Tigranes

Dude, you didn't have to look at that piece of paper. I will never forget those horrible folds, along with Codex rickrolls. Wait, no, Architect will probably take me seriously again. Nah, we never even touched him for quite a while.

That's true, but it would be a big immersion breaker for me if I could paralyse people left and right, but nobody could paralyse me. I really hate losing control, but from what I remember, two things: -> It wasn't that long in the Witcher, so it fitted the Action RPG pace. It was just long enough for you to go OH CRAP, and think about what to do once you're moving again. -> It's good/fun because it's a very different type of challenge once you can be paralysed. Damage and other things generally doesn't intervene in your 'combat plan'; in many games you can basically draw a plan in your head, and execute it. You might take damage or it might not succeed 100%, but you can just keep doing that. The knowledge that you could be paralysed throws in a twist. I'd hate it too if it was really long, e.g. having you and Imoen paralysed early game in BG1 with its lengthier charm/hold spell durations. But from my memory.... wasn't it quite short? No?

It's short. I like that. Too many cinematic game trailers nowadays overindulge in their own 'coolness' and go full-on hollywood. This one's that kind of style, too (but then it IS AP), but the succint nature makes it seem less juvenile and more impressive. Certainly CGI footage.

Not yet, no.

Well, yes. As I implied in the previous post, I don't really think I disagree with you. I don't think your observations are off. I was just making it clear that the kind of people you describe exist, but there are more 'reasonable' critiques and detractors out there and it shouldn't serve to stereotype or belittle them. Oh, honestly, I would prefer a Bethesda FO3 to no FO3 at all. But yes, I know that there are people out there who would prefer the franchise to be dead. I can definitely iunderstand why they might say/think that though. Already, journalists and consumers are rewriting Fallout history (heh, remember "Todd Howard, mastermind behind the Fallout series"?). I expect FO3 to sell as well as Oblivion and generally be as well received, so it will make it much more likely that FO4 is more like FO3 than FO2/1, too. So I can understand that. I don't agree with the sentiment, but it does make sense. Don't think I 'disagree' with you or stand on the 'opposite camp' though, well, not anymore - I think that would mean splitting the atoms of hairs. Just pointin' things out.

I can see what you mean, but I approach it from a different angle. See, I am committed to games not only in the sense that I like playing some of them, but also in the sense that I want the medium to do well and develop ('do well' being 'do well' by my standards). That means I have a keen interest in what is becoming popular, what is becoming accepted/acceptable, and of course the role journalists and major sites play in setting public opinion. Little by little, Adam Sessler(?) acting like a pig on crack or random idiotic journalists harping about how TB or isometric is "obsolete" (that's a completely separate argument from FO3) affects that kind of stuff. So for me, going WOAAAH COOL at certain things can be just as bad, if not worse, than BOO HISS. Heh. It's curious isn't it? I was reading this, and I was agreeing with your general argument, but when I read the bit "videos look jsust like modded Oblivion"... well.. actually, that's what it looks like to me. Like, really. I didn't think about it at first, but when I saw the videos it really struck me. So in my head, that would actually be one of the few legitimate points of analysis (although not necessary a point of criticism). But I've had people swear they don't get any of that, so heh.

True, sort of. Huge number of people went OMFG NO when Beth got the license, but there was a sizable portion of people saying "well, let's wait and see what they do with it first". Since then, many people in the latter camp has said, "well, I've seen what they've done and I don't like it, NOW i'm going OMFG NO." And even with the former, most of that OMFG NO was based on predictions - i.e. the prediction that because of the type of games Beth makes, FO3 will turn out a certain way. It's like me going OMFG NO if George Bush suddenly decided to be the president of New Zealand. He's never done it before, but I've seen what he's done with US and I don't want it. Anyway. That's not to deny your point. There were, and are, idiots who just hate for hate's sake and just rubbish something because it's Bethesda. And certainly, even in the most reasonable of FO3 doubters, there is a lingering whiff of predisposition and prejudice (don't we all?). And it does suck. But by no means, not by a long shot, does it disqualify the doubts/criticisms about/of FO3, or the old-time detractors as a whole. Certainly, they've provided an interesting alternative to that X-Play guy going WOOOOAHHHH COOOOL at everything. Both biased, but hey. That's life.

You can't. Just like you can't trust all of the "journalists" harping on with 10/10, 100% and five gold stars. You have to be aware of the possible bias in either and wade through. Which is just like any other controversy, but I guess a bit more obvious. What the hey? Who does that, though? I mean, I've seen a lot of people who have come to hate Bethesda because of the decisions Bethesda has made regarding Fallout. But there are hardly any people who simply went; "Bethesda? I HATE THEM. I hate everything they and will do and say".

Man, that's like, five years ago, newc! I thought we established by now that you can be interested in a game without being interested in playing it. Two different things. I'm very interested in architecture, even though I'll probably never actually do anything with that. If someone is indeed just trolling around looking for things to criticise, sure, that's stupid. And I won't deny there are people who do that with FO3. But the majority, I think, just are interested in FO3. Then, they don't like what they see. I've got more here, but I cut it out. Let me just throw you that core bit, and see if we can get somewhere. Not saying you're being dense (if anything, that's probably me), but it'll probably help me be more clear.

You can now craft your own romantic interest. But you can only do it at a gnomish crafting bench.

I think SoZ is good in that sense - it's trying to be as fresh as possible, and be as unique as possible (in terms of the experiences the NWN franchise offers). Overland map, especially. But yes, I too am dying for a new engine with new combat system and so forth. Besides... when are we going to get the real next-gen? Like greater level of environmental interaction, combat systems that don't rely on just 'push this button to deal X damage'? Heh. I can dream.

Well.... ever played a JRPG? That's a pretty lopsided way to analyse the SE system. Besides, what is not broken about dead members waking up again with a swoosh and shinies when the enemy moves 10 metres away?

Oh, FO3 is still an RPG. But is it a good RPG?

Xvart combat was the pinnacle of tactical RPG combat.

And you won't even get any Evil points for it.

Yep. I'm playing FF9 right now, and you don't even get to choose your party from the full set until disc 3. Strangely, it doesn't bother me here, whereas I hated Shandra. I guess we really do bring different expectations into different games. DA's being billed as the new BG2 though, I'd be trying to play it like I played BG. So I'd hate forced members. Hope someone can mod it away if it's in.

But then you have to ask, why is McCain making public calls for campaigns of respect? If he really cared about that he would have reined in his own campaign managers before this ever happened. This is just standard image manipulation. The bit about church visits seems a bit stretchy to me, mainly because the journo is clearly pulling at all sorts of loose ends just to bank up the argument. Does anyone know how often other state leaders/etc take such religious or quasi-official visits on public money?

Gooey goo, it's Eldar! We need to revive that Obsid D&D game.

Hey? You know better than to go down that logical landslide. If you are asking, did most people ever play on bigger servers, then yes - definitely. Most 'runs' were/are 8-player, and some of my best D2 experiences is when a gathering of 6-8 strangers hit it off.

Must be staggered, you can't handle 3 releases at once.

I suspect 'RPG elements' in the sense of levelling up, having abilities, skill points, etc. That's a massive WTF, but I can see how it might work out. What a project.

Thanks LS. Sounds poor: the only explanation I can think of is that D3 doesn't run as well contemporary computers as well as D2 did (even with my med-range comp at time of release, lag problem was never that bad). If you allow 8, people can CHOOSE to have 4 anyway. With five classes, I'd have thought 5 would be the minimum. That's really a blow. This has elicited my first fanboy drool in a long time.

I was always a magic user lover in D2 and anywhere else, so the Wizard class info really does interest me. From the video they seem a lot more hands-on and involved in combat than the sorceress, which is even more awesome. I mean, this could turn out to be just aesthetics (and filthy lies, grah), but whereas the sorc interacted with the enemies by throwing area-based projectiles for the most part, you're looking at the wizard targeting them more individually, getting up and close, while also throwing around balls of explodey-stuff. Looks great. I also like their intent behind that death mechanic. While the D2 TP system was really great in practice, I like this idea of making a dungeon trek a lengthy, campaign-like affair. Suits Diablo very well. That would be amazingly suicidal, and very surprising. Do you think you could link us to that info? I'd love to read it myself.

I've somehow refrained from doing this most of the time, but here, a shameless plug: I interviewed Briosafreak lately, and he's given a lot of interesting points and facts about FO fandom. Some of what I'm saying is informed by this conversation, as well. newc - you can be 'suspicious' in the sense that you suspect a certain predisposition or bias from them, sure. I need to be clearer here: i'm talking about your original post, where you say "sounds to me that despite your interest in Fallout 3 being at 'another all-time low', your interest is, in fact, still pretty damned high...". i.e. I'm saying it's perfectly believable that anumber of people are legitimately interested in FO3, but do not wish to buy/play it. I'm getting a vibe from, say, you and hurlshot & others, that it's kinda ludicrous or pointless to watch videos and comment and have an opinion about something you're pretty sure you hate & won't play. And I'm saying wha? Yep, some people definitely are like this. It's just unfortunate that some idiots are willing to say all old FO fans or all FO3 detractors are like this, though. But some people are like this, by now. I think the history of the whole affair is too easily ignored. For anyone who's been there since even the Van Buren/BOS days, or even before that, it's ... well, it's quite hard not to get jaded, suspicious and a bit touchy. You might want to call some fans 'rabid', but that 'rabidity' didn't appear overnight, and it didn't appear without a reason. But a lot of people seem to act as if that is the case. And the pool is made even muddier by the fact that there ARE people just moshing around saying PLEASE DIE BETHESDA GRA GRA.

There's always a reason. Sometimes, it's not a very good/logical reason, or the reaction (i.e. hate) is overblown, but there is a reason behind why some people, by now (after years of incidents and arguments), now seem negative by predisposition. You don't have to 'understand them' or anything, but heh.