recognized it instantly. It's the poster where Max Payne stands behind police barricade tape that reads "Do not cross".

Also, the reason I didn't recognize the last one was because I haven't even heard about the game.

Okay Einsteinium, you sound like you know what you're talking about, so I'll assume you are correct in what you're saying. However, the thing that still doesn't make sense to me (based on your explanations) and which you haven't explained is how the internet works so well in Norway when all ISPs here follow the net neutrality guidelines to the letter? Attempts to throttle particular kinds of traffic have been quickly struck down by either the lawmakers or the general public. For example, decisions to limit torrent bandwidth have been quickly reversed. All our ISPs agree today that net neutrality is an important concept, and the government either has, or will in the very near future, make it law.

Yeah, I'd love to do that, but I have a different job that I like and that actually pays well now. I'll probably get back into the game industry at some point, but right now I prefer to have a comfortable income.

Oh so essentially Dan Brown's latest is just a complete fabrication then?

What else is new.

If you've got Descent questions, I'm the guy to ask. I worked on a PC version for a couple of years, although it was canceled last year. It was more than enough time for me to absorb pretty much every little nuance in the rules, though it's been a year since I played it last.

Chaz is correct, btw.

As a tech illiterate, this is where I get confused on the concept.  If my phone company was my ISP, and they decided all forms of VOIP get low priority because they want me to keep my old-school phone line, that violates the "neutrality" principle even though they haven't cut a special deal with anyone, right?

I don't think so, though I may be wrong. At least it should be ok as long as they aren't boosting a service they offer while reducing speed on services that compete against them. The idea isn't to stop service throttling. The idea is to stop huge companies from gaining an impenetrable monopoly because smaller companies can't get the same quality of service from ISPs. Imagine if Google (who supports net neutrality, btw) paid all American ISPs to prioritize traffic from YouTube. If a smaller competitor were to try and break into the market for streaming video, they'd never be able to achieve the same quality of service as YouTube simply because the ISPs won't let them. It kills competition, and the only ones who lose are us, the customers.

[Spoiler]

Spoiler for Hiden:

I was kinda hoping Elena would have died, not that I didn't like her character, but they could use that to make another game, Uncharted 3: Nates Revenge

Spoiler for Hiden:

 I'm glad that she didn't die not only because she is a great character but because for the most part they seem to have avoided cheap melodrama in the series (Chloe I thought was even more likely to die just to generate some emotion).  

However it certainly brings an interesting dilemma to how to handle the next game.  Breaking them up again just won't work.  So either they perhaps give her a dire injury to serve as Nate's motivation for the next game's artifact (as I think Turtle speculated) or perhaps they do that rare thing and just write them as a happy couple that enjoys adventuring together.  I kind of hope it's the latter just because it's so rare that anyone attempts it it any medium and I think Amy Hennig is probably up to making it work.  

Spoiler for Hiden:

I think this is the likely option. Elena has shown herself to be a viable counterpart to Nate without making things boring. She's often even one step ahead of him, challenging him to deal with situations in ways he might not expect, though they do think very much alike.

Also, killing her off would have made the game way too dark, and that doesn't suit Uncharted in my opinion.

I think we need to see there are really two issues.  One is QoS as in how all VOIP is prioritized and one is "special" prioritization (for lack of a better term) as in VOIP from Cisco has a high priority and VOIP from Vonange is give a much lower priority to purposefully push people to using Cisco.  I don't have a problem with the first but the 2nd is why we need net neutrality.  I don't want a situation where since I have AT&T Youtube plays great becuase they have an "agreement" but Hulu plays terrible. 

Thank you! This is what I was trying to say. The issue often gets muddied because people think the net neutrality debate is about both those things.

Well, American providers are sort of known for not following the net neutrality principle in the first place, so you are probably right about that. I strongly disagree that VOIP and streaming video won't work without artificially prioritizing those services though. If that was the case, my internet connection would be a mess.

Throwing in the towel here. I might not have played this particular game.

Yeah, when you get attacked by multiple armored guys I make a habit out of picking up the nearest shotgun and using it to take them down. It's really effective, particularly since its spread means you need to spend less time out of cover in order to aim. Against normal enemies I stick to my rifles though.

At least they made all weapons viable in this game. In Uncharted 1 I barely used anything else than the pistol, even at the end of the game. The pistol was just way too good there. It's still really good in Uncharted 2, but it's no longer the ultimate weapon, and you get plenty of ammo for the other weapons anyway.

The problem is, if the net was entirely neutral, these technologies wouldn't work at all. You can't resend a missed voice packet, or a missed video section, because they'd be out of sequence, and it would end up jibberish. Data, mostly web, email, and file transfer, is built to accept and deal with that as well.

I think you need to research this a bit more. What you're talking about has nothing to do with the net neutrality debate and seems to be mere speculation coming from a lack of understanding of the IP protocols. For example, every ISP in Norway is completely neutral (one of them tried something a year back and got all kinds of nasty feedback, so they reverted their decision) but video streaming and voice chat still works perfectly here. There is little to no packet loss whatsoever.

I'm sure you know that the TCP/IP protocol guarantees that packets will arrive and in order. The ISP doesn't need to do anything in particular to make this work. For time critical applications you can use UDP which is way faster but doesn't make such guarantees, yet it's easy enough to code a wrapper around the protocol to replicate the behavior of TCP while keeping most of the speed of UDP. ISPs don't prioritize packets in order to make this work. It's just not necessary.

The point is moot in any case. Net neutrality doesn't prohibit an ISP from optimizing their internal operations. It merely prevents them from making deals with content providers to prioritize their particular content over other providers' content. The debate is very specific in this regard, but there is occasionally confusion about what those of us who support net neutrality are actually arguing for.

The two of you could perhaps consider using the spoiler tag, hmm? That's why it's there.