Tale

Baldur's Gate I, II, and ToB all have level scaling, as well. You're right that the key is implementation. Sin: Emergence used a dynamic difficulty system, which is an FPS parallel to level scaling. For some, myself included, this resulted in the game scaling up to massive numbers of incredibly tough enemes that don't drop ammo. Man, the patch that fixed it was so nice. It's problem was a bug. Oblivion's problem was that it went too far. Equipment was replaced, creatures were replaced, loot in dungeons was removed. It took level scaling too literaly, if I can use that word appropriately in context. The entire world could change drastically overnight just because you gained a level. And maybe what's worse is the learn by doing system wasn't integrated into it, only the levelling aspect was. Creatures were scaled against a level 20 character, when levels tell relatively little about combat ability in their system.

It's more akin to a scale than a barometer. Instead of measuring pressure, it measure quantity via a standardized weight system where each individual unit of care weighs exactly the same as a mallomar. Each level is a measure of three units of care. So, by my saying that my level of care has neither risen nor fallen, then I am saying that this effects me only between 0 to 2 mallomars.

You're not necessarilly alone. Besides, I can kill lots of people. Doesn't make me more powerful than them. Edit: BOOM! I'll concede that point if the Solar makes the claim.

I never recall anyone claiming that you're "the most powerful child of Bhaal." Any power from Bhaal in BG was always spoken of as potential, not current.

SO! your ability to make assertions about the success or failure of a game based solely on the merit of your opinion is negligible.

Oblivion has pretty graphics, the dialogue system sucks, level scaling is poorly done, the real time actiony combat makes range weapons next to useless, and the UI is way too consolish. The game needs major mod work done to it to even be playable at a acceptable level. Yet is still highly popular. Which means your opinion is quite a bit askew from the market.

Why would I buy a failed game? Just because you don't like what they're presenting for Fallout 3 by no means indicates it is going to fail. Did you like what they did with Oblivion? How'd that do?

To waste? As long as it doesn't have level scaling, it'll probably be an awesome game. What the heck is FOPOS?

Yet I'll probably end up buying it and recommending it to my friends who are more akin to the target audience. By the constant talking about it, I've been intrigued and will introduce others.

Do creative ideas of their own come with the built in hype of the Fallout franchise? I honestly wouldn't have cared about the game if it hadn't been named Fallout. But since it is, I see multiple threads on this forum with at least one active every single day. Mere exposure effect has won me over and I'll probably buy the damned thing. Because this logic does not prove true in the field. The old fan base cares, they get hyped, the hype spreads. New fans also care because they recognize the name as a classic without having ever played the previous ones.

Edited for more appropriate comment: Because you lack imagination.

If people bitching on forums were an indicator of lack of sales, I imagine Valve would have gone into the red years ago. I can't imagine more people bitching than currently bitch about Oblivion, yet that sold ridiculously well and is still touted by many others as OMFGINCREDIBLEGAMEDUDEGOGETIT.

Faith in general or are we speaking of any faith in particular? We see science speaking to faith in countless individual scientists who have faith. If anyone wants it to be more specific than that, with faith based science, then I would percieve that as up to the faiths to start. Contradictions between faiths should kind of prohibit science, in general, from "speaking to" or otherwise particularly endorsing one faith or another. Christian scientists always kind of confuse me a little. I always took the story of Adam, Eve, and the apple to mean that knowledge was the origin of sin. Seems that pursuit of academic knowledge might be digging yourself a little deeper. But, then again I also enjoy the parallels between Lucifer and Prometheus, Jesus and the children of Zeus. My viewpoint is a bit more literary in an academic sense than personal.

Maybe after you've done some more time here people will bite. Glad to see you're no toaster though. What have you got against toasters? I am personally offended.

If I won the powerball, I'd buy the Alien franchise from Fox and just roll around in it naked.

Is it still a roman candle during the explosion? Chemical reactions often change the molecular state, shouldn't they also change the socialized label?

I know I am. Bitter and unforgiving. That's hot. Where have you been all my life?

I decided I absolutely had to have Xzar and Minsc and eventually Tiax for this highly insane run. Minsc is dead and Xzar is a level behind, it calls for a restart. So, I exported my character, looked up a good mage portrait, and found out how I improperly installed the BG1 NPC Project. Man, the BG1 NPC Project is a little annoying. I can't reach a new area without Imoen going "OH! ADVENTURE ADVENTURE SHOPPING BEST FRIENDS ADVENTURE ADVENTURE!"

"Okay" "Good bye!"

My level of caring has seen no rise or fall.

Man, are we (and by we, I mean you guys) bitter.

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. Except the phrase roleplaying does not come from D&D. That's all I can have for a final thought on it. Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/roleplay) cites the word as originating between 1945 and 1950. Two and a half to nearly three decades before D&D was first published. When Gary Gygax was between seven and twelve. Edit: With all this talk about Gary Gynax. What about Dave Arneson? He did historical role-playing in college. Gynax was the wargamer, Arneson was the roleplayer.

I like Viconia for my Cleric, but she gets to be annoying fighting undead if you use Turn Undead. It's better than not using, but can still be annoying.

Don't ****block me, Jack. This one likes Samus.

I know a Tony Almeida from Steampowered.com. He's actually cogent, so either they're different guys or that is a complete and utter troll.