alanschu

If you're going to compare the rate of level up, then yes.

Damn, I forgot to include the shameless wallowing in self-pity.

Then why waste your time doing worthless stuff? And I already have gotten an argument from you, so there's another notch.

Levels are inherently abstract. Especially when your level is a very poor indicator of your power in Oblivion. The concept of levelling up may be similar, but it doesn't mean that a level 4 Oblivion character is in any way similar to a level 4 D&D character.

You're just doing your usual bid for attention. And trying to slam a company for the sake of slamming a company. You straight forward said that they should never have even mentioned horses, and called Obsidian liars. Nothing should be hyped, because if it gets removed, fans get pissed. If you don't like me digging up old posts, then stop posting stupid stuff in an attempt to make yourself feel special because people are actually talking with you. It's better to be noticed by being contradictory and a hypocrite than to be ignored right? Oh wait, here comes the "Oh, but I'm irrational and a hypocrite, as I have completely come to grips with" post that you'll have. But not until after you and I bicker some more, and other posters (and not surprisingly, often the female posters) start calling you on it as well. Then you can go and use the :darque: emoticon and say "Oh, I'm just my goofy irrational self " I dig up this **** because it makes you look like a twit, and makes your opinion worth less than Eddo's. It's also entertaining for the rest of us.

http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?sh...ndpost&p=558718

Bioware doesn't?

Then that's likely because you either didn't bother levelling up your primary stats, or you weren't bothering to level up either. But hey, it's great that you can beat Oblivion as a level 4 character too! You can't compare levels from different rulesets. You'd think a stickler for the rules like you would actually recognize that.

That's not what you were saying earlier. What was that about how they should never have even mentioned they were going to be in if they weren't going to be able to stick with it? I'm not sure why you trust Obsidian, as you outright called them liars.

Kumqautq did bring up an interesting point...which some seemed to have missed.

I thought the Core was hideous. I do like Hillary Swank though. I enjoyed this review of it. http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/core.html

So you'd rather we rephrase the archetype?

Besides, Hades himself admitted he'd rather a company say nothing than say something that might later be recalled. He totally blew up at Obsidian for removing mounts.

So?

Didn't you just say you were against the Chosen One archetype?

As much as Half-Life 2 did. The only unfortunate thing is that Half-Life 2 wasn't announced early.

What? Seems like the contradictory statement of the decade. Or are you referring to the different style of chosen one, rather than just the chosen one idea?

Then why do so many other AAA developers not have this problem? I wonder if we're being a bit too "pro-developer" at times. We have no idea what kind of mismanagement was done. Ion Storm shows that it is certainly possible.

Believe me, I know this. Money is very important. If I was to extrapolate Battlewookiee's beliefs though, he seems to think that it would have been cheaper not to cut the content, and to hire more QA to fix the bugs...or something. I had heard that they were sitting on it as well, but I'm surprised that Troika was unable to work on it anyways, since it was clearly not fully polished. And it's not like they had much else to work on either, as their Post-Apoc idea had no takers. I'm curious what Troika did in that time. It's possible many employees were let go for cost reasons, but if the employees are there and already getting paid, why not have them continue polishing the game for another few months? I was never shown that the idea they were sitting on it was anything more than speculation though.

I would assume so, as it's military spending within recent years.

I'm not heavily into all the Tom Clancy crap, but Delta Force was modelled on the SAS, and even they themselves recognise the SAS as being superior. I have no idea why you're comparing the SAS to the Navy Seals as they're an entirely different model, but if you're looking for a comparisson I suppose you could look at the SBS. Now those are some tough bastards. As for a link to stuff, try google or wikipedia. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My google and wikipedia findings have the US Army Rangers being trained by the SAS, way back in the day. Delta Force does pick recruits from the Rangers (and Green Berets). And why are the SEALs so different, aside from the fact that their purpose is more directed to missions at/from sea? You suggested I use Wiki for links, and they list the former SEAL Team 6, now called DEVGRU, as the Navy equivalent of Delta Force. I certainly haven't seen any Delta Force admission of the SAS being a superior fighting force. Perhaps you would have more luck if you looked, as you likely have a better idea what you are looking for.

Pick one.

Yes, plenty o' opportunity to

I was unaware there was an upper bound on Fallout's ruleset. I don't think it's fair to equalize them because they don't necessarily represent the same thing. But you required much less experience (and time) to do so.

WOuldn't finishing NWN at level 10-12 actually cut you out of pretty much every NPC sidequest in the game?