Lancer

It's ironic that the same people who belittle 2ndEd and 3e so much are the same people quick to point out that GURPS is unneedlessly complicated when it comes to combat and Shadowrun is horribly complicated all over (even 3rd edition). This whole debate I find is ridiculous because it depends so much on personal taste and particular campaign circumstances. In my case, I don't really care for absolute freedom in character creation for the setting I play in (Mystara) where such said class restrictions are vital to its feel. Maybe it would be more important in another game like a Fallout PnP, Shadowrun, or GURPS but for canon Mystara it makes much less sense. So to use arguments such as how unbalanced dual/multi-classed characters are in 2ndEd to criticize it just doesn't register in my particular case since such characters don't even exist in Mystara canon. This coupled with the fact that it has been so long ago I that I resolved what I didn't like about 2ndEd that it has come to a point where I really *like* my resultant system and prefer it to something like 3E. This is in sharp contrast to Jediphile, for instance, who never got 2ndEd working exactly the way he wants it and admits sticking to it (for now)only out of nostalgia. Of course there is nothing wrong with Jediphile or I,... Say what you will.. Perhaps he is much pickier than I am, or I am more purist when it comes to Mystara's feel, or whatever.. But the heart of the matter is that two people can view the same system in a completely different light because of their individual preferences and peeves. So, yes, my situation is not a typical one, Mystara was not even the typical (it was the only one made for OD&D) Dungeons and Dragons setting. To understand my argument you would have really had to start off with OD&D Mystara, play it for many years, and then and only then can you begin to understand. Since, total and utter customizability has never been absolutely vital to me and I realize that it is even detrimental to a setting like Mystara it makes no sense to have it there IMHO. Because it uses an older ruleset, Mystara was designed from its inception to be more restrictive than any of TSR's settings. And these restrictions have become as much a part of its feel as anything else in the setting. This is precisely why a "restrictive" class-based ruleset like AD&D or OD&D is *perfect* for it. So where a skill-based ruleset and complete customizability is important for other games, it doesn't work as well in my Mystara. I bet that Jediphile finds it especially difficult because he has probably always been torn between trying to maintain Mystara's feel and having all that customizability that he desires so much. This I guess is his main beef about 2ndEd.

Yes.. But then they wouldn't have been able to make us pay for 3 movies... or even 2. :darque:

WotC is more T$R than TSR ever was.

I'll say another weird comment.. I thought that Revolutions had more philosophy than Reloaded ever did (The original Matrix had more than either). As Enderwiggin implied, much of the "philosophy" in Reloaded was already beaten to death in the first movie. The ending in Revolutions alone opened up a lot of possibilities suitable for another sequel in the form of a PnP game . Out of the three, it was Reloaded that most felt like an empty action flick rather than something that had potential for philosophical reflection.

It sounds like some of you were expecting Dragonball Z for the final Neo-Smith fight. Lord knows why.

I thought the Neo-Smith scene was the best of the trilogy due to the major build-up -- Whereas the other fights didn't really have much at stake this one had A LOT-- the end of Zion, the end of the world, the end of the Matrix as we know it, revenge over the death of Trinity..etc. Ever since the end of the original movie, it represented the first time Smith was powerful enough to be able to stand toe-to-toe with Neo in battle. The fights previous were jokes that never gave the impression that Neo was under any danger of losing to Smith. Compared to the the final battle the previous ones evoked very little tension. I also thought it was clear just why the other Smiths were standing around. It can be inferred that the first Smith, the "original" Smith had a bone to pick with Neo (remember they are arch-enemies since the original movie) and wanted to settle this dispute mano a mano. Smith also displayed the cardinal sin of overconfidence just like every other villain that has ever been devised. I think throwing buildings at each other and tearing cities to shreds would have been completely over-the-top. Where would NEO have gotten these powers all of a sudden? The Chosen One is powerful, yes, but I never got the slightest hint in any of the prequels that he would be able to throw skyscrapers around and destroy cities with but the slighest gesture. It would have made sense with Smith since the movie does explain that he was getting more and more powerful (he can clone himself endlessly!) but it would have required some extra justification for NEO.

This sounds *exactly* what happened to me with Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn. After finishing BG1, I had many questions that I was expecting Shadows of Amn to address in regards to your being a Bhaalspawn and what it meant to be one. Alas, Shadows of Amn (to my disappointment) instead of concentrating itself on developing the PC's motives and backstory chose to sidetrack the trilogy and develop Irenicus almost exclusively. It wasn't until ToB that I finally got the answers to the questions I was seeking. As a result, I ended up somewhat disappointed with Shadows of Amn despite all its technical improvements over BG1. But as you can see such storyline expectations coming into a film (or game) can ruin it for you when the developers choose to build upon different aspects than what you had come in expecting. It is just best to go into a film (or game) open-minded because what you deem should be important in a sequel will not necessarily fall in line with a game developer's (film-maker's) master plan. Of course, this is much easier said than done.

Everyone raves about that car chase scence in "Reloaded," but I fail to see why *shrugs*. To me, it was easily one of the most uninspiring parts of the movie. It was *far* too long for a chase scene as it dragged on and on. At one point I wanted to scream-- "Ok! I get the point! Can we get on with the story already?!" It was total overkill.

What was weird was that when I saw the original Matrix movie although I thought it was decent it wasn't one of my favorites. Shortly, thereafter, when I got into Shadowrun PnP I really began to get into the cyberpunk theme. After getting succesfully indoctrinated into the cyberpunk genre I had gone to see the Matrix movie again and my enjoyment of the film increased considerably this time around. Then I ended up buying all three

That is kinda weird.. especially if you liked Shadowrun and all that cyberpunk stuff. But, yeah, I am weird too. I prefer 2ndEd over 3e *shrugs*

This doesn't seem all that surprising. There is nothing that disallows a planet from having multiple stars around it, it just wouldn't likely be habitable from our understanding of astronomy. However, if the planet was within the Roche limit of one of those stars, then you can say "goodbye planet."

I guess I am weird but I felt that "Revolutions" had a more cyberpunk Matrix feel to it that was a lot closer to the original movie. "Reloaded" just didn't have the cyberpunk feel of the other two movies. The plot didn't seem as interesting and it felt more akin to watching something between a Star Trek episode and an alien invasion movie.

HAHA!!! :darque:

I liked "Matrix Revolutions" a whole lot more than "Reloaded." I always felt that "Reloaded" was the black sheep of the trilogy.

When you say "Matrix" rules are you talking about an RPG based on that movie or just a generic cyberpunk setting with cyberspace elements? There have been quite a few of those (Cyberpunk, Cyberspace, Shadowrun..etc) . There's also an old GURPS Cyberpunk sourcebook which is hard as heck to find now...

Sorry, I don't get the inside joke about Darque . Could you care to explain? Does she dislike d20 as well or something?

Yep..yep.yep.. I had just found a copy of Jason N. Mical's game this morning (though through another site not Duck and Cover). And it uses SPECIAL!!! Time to check it out.

Deus Ex had a tight storyline.

True..But the game was meant to be played in first person. IMHO, it kinda defeats the purpose of a game that depends so much on immersion into the gameworld to switch to 3rd.

Yes. Which should tell us something about how "new and original" d20 really is " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 3e is very different. Wouldnt exactly call it original, but its very different to previous versions of D&D. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think Jediphile meant it to be sarcastically.. I hope <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You know me too well! *** Influence lost *** <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OH NO!!! Now, I can't get the rest of your backstory!

ohh.. that sucks. I am paranoid about things like that and burn everything I own... at least twice.

I am surprised about that too, though I think it is for the better. There are other P-A attempts like d20 Gamma World and Apocalypse, but thankfully, no d20 Fallout.

Yes. Which should tell us something about how "new and original" d20 really is " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 3e is very different. Wouldnt exactly call it original, but its very different to previous versions of D&D. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think Jediphile meant it to be sarcastically.. I hope

There are many other game systems that do a much better job of what 3E fails to do ..That is to be stream-lined as well as efficient and simple to learn. And they did it way before 3E was even on the blackboard.

SPECIAL has nothing to do with d20. Even comparing completely different RPG systems there will be *some* superficial similarities. Just because d20 and SPECIAL have one superficial similarity doesn't mean that one inspired the other. You can take any completely different rulesets on the market and they will have some things in common.