Pop

I assume by limits on free speech he means the Hate Crimes bill that's going through. It's all a part of the radical homosexual anarchist agenda.

I wonder how badly the quest system is going to be designed. My guess - pretty ****ing badly.

That would be a pretty bad idea on the part of the Republican Party. I'll have to go back and check but I believe the white evangelical vote for the Repubs was about 15% of the total American population. The organization / indoctrination capabilities of churches are the envy of every other interest group in America. It would be stupid not to use that. Why wouldn't you? There isn't really a sizable counter-movement to speak of - christian liberals tend to be the type to decide that politics is a dirty business and not under the purview of the church. It's a huge consituency that's unbendingly loyal (they're fighting the forces of Satan after all) and they vote as if the fate of humanity depended on it. The ties between the GOP and evangelical christendom go back at least as far as the Bolshevik Revolution. Communism was an atheistic movement and religious authorities felt threatened. And so they've been cozy with conservative politicians for that long, but as a social movement they've sprung up and died down every few decades. The Moral Majority and then the Christian Coalition made the last period of activity much more sustained. But they'll be back. America's religiosity is ingrained into its political culture. Mainstream conservatives won't stop claiming we're a Christian Nation anytime soon.

Toomey would not have gotten this far without support from the GOP. And you don't even have to use that example, you can look to Michael Steele and the difficulties he's faced as head of the RNC. He made noise about appealing to moderates and independents, and he was shut down pretty much single-handedly by Rush Limbaugh. Michelle Bachman's also pretty beloved as well, and she seems genuinely frightened of a Stalinist revolution that only the mentally challenged can see.

Not sure what you're getting at here. The point I was illustrating was that if activists not directly involved in electoral politics, like the Club For Growth or the anti-war movement, gain too much clout within their party they will invariably push through candidates that alienate independents and moderates. Happened with McGovern, happened with Dean, would've happened with Ron Paul if that fantasy ever came to fruition. And that is a problem that has to be addressed. I mean look at the seat that Arlen Specter holds - he was right to assert that 200,000 republicans had switched party affiliation last election. And PA has, last I checked, 1.1 million more registered Dems than Repubs. So think about this as though you were a Republican party strategist. You've got a huge disadvantage in constituencies in PA, who skew towards the left. You have two candidates running from your party. One is a dyed-in-the-wool party loyalist who plays to the activists in your party, of which there are few in the state, and one is a moderate, who might, say, be conservative economically but liberal socially (as Arlen Specter is) and thus would appeal to more voters on the left. Which one would you run, if the party put the decision in your hands? If you like you can take this scenario as a Democratic strategist in a southern state. The obvious choice is the moderate simply because he has a better chance of being elected and bolstering the party's presence in Congress. The problem with Specter was not that he was unpopular with voters, he was unpopular with party activists who would decide party primaries. He was fairly conservative on some issues but Toomey and company said he wasn't conservative enough. So the party pretty much decided that they'd rather have ideological purity in the party than a senator from PA. From the standpoint of political science it's difficult to see that as rational. Ironically Specter might end up in the same position with Dems come time for reelection, but the difference in that case would be the dems can conceivably keep his seat after ousting him. The Repubs don't have that luxury. The problem isn't that the GOP wants true believers in office, the problem is that they won't tolerate moderates even when they're beneficial to the party as a whole. The Club for Growth (what an ironic name!) are going after Olympia Snowe next. Their priority apparently is not governance. They're eating themselves. Oddly enough, libertarians might be better accommodated under this Democratic regime on many issues than they were under Bush. I know for a fact that Obama intends to defer to states on drug policy, for instance.

He's a moderate democrat but he's still on the left, and fairly left, if you believe that the GOP's shifting ever rightward distorts the spectrum, as I do. That you'd see that designation as a problem says more about the unfounded connotations of the term "left-wing" than it does about Obama's actual ideology.

Atari does!

Another Sega title that had a lot of internets buzz (more than AP, really) tanked. But bear in mind that the Wii has a reputation for being unfriendly to Mature-rated games. Madworld was the type of game I would play had I any interest in the Wii, and I think that says more about the causation of low sales than whatever that firm says.

Obsidz was happy because they had just signed a contract to make a Fallout game. But back up a bit, who is Scott Rouse? Is he an Atari person? And his statements in and of themselves don't really mean there's a game in development, even if that circumstance seems likely.

I think they could take the Dialogue Stance System (hope that makes it into future games, anyway) and really make a good therapy RPG. Maybe a licensed In Treatment game! Dazzling!

Why can't this is both a career move by Specter and an indicator of the GOP atmospheric conditions at the same time? Specter felt he had to cover his ass because the Club For Growth muscled him out. It's interesting to me, as someone currently studying the effect of interest group activity on party politics. Besides, what's interesting w/r/t the GOP has less to do with the Specter's defection and more to do with the party's reaction to that defection. I mean ideally you'd think they'd see Specter's defection as a problem, as they are now nominally less powerful than they were before, when they had little power. But it's interesting because they don't take it as a loss. They say he's always been a "leftist" and harping about how much better the party is without him and blah blah blah. They're circling their ideological wagons, tightening the Grand Ole Party sphincter. Point is, the Club For Growth's successful crowding out of Specter gives serious credence to the idea that the GOP is now locked in the iron grips of party activists. I mean you see this sort of **** all the time in the House (most of the hysterical party bigwigs - Gingrich, Pelosi, et al - were House cats), but the Senate (and the Presidency) are supposed to be politically tempering institutions - the increased electoral competition and the chummy atmosphere tilt candidates toward the middle away from the fringes. That party activists are able to depose moderates with ideologues in the Senate (not quite sure if Toomey can fly in PA, but the conventional wisdom says he can't) ought to be of some alarm to republicans, I think. Obama's got this moderate image about him and it works for him. I don't think the GOP can fight that with rabble-rousing. The "socialist" epithets have already started landing with thuds. If the rightward end of the party (and that's pretty far right) ends up being the GOP gatekeepers, and it looks like that's what's happening now, then at the very least you can bet on further backlash against the party from independents. Soon enough you guys will have your very own McGovern, crashing and burning on the national stage. Even Bobby Jindal was made a laughingstock. The idea that the GOP will die off is pretty ridiculous. They're certainly experiencing a low ebb at the moment, but Karl Rove was predicting a decades-long GOP reign after Kerry wheezed out. Why should we assume the same of Dems just because the Repubs couldn't get their **** together in two election cycles' time? All the repubs really need is another resurgence of evangelical conservatives, and there will be another. 2008 wasn't the first time people said the Christian Right died. Is the GOP's current weakness good? As a socialist in the strictest sense of the word I'd say yes, but that's me. Dems are (supposedly) in the clear to give whatever they like the good college try, as Franken seems likely to be seated at some point. There won't be any more goddamn abstinence education, thank God for that at least.

Food was a broken mechanic in F3, but ammo was just as plentiful in the first Fallouts as it was in F3. I understand that Van Buren was going to curtail this to an extent, but Fallout is not Mad Max. There haven't really been survival elements in any of the games and it would be consistent not to include them in F:NV. There are plenty of inconsistencies in the Fallouts already (how lights are on at night, for example.)

The employer-based health care we have in America is failing at an increasing rate. Whether or not single-payer health care is the solution, it's a solution, and there ought to be a solution implemented. Given the insurance industry's preoccupation with moral hazard a market-based solution is unlikely to work (that is, if you see the uninsured as a problem in the first place) On paper there's nothing stopping the Democrats, but we don't know yet how Arlen Specter will swing in his voting habits, and of course Joe Lieberman is going to continue to be a total pain in the ass.

Cool. $59 says "Halbech" is a thinly veiled Halliburton.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having a set backstory to a character if that set backstory serves the narrative. Most games do this, the only RPGs I can think of that don't are the Elder Scrolls games, really the only thing PCs have set about them is that they were in prison prior to the beginning of the game, but even then you don't know why and what's more the matter of your imprisonment is a non-issue to just about every NPC in the game. It didn't really matter, your character was a blank slate (though given the blandness of it all I wouldn't call the PC a Mary Sue) and I don't think it's a coincidence that those games are lacking in narrative and characterization. Really the biggest things you can do to make a player feel connected to his/her character are giving him control over the way the PC develops his skills over time (developing personality is a bit harder) and to a lesser extent, giving control over appearance. The minds behind Obsidz have shown a willingness to forgo the latter and it's worked out pretty well for them I think. But F:NV will certainly have at least the level of control that F3 had.

I'd also like it if they freed up the color palette just a bit. Go from grey to brown, at least. We'll be getting a lot of yellow with the desert and all.

I'm actually hoping that the PC isn't a vault-dweller. Tibbets in Van Buren was a good method of giving players some minor vault-level tech at the beginning of the game, plus it was an excellent story hook. Starting off with a mystery is nice, if it's not old-hat RPG tropes (your father is missing and you must find him, etc.) I have the feeling that Obsidz is going to try something new.

That wouldn't be his call, that's Bethsoft's. Last I recall SIMPLE wasn't a commercial asset and thus wasn't really claimed by Bethsoft, but they could considering the direct ties to their property. The chances of us seeing it in a game are about as high as Obsidian getting to take a crack at a Fallout game.

heh

Hines hasn't given any indication that Obsidz is being held back, but then, why would he if that were the case? Regardless, Obsidz is going to do the best they can with what they're allowed to do. I've realized that all of my worries w/r/t F:NV have to do with how closely it resembles F3. It's basically the same anxiety I had pre-F3, but in reverse. I don't want this game to be terribly similar to F3, and I should note that I don't mean that in a pejorative way towards F3, which I thought was pretty damn good. What I mean is, I'm worried that F3 will become the new standard for Fallout. In some ways that's unavoidable, but all the same, I'd like to see more emphasis on NPCs (I have no doubt this will happen) and party NPCs (not so sure about this). Companions were only slightly less useful in F3 than they were in F1, and far less useful than they were in F2. Up until this point Obsidz' most natural medium for building organic, impressive characters has been the party system. They're just breaking out of this with AP, but I still worry, because of the threadbare attention paid to characters in F3. I like learning the stories and the thoughts of NPCs. If they exist solely as sources of info or quests it's difficult to relay that information gradually, like you would be able to if you had the character around for a majority of your playtime.

It's unfortunate those people had to lose their jobs. On the bright side, less people will play this awful, awful game.

Well yeah you can obviously carry around bigger guns, you just can't get away with toting them around everywhere and being inconspicuous.

hmmm Mystery solved!

I suppose they could get a Name if Bethsoft is willing to shell for one, but I'd expect seasoned character / voice / nerd legacy actors, if anything. Oblivion and Fallout 2 both had TNG actors in them, President Richardson (was that his name?) was voiced by Jeffrey Jones, the principal in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Malcolm McDowell was well used in F3. I don't remember any of Obsidz' other games having any real Names in them, just pro VAs. This is the case with AP. I'd expect that into the future.

6/1/10? That seems suspect.