Spider

Stealth was easily the best part of Oblivion. It was really fun sneaking around in the shadows, and the lock picking mini game was decent enough (and character skill did have an impact on success rate, by the way). So yes, JE, some of use have enjoyed playing a thief in RPGs. Of course, I haven't posted and complained about mini-games and such either. And I think that as long as they're done well, they can enhance a game. Being better than Oblivion dialogue is a good start. Re limited scaling: I don't know which article talked about levelling enemies the first time you entered an area, but one I read said there would be some areas that if you entered them too early you would be mashed into a pulp. They also said that a specific enemy wouldn't magically get stronger. Ie all mutants would be at a similar power, except that mutants in the later game may have vastly better equipment and thus be a stronger foe due to that. but the creatures themselves would differ little. Re the suggested dialogue system: How is knowing the percentages in dialogue any different than knowing them in combat? To me both ruing immersion equally much (which is not very). If I have the right to know my chances at success in one endeavor, shouldn't I be given the same information in all of them?

and i've already posted on part of the reason why this is. we're funding world's research costs and general profit. the companies that provide health care make little, if any, profit on the socialized world outside of the US (in fact, they lose money). US citizens then have to bear the cost of making these companies profitable. in other words, the "cost" in other countries is not the true cost of what is provided. granted, not all of health care/drugs/etc. is created in the US, but we are the only system even close to a free market in this regard. Do you have any numbers to back this up? Because I know there is a lot of drug research being done in Sweden as well. Nowhere near as much as there is in the US, but given that you have 300 million citizens and we have 9, I am not sure how much the ratio differ. based on what, the WHO assessment? Sorry, I linked to my source in my first post. Here it is again: http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2005/04/heal...part-i-how.html It's a series of blog posts that sums up OECD Health Data from 2004. It's possible things have changed a little since those posts were made in 2005, but I don't think so. There aren't fewer doctors, there just aren't more. But those are the statistics used worldwide to measure the quality of healthcare in any given country. A few years difference in life expectancy is a big deal in these regards, but that specific statistic wasn't the worst one for the US. It even beat some countries it compared to on those charts (but it was still low). The children's mortality rate is to me the most alarming one. A 6.8% mortality rate among infants is considerably higher than the closest country in the comparison, which is the UK at 5.5%. And it's twice as much as in countries like Japan (3.1%), Spain (3.5%) and Sweden (3.7%). I am not so sure. New drugs coming out of the US are very expensive due to the profit searching nature of the companies that produced them. The high price of medication is one of the biggest problems when it comes to the aids epidemic in Africa and it's why those countries are ignoring international treaties and made copies themselves. They simply couldn't afford the price the corporations were asking. I think in a recent WTO (a year or so back) this was recognized as a big problem and those countries are now allowed to ignore patents to a degree. Yes, it is good that the research is being done, but when the people who need the medication the most simply just can't afford it, something is clearly wrong. But maybe you're right, maybe socializing the US health care system would increases costs for health care across the globe. But wouldn't that be a good thing for the US? Then again, I am not advocating a socialized system in the US. I am just recognizing that there is currently a problem and that the current system is heavily flawed. The best suggestion I've seen in this thread is to leave it to each state how they want to do with their health care. Because having your federal government control it would lead to a lot of red tape. A more decentralized approach would probably lead to better results (regardless of what system was implemented).

Through your teeth even. As I posted earlier, the cost for US healthcare is about 50% higher than most other western countries (On a % of GDP basis). Not only that, it is also currently worse than most other western countries. There are no more doctors per citizen (although there are more hospital beds), the childrens mortality rate is higher than in other western countries and life expectancy is lower. (all statistics commonly used in economics to measure life quality in a given country, among other factors) This is not to slant the private system, but as it currently works something is clearly wrong. I suppose it's the hybride thing. Either have it fully private or fully government sponsored. But, from what I understand of taks posts, the current mix is clearly not optimal and quite far from it even. I personally don't like the idea of a fully private healthcare system, but since I don't live in the US I don't really care if they go that route as long as Sweden doesn't.

On a per-citizen basis, we pay about half of what taks does for our healthcare (somewhere between $60-70 per month if broken down that way). This does not include dental though. I've also read somewhere that the cost for healthcare in the US is considerably higher than the rest of the western world. On average the US citizen pays twice as much for healthcare compared to other countries. (that count is in actual dollars, in percent of GDP it's only about 50% more) Source: http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2005/04/heal...part-i-how.html (that in turn credits other, more reliable, sources but I'm too lazy to verify)

My friend who recently built his own system (I asked a lot of questions on these forums to help him) did a lot of research on motherboards and ended up with Gigabyte P35-DS4. As future proof as you're going to get since the circuits are new. Not that much more expensive than the generation before it either, so it seems like a good deal to me. I'll be getting one of those myself soon. There are similar Asus cards if you prefer, but my friend found out that they were a bit trickier during instal in regards to memory. Not exactly sure what it was, but it involved a lot of rebooting. Once they're up and running they should be more or less equals though. In regards to graphics, I'd go with the 320mb version, but I have less money and a smaller monitor, so I'm sure your choice is good. Have you considered going all the way and shell out for a GTX? That should be doable without skimping on anything else and still land under $2000, provided you already have the monitor. On a performance/price basis it's probably not worth it, but could still be interesting. When it comes to processors, with your budget the e6600 is clearly the way to go. Best bang for the buck by miles. The cheapskate option is to get either a e4320 or e6320 and clock the hell out of them. But I'd go with the e6600 (and clock the hell out of that). I'd also recomend the Noctua NH-U12F 120mm for CPU cooling. Efficient and quiet. I'll be getting one of those myself soon. It's bloody huge though, so if you consider it, make sure it fits on the motherboard and in the case. (it does fit on the board I mentioned)

On the other hand Stalker was delayed for about 20 years and that turned out to be an excellent game.

Yeah, they just may use a different definition of roleplaying you do. And still, the phrase roleplaying game comes from D&D and that makes how the game looked relevant when we're discussing the origin of the terminology. But we're starting to discuss semantics on a level that is starting to get slightly absurd here, so this will be my final post on that specific issue. Feel free to add your final thoughts though.

Why can't we? We can. But the question is whether there is any point? Genre classifications of computer games is still a means of consumer information. So in order to affect change, it's what the consumers expect from a term that needs to be changed. A group of people defining criteria won't change anything unless the casual gamer can relate to what they're deciding. I don't see why it would be. Then this is where we differ in opinion. I just think that changing the definition of a term that has been cemented through years and years of usage is going to be difficult. If changing it is at all desireable. If we're taking the scientific approach, it makes more sense to me to analyze what currently goes into the current common definition of the word and build criteria around that. Arbitrarily deciding what should and shouldn't be a RPG serves no real purpose to me. I thought it was widely known that D&D is considered to be the first roleplaying game. It gave birth to the entire genre, but when it did it wasn't about acting, just monster bashing. So when the term roleplaying was coined, all there was was dungeon crawling. Hence, the origin of the term RPG has very little to do with dramatic acting and everything to do with number crunching and kicking in heads.

I'm just saying it's better to pick battles where you have a chance of winning. Classification in this case is a consumer guide and as such it needs to aim to the lowest common denominator. If we're elevating the discussion to a scientific level that may very well change. But changing the casual player's definition (and it's the casual player that is mostly helped by it) will be an almost insurmountable task. There's also the whole process of agreeing on who should actually do the classification. Which also begs the question who am I to decide what is a RPG or not. I know what makes one for me, but I know that I am in no way representative of the majority. (although I suppose the casual gamer's view on things could be changed if somehow you'd get the major gaming companies and a majority of the gaming press to agree on the same system, although I fail to say why they would want to narrow down the RPG category, since there is a good chance that would have an adversary effect on sales)

No, you're spot on with your original line. At least according to what Gary Gygax have said in interviews. Actually, when I read stuff Gygax is saying, I'm kinda wondering if he ever made the change from monster-bashing. I have a book by him called Role-Playing Mastery (I bought it at a sale just for kicks) and it's more or less all about optimizing your character, then optimizing your party. It's been a while since I looked at it, but there may also be advice on how to not make the rest of the party pissed at you, (because then maybe they won't help you in a fight) but I think that was more in regards to the players, not the player characters. It's packed away at the moment so I can't look it up I'm afraid. It's a fun read none the less. In regards to the BIS/Bioware style? Sure, it works for me. (I'll get to critera in a sec) I wasn't trying to make criteria. I was simply saying how I think it currently works and how I'd do to make it better. It's not that I desperately want to have a genre that includes Diablo, Final Fantasy and Fallout, but I think it's too late to change that. If I were to try and make a criteria for the broad category, I suppose that I'd say tha a RPG is a game where character development plays a significant part in the game (although I'm not too experienced with the jRPGs so tis could be blurring the lines in regards to those). This would include action rpgs, but exclude games where rpg elements are just tacked on for good measure (like GTA). The gray area would be games like Silent Storm and Jagged Alliance, but there will always be games that are cross-genre. (and yes, I am aware that significant is very subjective and not really fit for a criteria) But what I'd most like to see is still the coinage of two new sub genres. Adventure RPGs (for the BIS/Bioware style) and Exploration RPGs for the Gothic/Oblivion style. Making criteria for those would be far simpler since it doesn't need to account for quite as many different styles. (sidenote: on a personal level I would prefer not to call games like Diablo RPGs. Hell, I'd even hesitate to call Oblivion one if I could make up the definition. But I can't. That fight was lost years and years ago. No matter what I think those games will be called RPGs and that's pretty much that. No slight to either game intended, both are great fun if you enjoy their types of games)

First, I am not saying RPGS are about bashing monsters. I said that's what it started out as. This in response to you talking about the origin of the world role. And I disagree that RPGs started out as a way to "get people together and act out fantasy characters". The acting out part came later. First there was Chainmail, a fairly standard miniature wargame. Then fantasy-rules were added to the existing setting (which was strictly medieval). Then the players of that game (Gygax et al) discovered that it was just as fun to fight battles with only the generals, the characters. So they started doing that. To make these games more entertaining they started to come up with reasons why the generals were fighting monsters and thus the dungeons. At this point there was still no more roleplaying involved than there is in Diablo. But this is when D&D was released to the masses. Acting came later. This is not to say that p&p roleplaying hasn't evolved, I am well aware that it has. I'm currently playing an exalted campaign where up until a few events yesterday, neither me or the other player could fight worth a damn. Or at all in my case. And while there has been violence around us, we haven't participated ourselves (only felt helpless). So I freely admit that there are many ways to enjoy a roleplaying game, but I never claimed otherwise. I did say that there are still people who play RPGs solely for the monsterbashing though. Now with that out of the way, in regards to RPGs I never claimed that monster bashing should be used as the definition of RPGs. I was merely pointing out where I disagree with where you consider the term roleplaying to originate from, at least in this context. I have argued that the term RPG (in regards to computer games) is very broad. As it is currently being used it includes games like Diablo, Oblivion and Fallout. Games that are very different in how they play. What I don't want to do is the create sub-genres for some of the different styles and then have the rest make up the broader definition. I think the term RPG should include all styles and then to make clearer definitions more sub-genres should be coined. We already have the terms action rpg and jrpg, and I think there should be similar sub-genres for the Bethesda and Gothic style as well as the BIS/Bioware style. Every other genre does this, so why shouldn't RPGs?

Can't you level him up in different ways, thus having access to different abilities? I know this is not your point, but it still creates a difference due to player input. Just not in the social part. Anyway, your argument is all fine and while I agree that those are things I like to see in role playing games, it's not exactly something that is required. If we're going to look at the origin of the terminology, we should look at where the term RPG comes from. And it has very little to do with acting and everything to do with monster bashing. In a way, Diablo is much more true to the origins of roleplaying than is Torment. It started with miniature wargames just taken down to a smaller scale. Instead of armies there were only a handful of characters, but it was still all about fighting monsters. Hell, many players still play D&D like this. Just as roleplaying in real life incorporates myriads of playing styles, so does it in computer gaming. Whether we like it or not, Diablo and Final Fantasy are both classified as roleplaying games. So it's better to create a new name for the subgenre that contains the BIS/Bioware style of roleplaying.

Fallout 3 will hardly feature infinite inventory. With all the importance they are placing on the wasteland feel (irradiated water, degradable equipment for example) they're hardly going to remove the enumberance system that was present in both the original Fallouts and in Oblivion. I agree with your point in general, just don't think it applies here. Unless you know something I don't?

It's easily not my favorite part either. But until we actually know what it is and how it works, I just don't see any cause for alarm yet. And even if it is incredibly stupid, it'll hardly break the game if it's the one thing that is.

Thank you for being the voice of reason when I was too lazy myself. I'd also like to point (to all those sounding the alarm over it) out that a nuclear catapult (it's not a nuclear cannon, the screenshot makes it look vastly different to a cannon) doesn't have to be anything that launches mini nukes. It could be that it's powered by nuclear energy or that the material it catapults is nuclear in it's nature. Or the dirty bomb thing someone else suggested. Regardless of which, it's hardly less probable (and certainly fits better into the retro 50-ish feel) than bloody gauss weaponry, especially gauss weaponry that can be held in one hand.

However, just because the classification is overused it doesn't mean that classification by itself is a bad thing. Genre classification is a tool that is useful to the consumer. If I say I'm a fan of First-person shooters, people tend to know what I mean (maybe not my mom, but people with a general interest in computer gaming anyway). So I'll know that a game classified as a shooter has a good chance to have elements in it I enjoy. This is not, of course, to say that every shooter plays the same. They don't. So the problem isn't that RPG is a bad classification for computer games, the problem is that it is too broad. Much like describing a a game like an action game, using RPG really tells us very little of the actual gameplay. In the case of the action game, we know that action will be a huge part of it, but action is part of any shooter, any platformer and arguably even of most RTS (maybe not, but you get the point). Same with RPG. The genre tells us very little of the content of the game, because it's much too broad. But if the screwdriver is too big, find a smaller one. And this is where sub-categories come in. Just realize that RPG is a broad spectrum genre (like action game) and use terms like jRPG or action RPG to describe those game specifically. That helps, but there needs to be more sub genres. Specifically I think there needs to be a differentiation between the type of RPGs Obsidian and Bioware make compared to games like Oblivion, Gothic and Two Worlds (the latter by the way is a cheap knock off of Gothic, with some really questionable design and horrible writing. Pretty graphics though and a better engine than Gothic 3).

I think the guy quoted just wrote it badly. I would suspect the system is somewhat akin to the continous turn based system in FO:T. Ie AP recharge and once you have enough for an action you can execute it, you don't have to wait until it's completely recharged. All in all, it sounds fairly good. The first person viewpoint and real time combat was to be expected (although I suppose the pause is a nice addition for those who want it). The rest is pretty good news. I especially like that most XP will come from quests. Of course, the main question is still whether or not Bethesda can deliver when it comes to the writing.

95% of all RPGs (if we're talking single player here) are linear. So they go very well together.

Actually I'm not sure standard fighters and priests will cut it in regards to some of those mods. Or they probably will, since the mods can be played with only companions and a main character, but they are more designed for extremly powergamed parties. At least if you want to avoid constant reloading. And with extremely powergamed I mean characters with fairly min maxed stats and who abuses the different aspects of dual and multiclassing to the fullest. Especially dualclassing. For instance, I have a BG2 game going on my laptop that I play every now and then. That party consists of one Berserker that dualed to Druid at level 9, two Kensais that will dual to mage and rogue respectively at level 12, and a sorcerer. They will pick up a decent cleric and one other character I haven't decided upon yet. Tactics and Ascension will still be challenging, but fun as well. Taking the same party through vanilla BG2 would be so easy that it'd almost be pointless. I wouldn't play BG2 without Tactics, but to each their own. I think that's Tactics. Although I think both mods modify that fight so it could be Battles as well. My personal unbeatable fight in Tactics is improved Faldorn in the Druid Cove. She is extremely powerful and no character I have can beat her one on one without gear. Hell, I'm not even sure they'd be able to beat her with gear.

I don't think Oerwinde is the best judge to go by though. I am nowhere near those numbers with FF and I am very fond of tabs as well. For me FF typically uses 70-150, depending on how many pages and how long it's been open. It's extremely rare that I go over 200k. The customization of FF makes it my favorite browser by far. No one else is even close really.

Actually, the big three in regards to Fallout 1 is Cain, Boyarski and Chris Taylor (ie lead programmer, art director and lead designer). Maybe Chris Jones as well, since he is co-lead programmer with Cain, although not credit with original game design, so probably not. Cain and Boyarski always seem to be getting the main credit for the game, but Chris Taylor was the frakking lead designer and is typically forgotten. (this is only from the game credits, I have no insight to the actual design process)

I mean mainly the original developers! You do realize that of all the people that worked on Fallout, not very many are working at Obsidian. As far as I know, the only one who is is Feargus. Among those not working at Obsidian are the lead designer, lead programmer and lead artist.

No, I didn't know that. But I knew badasses in Power Armor existed before starting the game, which did spoil the surprise a little. I'm thinking this will be the opening movie of FO3. With more Ron Perlman text to follow of course (that jump starts the plot to a degree).

As far as opening movies go, I actually think it was better than FO2s. That whole revealing the big enemy of the game in the intro kinda ruined it for me. Although I can (somewhat) agree with the criticism that this one borrowed maybe too much from the original one, I don't see that as a problem really. It serves FO3 well to establish the new setting through familiar means.

As far as I'm concerned they nailed the intoro movie at least. So I think it shows they at least have a clue at what they're doing here. Obviously nothing of relevance was revealed, other than that the estimated release date is Fall 2008. But it did get me a little excited. Damn it, I don't want to be excited about this game. I want to be indifferent. But so far Bethesda has done a lot of good things and none really bad. Then again, the more important stuff is yet to be revealed (game play, rules set etc) so it could still go either way. None the less, that teaser left me wanting more, which I suspect is damn good grades for a teaser.