Volourn

"So, you want them to drop their things just so you can *look* at them and then go on about your business?" I want the option. That would be my choice. the Pack Rats tm would pick them up if they can. Good for them. Also, early on in agme when the character isn't rich, I tend to be a pack rat too. See, it's all about options and growth. Good stuff.

"NWN, there wasn

"like them or hate them, their reviews are generally accurate, devoid of hype other reviewers are susceptable to." False. Only someone brainwashed by the 'Codex would say that. Their reviews are just as biased and full of hype as the next review. The biggest difference between their review and others is that they don't give percentage scores, and usually are decently written. Always entertaining to read; though.

"Still, it's unrealistic that the characters can carry 3 or 4 heavy weapons, 2 armors, a ton of ammo, grenades, and stimpacks, and be able to fight as if they were carrying nothing apart from their weapon." Yes. But, I'd rather have that than absolutely no limits. It's called compromise. Like I said, reasonably limit what can be carried would be fine. KOTOR1&2 don't even try to. I mean, NWN even has limits of what you can carry - by weight and 'backpack'. Though; its backpack is huge. heh. but, at least there *are* limits. "I don't think you want Counter-Strike sized inventories, do you?" How would I know if Id want it or not? Haven't played CS so can't judge its inventory system. LOL "But having every thing you kill drop their stuff and then being able to carry inhuman amounts of thrash just doesn't make sense." The former makes me sense. The latter does not. In my NWN module which I keep talking about but haven't finished (LOL); enemies drop what they have. If you see them using an ax; it drops. Only in extremely rare cases they don't; and when that occurs; it's literally most likely because of magic or something else supernatural happening. If players want to pack rats and pick everything up; that's their business. I'm gonna balance the game for 'normal" people; not pack rats. Sorry.

"I'm all for realism in that sort of things, but then again, how do you justify carrying around 25 armors and 500 lightsabers?" You don't. That's why you limits. Eitehr weight wise by strength or by 'backpack' wise. Or both. Almost every other CRPG I have ever seen has some sort of limit on what you can carry. Afterall, it's very logical. As for pnp, do you carry every single piece of junk wepaon you find off your enemies? I sure hope not.. at least not once you reach a certain level of monetary satisfaction. Any player who needs to have the ability to carry unlimited supplies of weapons, and and armour should simply deal with it. Pack rats should not be catred to. Perhaps, you should pick and choose what you grab instead of just stuffing everything that can move into your never ending rnage. Geez.. Even NWN's 6 or so pages of allowed items is silly to me. It should be 1; maybe 2 if I'm feeling nice. And, it works in both pnp and crpgs has it has done rather well for years. "hence you can't have the same rules, period." Hahah. This is cute coming from you. It's not about having the same rules, however; but it's about the rules making sense. KOTOR's inventory rules simply don't make sense. NWN's is betetr. Not greta; but better. Games like the IE and even *gosh* Diablo are even better than that. FO is almost as bad as KOTOR with its bottomless pit. Meh.

"Otherwise you'd end up with way too much stuff." Tough. If something is killed there should be a high chance their items exist. If the player lands up with "too much stuff"; I blame the devs for putting too much combat in.

"It's given an in-game reason why. It's entirely consistent with the story, and IMO was handled very well." Anything can be explained by a story; that doesn't mean it's the right way to handle it. Seems to me they put way tooo much influence on these characters. Joinable npcs - espicially if it's only 1, or 2 should not be a determining factor on whether one can progress into all 6 PrC. 1, or 2 maybe; but all 6? I think not. Same with the silly alignment or sorry light/dark side thing.. You cna't be a "neutral" Force user to get a PrC? What a yoke.

"The more I read about DA and what Bioware says about it, the more I believe they are not going to support multiplay like the community wants them too. We already know they don't believe enough in the PW aspect of gaming to work hard at supporting it. My bets are that DA will be a bang up single player game with a really good toolset." That explains why DA will have both a SP and MP OC - to better both versions. Not to mention a DM client (I believe it has one from what I know). I think people are gonna be suprised that DA will be as MP friendly as NWN was. Probably even more so after the experience they've gained from NWN. As for PWs; PW was never a part of BIO's plans for NWN let alone any other game yet they have added or voided using features that would cause harmful effects to them supposedly. As for modding DA, meh, it depends on how the non tileset area creation works, I think since the scripting is supposedly more or less like NWN's except presuambly improved... We shall see.. :ph34r:

"damn...in the 3 1/2 years I's known ye, dwarf, that's the most intelligent thing I's e'er seen ya post... ...damn, agreein' wit' ye hurts me head...thank the Gods Theyselves it dunna happen often... " Damn. Just to say, I lied in that quote. The last I want is being caught in agreement with a silly gibberish speaking wemic. Gah.

"While this makes planning my inventory easier, variety does equal better re-playability." True. Randomness to a certaind egree isn't bad; but when it's as silly as it seems to be KOTOR2 it goes to the other extreme of just nonsenical. ie. The example of a normal rodian having dark jedi robes.

"I wasn't refering to KotOR 1, Volourn. Take the post in the context that it is written in, refering to KotOR 2. Its not that hard to do, for any grade schooler can figure it out." You were referring to both games in the series. Nice try though.

"Like I would find Dark Jedi robes off a dead Rhodian thug lying in the street." Yet, some people claim that KOTOR2's random loot is an improvement over KOTOR. "They way that KotOR does random drops suck and its not going to change." Huh? First off, KOTOR1 didn't have random loot from what i seen, and enemies mostly dropped the weapon they used. Quite frankly, loot system is something where without even playing KOTOR2; it is obvious that KOTOR1 was way better at. Of course, some things like more skill useage in dialogue seems to be one improvement that KOTOR2 got right. Good stuff. "Secondly they only had a little over a year to develope this game while Bio had what two + years to work on KOTOR so I think this alone should grant them some degree slack as to the quality of game they did put out for all of us to enjoy." Exuses, exuses. BIO had to create the engine (almost), and game from scratch. Obsidian may have had less time; but a lot of the work was already done for them. On top of that, they pretty much knew how much time they had. People make a big deal about the x-box release date being "puseh up" for the Christmas holidays yet they forget that the release date for both version always varied between December 2004, and March 2005 so it wasn't that much of a surprise it was done then. Tsk, tsk.

"the themes themselves resonated with me." That's true. The themes, for the most aprt, were hit on really well. It's what connected with me more than just the writing itself. "Bingo. Like I said before, PS:T should be the standard of all CRPGs where it comes to story quality." Nonsense. if that were the case, PST's writing would be merely average hence it would not be very memorable. It's memorability comes from the fact that it is special. Just like FO's remembered because its in a class of its won when it comes to freedom in a CRPG. And, BG series is memorable because it pretty much is the epitome of epicness in CRPGs accomplish so many things at once. If these qualities were shared by all games on average; gaming would likely be boring because all games would be the same. *yawn* It's the average games in their avergaeness that makes the special games like PST, FO, and BG stand out. That is all.

"Sorry, but it's not the quantity of the text that makes PS:T great. It's the quality." Problem is a good protion of PST's words were simply not needed. It could of told the same story with the same meaningfulness without being so overbloated. Of course, overall, the writing was still good; but it was nowhere near as perfect as some people claim.

Arcanum. It has its problems; but overall it is simply one of the best RPGs out there. Not bad for a first try by Troika. Too bad they're next two games failed to live up to those expecations though BL was *this* close to doing so or even surpassing it.. Also, FF10 X-2. A lot of people oo pooed it as a 'girly game" and I tended to agree with all the talk about "girl power" and "sing me a career" stuff. It vast surpassed my low expecations and became a fun gaming experience.

"Sounds a wee bit hypocritical to me." Your point? I just don't want people to be like me as if you are like me you are an idiot. See, I am a hero. I am trying to save them poor souls. That is all.

"Well, don't you do that to?" Yes. Your point being what?

"btw, 'twas actually you that said it; e'en had it in me sig fer awhile as a memorial ta yer mindless inanity..." Ha. That's because you twinked what i wrote you boogerface squirming beast.

Volourn's jus' bein' Volourn; no sense tryin' ta put a label on it, cuz his unique blend o' idiocy an' inanity be breathtakin' ta behold... ...or not..." So says the one who claimed that Dungeion Seige was the best CRPG of all time! R00fles!!

"Unearthed Arcana is from Wotc and it is a very different book." Yes; but I was just making sure. "

" Do you realize that you justified BG's and NWN's stories the same way Ivan did PS:T's?" Justify? Neither of us were jsutifying anything. I merely pointed out that PST's story was about TNO's amnesia. The BG's stories were never about Irenicus or Sarevok. Bg's story was always about the PC discovering his/her roots, and how that effect him or her. The two dinks were just the PC's antagonsts in their respective games. In NWN's case, it was more about telling him about its main vilaliness motives; not justifying the story itself. "Zoq: Of course he knows. He is doing this just to get a rise out of Ivan." Um. Why would I do this? I like Ivan. He's cool even when he disagrees with me. Unlike you who is never cool. " "Zoq: Oh, so he was just trolling." Do you always believe what Hades post? I sure hope not.

"No, its not a new 3rd edition." Eh. That's not exactly what i meant. Wasn't there some sort of 'Unearthed Arcana' years ago for one of the earlier editions. Beena while so maybe I remember wrong... <_<

"Stripped to their basics, the plotlines of any story" Um.. PST's plot is not just stripped down; it's plot is about amnesia. Without it; you pretty much got no story. "Sarevok wants to slaughter lots and lots of people so he can become a God." That's not BG's real story. It's story is discovering your character's roots and trying to find out why someone wants you dead. BG's story is not about Sarevok; it's about you. However, your version is used by those who want to make Bg's story look weak when it isn't. "Irenicus wants to slaughter everybody in his old homeland for preventing him from becoming a God, and also to give becoming a God another try." No. That's not BG2's story. BG2's story is the continued journey of the PC in discovering his palce and the world and Irenicus - while awesomely well done - is the means to the end in that regard. Why do you think the dreams equences in BG2 evolved around you and Irenicus talking about your palce in the world. BG2 story was never about Irencius. He was a major aprt of your story; but the story was not his. People who say it tend to be the ones who like BG2; are trying to twist BG2's story in't soemthing as basic as 'go kill big baddy'. Not cool. "Mellissan wants to kill all the Bhaalspawn so she can become a God (notice a trend?) " Melissan was lame. I enjoyed TOB in spite of its main story. I agree though its story was about stopping Meslissan hence its being the weakest of the BGs in terms of main story. "I wish I could tell you what the villains in NWN wanted, but I got bored around Chapter 3 and quit playing. Something about ancient lizard people conquering the world. I wouldn't be surprised if some villain or another was planning to use the slaughter of everyone in Neverwinter to become a God. Or something. " Only if you listened to fools. NWN's story is about a former power wanting what they feel is theirs back. It's not really about conquering others; but about getting abck what was lost and conquering in the villains' mind was the best way to a ccomplish this. Still, the OC's story was weakened since the focus - like TOB (though TOB still did a decent job) - wasn't on the PC as much as it should be. "You can point to the amnesiac thing all you like, but beyond the set-up" Um. Your character's amnesia in PST is more than just a set up of the story; it *is* the story. "The Fallouts are the only ones which comes close to breaking the barrier....but even there, with objectives you can kinda sorta see how someone might believe in, the objective is pointlessly genocidal and obviously 'bad.' " Nah. Both Fos were about dealing with the Big bad or in FO1 also possibly joining them. however, no one really claims that FO's story is its best part or is really special. Though; it's still well done mostly.

"How many adventuring companies a) travel under cover of total darkness or b) camp with no fire whatsoever?" a) Not many unless they are in the desert. b) About half in my experience. Most PCs I see in action are paranoid that someone will see the fire so they tend to forgo campfire unless it's really cold or they desperately need to see but then they have other light sources for that which don't have the habit of giving their location away so eaisly. That said, this still doesn't chnage the fatc that during nighttime or in inner areas; that magic missle's long rnage doens't come into play as often. Even if there's a light source to see by; it's areaof effect is much smaller than the actual spells which pretty much shortens magic missles ranges. Also, inside you have corners and the like to deal with since you can't get the magic missle to turn corners. It's "heat seeking ways" only goes so far. "In my experience, it's a very common event." Okay then. "Quote something I stated that implied this." No need. It's obviously you are defending the idea that magic missle is some type of super spell that is seemingly unmatched and can't be defended against even though it most clearly can with something as simple as another 1st level spell. "You also do this a lot. Why do you converse with people? Do you do it to learn, do you do it to "win", or do you do it for some other purpose? I'm trying to figure out what your goals are from how you carry on these conversations. In my limited observation, it seems to follow a similar pattern: * Statement of opinion, often with the disclaimer of "Period." * Period of somewhat even debate * You erect strawmen, building up and tearing down arguments that other people didn't make. * You get called on this behavior and tell the person they are free to not converse with you. Do you think you'd ever like to see a discussion through to its conclusion? Do you actually think it's beneficial to a discussion to construct arguments from another person's statements that the individual did not, and would not, state on their own? How is that helpful to you or the other person? What is your goal?" Interesting psychobabble that adds nothing to the discussion other to say how evil I am. I'm here to discuss magic systems and I guess the power of magic missle. It's not really complicated to figure that out, I would think. No hidden agenda; no big conspiracy. I'm not that deep or smart. "I also never suggested that people should spam the equivalent of a third level fireball. What are you doing?" I already posted that I misread that part, and covered it. "Are you just getting desperate?" I only get desperate for girls; not over a discussion on the net. Hate to disspaoint you there. "I believe a magic user should frequently use magic." We simply differ on this. I think magic shouldn't be used more frequently - I think the spells slots a D&D wizard already recieves is more than enough. Anymore, he might as well be a fighter whose chosen weapon is magic. *yawn* "I'd like to ask you this, Volourn: do you believe that a 1st level wizard should be able to climb walls better than a 1st level rogue dedicated to the task? Because really, that's what a spell like spider climb allows a wizard to do. The same could be said for a lot of spells. Personally, I don't like that." I persoanlly do like that in essence. Magic is about doing thinsg the character normally can't do. Why can't magic be used to 'climb like a spider'? That makes magic special to me. I guess you don't like spells that create say a sword for the wizard to use as that would be taking the fighter's row; or better yet a spell like Tenser's Transformation must really eat you up since it basically turns a mage into a fighter albeit temporarily and with less feats. The thing is both a rogue and fighter have abilities that a wizard can't duplicate so eaisly - sneak attack and number of feats for emaple - good for them. To me, magic should be wonderous and do wonderous things and not stop short just because it might step on another class' toes and hurt their feelings. I also don't beleive in 3rd Editions idea that all classes are treated equal and in balanced. first off, they aran't and they shouldn't be. A rogue should *never* be the flat out equal to a mage. Period. In some areas the rogue can have advantages; but by default it a rogue and mage should not be equal. Why? Magic is defined by its not being normal and easy to pick it or at least it shouldn't be. Anyways... "That is one of the things I liked about Monte' Cook's magic system in Arcana Unearthed. Each spell, besides spell level, is set up in three broad catagories. Simple, Complex, and Exotic. Simple spells tend to be not as powerful as Complex or Exotics, and exotics tend to be fairly powerful for their level and require a feat to learn to cast them (like Exotic Weapon feats). With in each spell you have the base power, which you cast at the spell level. Diminished power, allowing you to caste the spell at one level less, taking a lower level slot, or at heighten power which takes up a higher level slot." That's a new 3rd Edtion version right? If so, I'll have to check it out... <_<

"dropping them in power by the equivalent of one or two levels" Hmm.. Maybe. So, he means make fireball the equivalant of a 1st level spell in terms of power. Hmm.. That seems to be as bad. Let's make a fireball spells that does what then to make it the equal of magic missle? Hmm.. Hmm.. Hmm...