Spider

And the fourth and fifth installments are so bad that even acknowledging their existence is a painful experience and punishable by death in some countries. "There can be only one" indeed.

I suppose it depends on how much hair you have. It was never an issue for me and I wore them for many hours at times (long travels).

If you haven't played the game at all then armor degradation will probably not bug you as much as it did me. I've always said that if it was implemented from the start I may have felt differently about it (although still not positive since I dislike the concept in general). I didn't think it was worth changing until the latest patch was released (since the first one invalidated savegames), but the latest patch fixed one of the most annoying things with the original release - the lack of five-button mouse support - so with that it's definitely worth patching. Armor degradation be damned. (edit: and while I do think that it's a bigger issue than Tale seems to do, I must add that for the record I haven't modded it away or anything)

Maybe. I think it has more to do with it's post apocalyptic roots (things break) and an attempt to create a valid barter system (which still kinda fails).

I got the impression they were talking about new games in the same setting. But I suppose an expansion is more likely.

Re: New Reno I'm one of those that thinks it's kinda out of place. The area is fantastic for roleplaying, but it takes the whole gangster thing too far. There are too many prostitutes, too much drugs. Simply a little too much. Stylistically they look like fifties gangsters, but I don't feel like the behaviour fits. It's still a great area for roleplaying, it isn't that. It's just a bit too over the top. Anyway, isn't the main complaint in regards to New Reno (other than that it feels somewhat out of plays) that it's one of the theme towns? FO2 made each of the major town very different and polarized and that is something I've heard numerous complaints about. Re: Fitting it all in Maybe we'll travel through a world map rather than running everywhere?

If you want something smallet you could always try Koss. I've used these: http://www.koss.com/koss/kossweb.nsf/p?ope...;pc^pt^PORTAPRO Don't let their relatively small size fool you, they are blood fantastic. Definitely the best headphones I've ever owned and the sound quality is better than anything the same size and most a size or two larger.

And I'm just saying that if realism is the reason it's included and realism isn't achieved it's a faulty implementation. Also note that I don't disagree with the weapons degrading. That does another tactical element to the game, although somewhat miniscule. Armors degrading I still think was uncalled for and for me it adds nothing but tedium really. On the other hand it's given me plenty of enjoyment out of discussing how crappy it is on a message board, so it can't be all bad.

It doesn't. And the way weapons and armor break down is in no way realistic. Nor is the amount of hits you can take before going down. Or the amount of enemies you routinely beat open combat. So trying to argue for armor and weapon degradation by playing the "realism" card just doesn't fly with me. I do agree that the comparison to Oblivion is a tad flawed though, as in the two systems aren't really that much alike mechanically. But the net effect stays the same. Both system adds tedium to the game. And while the armor adds a degree of difficulty, I'm not sure I think the weapons do. It's easy enough to just loot "healthier" versions of good enough weaponry from the opposition. At least with armors, you've got to run back to a trader/stash to get a replacement (which means fewer replacements). In the end, I think there are better ways to both increase game difficulty and make the barter system actually mean something. And there are definitely better ways of making the game more realistic. Provided those are the goals with the degradation system. But for those who do like, I'm happy for you. I don't need every game to be catered to my tastes specifically and I do still think Stalker is an excellent game. Won't make my top 5 list as it did for Crashgirl, hell I don't even think it'll make my list of top 5 shooters, although it is kinda borderline.

Unless there are firearms that are vastly better than other ranged weapons, I doubt it. You will probably be able to kill some opponents in one turn though. And well, if you run into weaker opponents you can one shot of course. But not the ones that actually matter.

You get two points every fifth level. Arcanums system was incredibly frustrating at first, but once I got used to it I kinda liked it. You get enough points through the game to be able to diversify, it just takes a while. All in all, you'll have 64 points to spend throughout the game (it goes to level 50 right? or is it 40?) so it kinda works out. It's just that ranged weapons suck in that game. (edit: except thrown weapons. there is a throwing weapon with good damage and attack speed that returns to your hand, that one is really good. but that's because it behaves more like a melee weapon that has the option of attacking at range.)

I also prefer to play with the limits set by the designers. I haven't modded away the wear and tear yet. And it's still only the armor that's really irking me. I was fine with the weapon degradation and the limited inventory. As you say, weapons wearing down adds another tactical dimension to the game. You have to think whether or not you need to use your power weapon in every situation. But the armor doesn't do that. You can't exactly run around with different armors. So the armor wearing down just adds tedium, not tactics. Again, had it been implemented from the start, I probably would have minded it a lot less.

Yeah, but there is a huge difference in how it works in games like FEAR or Quake, compared to Stalker. Armor, in the first two games, works the same way health does and can be boosted in the same way. In Stalker, different armor is different gear that you actually quest to find. That's what makes it annoying in this game, while not so much in FEAR. You like how it's done in Stalker. I don't. It really is as simple as that. It's still a good enough game. (ironically, had the game had degradable armor from the beginning, I probably would have learned to live with it much faster. It's just having it imposed on you after having played without it that makes it so annoying) Edit: I also agree with hat Kaftan said. Either it impacts the game in such a way that you're careful with using your best weapons (because they may break when you really need them) or it only adds tedium and doesn't really have any lasting effect at all. If it's the latter, then I just think it's a pointless addition.

Good for you. But as you mention, you're a fan of the design. So our opinions clearly differ. End game it may not be a problem, but for me it definitely is in the mid game. I've never gotten past the Yaktar research institute, so how the game looks after that I don't know. Currently I haven't even gotten that far, I'm on my way to Dark Valley now. I just find that my armor is breaking apart too fast. Or to put it simpler, the game is simply much less fun this time through. Example: I just don't feel like being forced to replace my armor that frequently. Maybe I'll get used to it or maybe I'll give up and install a mod to get rid of the degradation. But I'm clearly liking the game a lot less now.

I got to say, the dev comments are somewhat reassuring. Of course it doesn't mean anything, but hearing the lead producer talk about his low of the original games at least gives a glimmer of hope. Or the artist that mentioned (among other things) 50s pictures as inspiration for her work in Fallout 3. It may not mean anything in the end of course, but at least we know there are fans of the originals working on the new one (nad in a position of power).

Having played a bit with the patched game, I got to say the degradable armor is really irking me. The weapons I wasn't happy about, but I could live with. Not because they were available to buy, but because you could always just loot new ones from your enemies. Armors are not nearly as common. Not only that, I find that the armor wears out much quicker than weapons. Or at least it becomes noticable sooner. It's probably because I have hard numbers for armor, while with the weapons there is only the feel. It's fine with the low level armor. Merc suits et al. Hell, maybe even Stalker suits, but with them costing 60.000 it does force you to try and make money to a degree you didn't before the patch. I am not particularly fond of the thought, since I feel it'll make the game more of a grind. But if I find the unique armor in the Wild Territories (I think) again and have it wear down as normal armors do, I'll feel really cheated. I just don't like the idea of one of the nicer rewards for exploring just being temporary, nor do I like my characters gear to degress (ie being forced to switch to inferior gear compared to what I just had). It's like losing experience points in a rpg. It just feels wrong. I've never been a fan of durability in any system. If I find cool stuff, I don't want the damn things to break. Realism be damned (besides, the rate at which things break down in Stalker is hardly realistic). If things can be repaired, maybe. But that sort of defeats the point of having it there in the first place, so I'd rather just not have it at all. (also, in Stalker, the encumbrance limit is much to low. I find that with ammo and such I really don't have enough room for much to haul back and sell, which makes the whole bartering thing even more of a chore)

I'm still amazed at Lare calling BG and BG 2 unplayable at release. Or even after the last official patch. If that's the definition, NWN2 certainly is unplayable...

Most importantly, the 1.3 patch adds support for a five button mouse. I'm tempted to patch and restart the game just for that, although I still haven't completed it the first time. So I'm still hesitant. I'm also not crazy about armor wearing down (I don't really like the weapons doing so either), but I suppose I could maybe live with that. I do think it's a bit crazy to release patches that invalidates save games in this day and age. I haven't seen that happen since Fallout I think and there really is no excuse, imo.

I was actually commenting on the original poster. First line (about E3 and such).

Given that the Aliens RPG is scheduled for release in 2009, I seriously doubt we will be seeing anything from it anytime soon.

It comes down to personal preference. I like character building and as such, the system that governs character progression is important to me. And SPECIAL has the most fun character development, alongside Vampire Bloodlines, I've encountered in a crpg. So I want that part of the system to remain as intact as possible. If Bethesda comes up with something equally entertaining, then that's fine as well. But Oblivion style character development will severely detract from my enjoyment of the game. So to me it matters quite a lot. Actually more than the setting. Regardless, I am still judging the game on it's own merits. If it's fun, then nothing else really doesn't matter. Not the setting, not what atmosphere is presented and not what rules are used. If it's fun.

She only gets the tail if you haven't encountered her in the game before patching. So loading a save game where she was tailless will result in her remaining as such. Don't know if it helps you, Gorth.

As Meta so handidly quoted, SPECIAL is indeed the rules behind it all. So yeah, it includes the turn based mechanics. However, one part of the system can be changed without it all going down the drain. So the turn based part can be changed to real time and still leave the system recognizable. For me the character creation part of the system is more important than combat, if for no other reason than that the combat in FO wasn't really that great. It's a decent turn based system, but compared to games like Jagged Alliance or Silent Storm it's nothing to write home about. Hell, even ToEE (if we want to stick to strictly RPG comparisons), for all it's flaws, had a much better turn based system in place. This is not to say that there is no way to improve on it of course. Fallout Tactics did a good job with that. The turn based combat in that game was much better, if we ignore some glaring balancing issues. Now, if Bethesda changed to first person view and real time combat, they would probably have to go with something akin to Bloodlines, as you point out. But if the underlying backbone is still SPECIAL (ie the stats, derived stats, skills, how armor works, etc) I could live with that, depending on how much is changed. As long as they leave the perks alone! Of course, I would prefer it if the game mirrored the originals as much as possible when it comes to mechanics as well as setting and athmosphere. Improve on what needs to be improved and leave what doesn't. But the likelihood of that happening is slim. I just hope enough is left in to give a recognizable feeling. (Oh, and Sand, don't bother posting that SPECIAL doesn't work in real time. I've heard that opinion a million times and I disagree with both your stance and your reasoning, so let's just leave it at that shall we?)

While I agree mostly with what Tale is writing above, for me it's enough if it nails most of the elements from the original games to live up to the name as it is. If the setting and athmosphere are all top notch and SPECIAL remains intact (with adjustments), then changing to real time combat and first person view won't ruin the Fallout experience for me. Provided the new versions are of equal or better quality compared to the originals. But in the end, as long as it's a fun game, everything else really doesn't matter.

Again, this is basically my point. The hiring of a name actor has nothing to do with the quality of the game. It doesn't make it wonderful, nor does it make it suck. All it does is add name recognition that can be used by marketing. Which has already been done, btw. The hiring of Liam Neeson has been a news item on most gaming news sites. It's a way to raise awareness of the game without actually having to buy ads (not that I'm sure it's cheaper than ads, just another means to results). Of course, what they should have done is announce that Ron Perlman has been hired to play the narrator. That would at least have made a lot of the fans happy for a while. But I suppose Ron Perlman isn't well know enough for it to hit the news sites, Hellboy not withstanding.