alanschu

I will take it under advisement though.

I am making one for NWN2. What would be my motivation to make one for NWN right now?

They are action packed Jedi games. Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast is probably my favourite, especially in terms of story. Jedi Academy probably had the best combat though. Plus you could have a double bladed saber or two sabers if you wanted. The original (well...Dark Forces 2) is a ton of fun too, but you'd probably find it pretty dated by now.

Getting into the top 3 would still be exceptionally difficult. I know that being a finalist doesn't guarantee employment, though I suspect this was not aimed at me.

There are plenty of people that love JK the way it is.

Except I was never able to aim for the head of a prone target. At least not with the obvious "head, leg, torso" options available. I know with full auto you can still aim for the head even if it doesn't say it, by pointing at the head. Does it work the same with with prone people?

Soldier of Fortune may have been "gory" but it was so over the top that I didn't find it disturbing.

Ah, but if they don't put it in a way for a player to be a Jedi from the start, you have no problems playing the game where you're eventually forced to be a Jedi?

Hahaha. Sorry D_R, I had to reply to that :">

I agree with Aurora. One of the main reasons why I didn't enter was because I felt I didn't have enough noteriety in the NWN community to garner the "popular vote." How many of these people have friends that vote 10 for them, and 1 for everyone else?

Why the leg shot? I never really saw the purpose. It was nice if they fell down, but it seemed quite rare. I suspected they would limit APs, but I could never verify. I'd usually use the torso shot to get a confirmed hit with less AP, and then use the fact I'm aiming my gun to go for the head.

" To nitpick a "Fixed" quote is just being bitter. And reflective of not having anything else to really say. It probably stems more from the fact that you like to regurgitate said opinion of the game, even though we're beyond caring. If you didn't feel compelled to make yourself noticed by posting something like you did, you wouldn't have had to endure LoneWolf's post.

I hope so. I'd like to think I didn't completely forget about a game feature :D

My roommate, while still acknowledging that Hasek IS a good goalie, felt a bit of his accoldaes and achievements came from playing an an excellent defensive team.

Yeah, because you know sooo much more than everyone else.. Stop the BS, it's embarrassing. Either that or explain whatever it is that you know that's so much more enlightened than the rest of us. Google agreed to this censorship in the last few months. Whatever nonsense you refer to, it's old news. Get with the times. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Given the context of taks' full post, I find his comment re: Hades to be rather appropriate.

I think people don't give those Montreal teams or Buffalo teams enough credit.

THere was something exceptionally annoying about it. But honestly, once he was done talking we always clicked again.

I liked WIzardry 8...and Eye of the Beholder (except the eating...I always ended up starving).

Well, just occasionally, really. Haha, guess who's having a 4-player civ4 session without you right now <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Noooo, I'm still at work!!

Well, do you remember any type of full auto mode? This full auto can be total overkill, emptying out an entire clip in a single point if you spend enough action points.

If Jaden is evil, then that's a given

It's perfectly possible and reasonable to run games where all mechanics are done by the GM, it's just an awful lot of work for the GM. There have even been games, where the players had no stats at all - they didn't know their AC, hit points, to-hit values, saves, or anything else. They were just told, "you wear heavy armor" and "you have taken some damage but still feel healthy". In such a game the GM rolls all the dice and handles all mechanics and the players only say what they want to do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Some would probably argue that you're not playing AD&D then. I doubt that this is anything but an insignificant portion of AD&D players.

I think this is beyond the scope of what our discussion was (and more to do with what Sawyer is talking about with respect to PnP games not being overall very intuitive). If you explain to someone what AC represents, I'd bet all of my money that a vast majority of them would initially assume that they would want a higher AC value. I'd suspect you could accidentally forget to explain that a higher value is better with 3rd edition and have little to no confusion more consistently then you could by omitting that detail with AD&D.

Hmmm....do you know what...probably. I had very briefly played FF2 (4) on a friend's Super Nintendo, but not too in depth. I doubt I knew what "RPG" meant at the time. I remember immediately falling in love with the world of U6, even though I didn't really know how to play the game. When Ultima VII came out, I asked my Dad for a PC to play it on (until then, my "PC" gaming was all Apple...Apple II and the Mac). 386/SX 16 MHz for the win! (though it was slow for U7). I have undying respect for the Ultimas. But even the Ultimas had ACs that got better the higher they were. So, Is it that surprising after getting used to Ultima and then later playing the Gold Box games, that you would find AD&D AC progression to be unintuitive? I see what you're saying. But when I played U6, I was not a number cruncher. I likely put on plate mail simply because it made sense to me that plate mail would protect me better. I honestly couldn't remember a score for Armor value (or any value), or where I could find it. I don't think Ultima VII has a value for Armor explicitly available either. I did play Eye of the Beholder 1 around the same time as well (I do know this, because I played both of them in a spare room in my Dad's office, which he only had for a single summer. I could have played Eye of the Beholder first. Though I doubt I number crunched that game either.....the first time I really remember an "AC" value was when I was playing around with FRUA. And I remember tweaking the crap out of it to increase it. The big thing about it, and this was probably compounded since I was alone playing with the editor, was my surprise and confusion when I put on a piece of platemail and my AC dropped drastically. I figured it meant my character was probably easier to hit because he'd be slower, but that there was some sort of damage absorption or something (ironically I thought that this was pretty cool at the time, even though it was a complete misunderstanding of how AC worked in AD&D). The same way you would explain that and AC -2 is better than an AC of 4 for 2ndEd. Once you let them know that the smaller the AC is, the better their armor class, they get that too. But, you have to explain that a smaller AC is a better AC. And in my own experience, I've had more "What?" statements after saying that, compared to when saying higher AC = better. In both cases, which result would you expect if you forgot to say which is better, and just mentioned you can have things with AC 8 and AC 4. That is all that really matters. As long as its easy to use. Whether or not people will think 3e AC is more intuitive at first glance than 2ndEd AC is really not relevant in the long run.. You still have to learn all the game mechanics and no matter what, that will take a lot of effort regardless of system.l I think it is relevant long term. If people have less confusion over something when they first encounter it, they'll find it less frustrating. Well, there's absolute and relative comparisons. I've tried to make sure I was always talking relatively.

Volourn, you of all people know that I don't talk in absolutes. It's always possible to find exceptions. Naturally, if you don't even have any combat, you can play without THAC0. But if you have combat, you have to deal with it somehow. I could just as easily state that AoO is not relevant either, since someone could play and never fight. Poor example.