Wombat

First, congrats on your first blog entry debut here. About expected game-play experience, in RPG, rules are there to dictate the experience of the players, which is why the game masters need to interpret the meaning of the rules and have to decide which rules they are going to use in their sessions/campaigns. The core game-play of games which difficulty levels can be adjusted by decreasing/increasing damages to some extent is, of course, combat and it's condition for winning must be related with reducing the health/hit points of the opponents into 0. It is without saying that this mechanism was dominant in most of classic CRPG, which probably some players - even designers may still think in the same way even when thinking of games which core game-play should not be focused on that part. However, the format won't work in a game such as Thief, where the core game-play is sneaking. I believe this is something to do with its design philosophy. For, I've gotten an impression that the designers from Looking Glass Studios tend to regard games as simulations* rather than following/rebuilding game-play formats of existing games, probably reflecting their film influence (Hitchc0ck and Kubrick come to my mind). They build the game-plays to enhance the imaginary experience of the players in the simulated environments. I think even the birth of sneak action game-play is just a sub-product of this process although it was kind of evolutionary for shooter genre, which core structures are still somehow related with reducing the opponents' HP before the protagonist's HP gets 0. Simply put, different rule-sets for different game-experiences. It's always necessary for the game-masters (and probably designers) to imagine what kind of game-play experiences they'd like to offer their players. As for pacing, Thief allowed the players to play at their own paces. Even in hardest mode, the main character can be spotted numerous times, which is O.K. as long as he doesn't get killed although still fighting is not a wise option and stealth game-play is still intact. If the players choose such pace, the game may not remain so "stealthy", though. Regarding to putting elements which interfere with core-game play and pacing, there are discussions about hardcore mode of FO:NV in the thread of these boards although the thread may be digressing as usual. The mode won't only increase the difficulty in an indirect manner but also it definitely affects the pacing at the same time, which is probably one of the reasons why NV team separated it from the difficulty setting. In the context of what I wrote above, it is more like adding a set of house-rules which enhance the simulation to create the sense of survival but the addenda won't make the game easier to say at least. I guess there are no clear-cut ways to separate the difficulty from these additional factors which directly or indirectly affect it. This tendency would become more complicated in more sandbox games such as FO3 and probably GTAIV (Sorry, I haven't played it)... You seem to have began to use brain scanners in development. Is there a way to find adequate stress level of the brains of the players, by which you may able to find out the sweat spot for us non-super-taskers of the balance between the core game-play and other game-play elements? * Of course, by simulations, I mean putting the players in a shoes of other people who are in an interesting situation, which somehow cross over role-playing games. Some role-playing game-designers like Chris Avellone seems to see their games lacks some factors which, he seem to think, important for role-playing games mostly around choices of the players around NPC interactions, story development resulted from them, and character development. However, there are role-playing games of different breed such as Call of Cthulhu, where story proceeds through Lovecraft formula in which the characters try to combine in-world documents with their experience mostly in desperate situations...the simulated dilemma here is knowing too much is dangerous but the characters feel they must know. So, what can they choose? It's basically a role-playing game focused on simulation but, at the same time, the simulation plays the climax of the story. BTW, in these simulation-focused RPG, the most part of character developments in game mechanic sense are done before the game starts - the stats/skills of characters won't change dramatically except the HPs and/or sanity, in CoC's case, of course. I don't try to judge which view is right but even in PnP role-playing games, there are different focuses in game designs. Role-playing games are hard to define and, the bright side of it is that they have many possibilities/interpretations. Personally, I'd rather like to see Avellone to go faithful to his own design philosophy, which makes the players enjoy the "game-masters" of different personalities.

I guess you edited your previous post. In any case, thanks for the info. Yes, I know quite many reviewers found the game gets boring after they reach Pripyat. The reason why I picked S.T.A.L.K.E.R. as an example there is that it also features the survival with combat core game-play in a sandbox world. I think one of the reasons why S.T.A.L.K.E.R. feels "weaker" in the end is that it is originally made as a sandbox game with weak story elements, so, when they try to "conclude" the experience, they need to put the players into a narrow corridor which leads to ending cut-scenes, which kills the attraction of sandbox game-play. Are there no differentiation in the weight of ammo? I'm not so knowledgeable about modern weapons but I once saw a TV documentary about assault rifles at Vietnam War. It's about American rifle called M-something (yes...it slipped out of my head...) and AK-47, that in/famous Kalashnikov. In that, while the American rifle is designed as right-weight and accurate with the latest technology available then, more crude Kalashnikov turned out to be competitive enough due to its durability, toughness and heavy ammo which are not easily deflected by some bushes/branches/small trees. The rather fragile American rifle was far from maintenance-free and can be smashed by AK-47 in close combat, which often happened in the war, it says. I don't know how much accurate the documentary is but, in the context of game-balancing, isn't there such characterization of weapons in FO3? The point is that, if your character carry heavy weapons/ammo, then, there should be some benefits to them such as firepower and/or maintenance-free durability/reliability. Form what I read so far, there doesn't seem to be the differentiation of characteristic in weapons in durability/maintenance-free-ness or easy maintenance. PS That said, I began to think these things are more of the issues for console gamers since, as someone pointed out, their PC counterparts can get mods as long as the game manages to gather enough mod community.

At least, it won't scare off shooting gamers away like Vampire the Masquerade:Bloodlines, where character stats cry loud, interfering with its action game-play. Well, I thought the story development was more straightforward but now it seems to be pretty complicated since it turns out (at least, this was new to me) the game allows the players to solve missions in the order of their liking, which sounds crazy enough for me even without thousands of NPCs... Avellone must be a cyborg, indeed.

I guess WorstUsernameEver nailed it. The below is from the description of FWE If you are not convinced yet, please read on. Judging from the numerous items in the lists, pretty many things seem to have already been covered. As long as it is a game-play issue, mods can adjust quite a lot of things for the taste of each gamer. Even if I didn't buy FO3, I could have checked out what mods had been doing, at least when Obsidian designers mentioned that they were studying mods. Well, this brought back my memory when I played Oblivion. I didn't try even a mod since what I felt lacking wouldn't be "fixed" by any of them. The "trauma" prevented me from even touching FO3. However, I guess I have to thank Bethesda since if FO3 had not been this successful, there couldn't have been the supportive mod community or New Vegas.

If each for short range and long range, then, that's similar game-play style with myself. I found some people complained of the "lack of ammo" but they seem to stick to their favorite weapons which are not popular in the area they are exploring. True. Making the protagonist loaded with "phat loots" is not a good idea if you'd like to let him survive in that unfriendly place...or for immersion.

About user opinions, this can be generally said about the net but, after the popularization of the net, especially on the game boards, it is getting difficult to find writings which are understandable for us, pre-twitter generations. Most of them are nothing more personal impressions than reviews, (attempted) analysis on some game mechanics and/or story/character developments. After all, like other activities on the net, these written words are more about their subjects rather than objects, means, more about their writers than games. I have nothing against the ways of the others spending their time but, for me, tastes just differ, which is the end of the story as long as nobody is trying to expand and try to explain possible reasoning behind his/her preferences in forms which can be shared by the others. So, I lost enough personal motivations to regularly visit game boards except looking for info. As for communications between the players and the designers, in my case, I began to browse the boards of the game designers (and almost stopped doing so now) due to my unsatisfied experiences with IWD series. I couldn't understand the existence of some of the flaws and I'd like to hear the opinions of the "dungeon masters." Also, I'm interested in story-telling, which, different from other games, is very complicated in role-playing game and I wondered how they try to achieve this essence through computers. To my surprise, although I don't know about programming at all, I found the game designers seem to really think like game masters. The problems which I cannot understand mainly comes from my ignorance to how the industry works and the particular resource managements in them. And about the latter, J.E. Sawyer tends to be able to offer a good picture. Judging from what I read, it seems that his main role in game-designing is related with that. He seems to be playing as a hub which judges what the game needs and assigning each resource which/who he need to assign to achieve the expected results. So, despite of his quick temper, reading his comments was an efficient way to expect how the game will end up...well, theoretically, at least. The problem is that even if the development seems to be going well, some problems come from the former: how industry works or financial/political issues, which happened to the Black Hound, Van Buren and Aliens (I sensed Aliens promising simply Sawyer's attention seems to have been sifted to it from his personal Black Hound project). A sad thing is that I cannot see any problem in the designer side. Bioware keeps communicating with the players and I can gather quite good pictures before their games are out especially because their games are polished. However, these things mainly come from good managements in the former, or, financial/political sector. Also, they don't seem to risk too much in game designing, either. Seasoned CRPG players would notice that they simplify some factors to make the testing process much easier, which, at the same time, prevents the players from feeling their story less personal. Also, somehow, I'm not interested in their story-telling probably because I'm not great fan of typical fantasy/Sci-Fi genres, which comes down to the matter of tastes, though. In any case, I end up with a company which communicates with the players very often but I'm not interested in their works while a company which doesn't/cannot communicate with the players while I'm interested in some of their works. PS Matthew Rorie seems to be going to leave. Shame that he is one of the designers who try to communicate with the players. Since he seems to have good friends, I can only wish them good luck. I haven't played any games recently other than F:NV. Metro 2033 came out three weeks ago. I didn't play a huge amount of STALKER but I got a pretty good sense of its take on realism/survival. I see. At least it's nice to see you are still here. STALKER rules on atmosphere. The FPS combat is pretty good. Level design is solid. Some of the creatures are cool, but could have been more/better in that department. FInding artifacts is interesting. I didn't write my previous post as a generic review or my impression about S.T.A.L.K.E.R. but focusing on the theme of survival in wilderness. Some maps are designed well but how did they make the players feel trapped in a dangerous place even in open field? You can say it with one word: atmosphere but it must be connected with the game-play in a way or another. At least, behind some visual and sound effects, some elements like A-life, encumbrance, need for foods, degrading weapons/armor, and radiation related game-plays can be said to be piled up to create the unique "atmosphere" and the sense of survival outside of the main game-plays. Probably the major issue with these game-plays is that they can get in the way of the main game-plays. In fact, some "genuine" FPS players seem to have felt frustrated with these factors since it prevent them from the main game mechanics. If they nailed their skilled headshots on their targets, they like them to be dead rather than finding their weapons jammed/too degraded, for example (Much less confident in precise shots, during my "adaptation process," I learned to click the mouse three times for each headshots, which is still much more economical than trying to defeat the same opponent by nailing the bullets through their body armor while keeping the auto mode off to suppress the recoiling). They don't like to come back to hubs only for resource management such as weight limit, buying weapon, ammo and/or armor. However, after observing these in-game economy, I found it better to keep the routine of scavenging fallen characters and take the weapons of the best condition while throwing degraded ones, which works good enough for both ammo/weight limitations and degrading weapons. Some "gun-nuts" players complained of not being able to use their favorite weapons (also, finding a good weapon is not so important since once they are degraded or out of ammo, they are useless, which makes "phat-loot" rather trivial find...however, there is a hint to balance these in later games.*) but, for me, these resource management, where the players need to make the protagonist survive relying on everything available, establishes the sense of survival. For my convenience, I kept some "phat loots" in a stash available in the area and used it as a "base camp" till I finish the exploration there. I think the learning curve in finding out how to adapt to the environment works as well as how enemies behave made the part of unique experience of this game. I don't know what was planned for the camping system of the Black Hound but, I think, allowing the players to build camps or something which doesn't have all the luxury of services available towns and/or "Ebon Hawk"/"Hub" in some areas wouldn't damage the sense of survival too much. Of course, some of these contradictory game-play mechanics are hits/misses depending on your viewpoints, and, indeed, I have read quite a lot of complaints, including some reviews which says something like "third time is the charm" about Call of Pripyat, where the graphic engine already shows its age... Also there are quite many modifications of the series, which may reflect the dissatisfaction of some game-play elements and their balancing issues. So, I guess it might be good at looking at this series since, I think, it is one of rare games which tried to build sense of survival in very unfriendly areas under FPS + light RPG format. * In later games, I found weapons which can be customizable by modifying them with small and thus less bulky weapon mod parts. This makes the both systems, means, resource management and the availability of favorite weapons, work since adding these tiny parts makes an ordinary weapon scavenged into your order-made one on the fly. So, what you need to do is that to let the protagonist carry these parts to put them on "available resources." Armor don't have modifications but artifacts functions more or less like that.

From my understanding, too, the hard mode is to produce the feeling of survival rather than making the existing game-play hard. Indeed, the added necessary resource management factors will certainly get in the way of the existing game-play but I think it is there for adding the "flavors/atmosphere" (Rather than realism, I tend to use these words when describing something in an imaginary world) for post apocalyptic world adventure rather than something like "Iron Man" mode. Of course, "flip-flopability" may diminish the sense of survival but, basically, it's more about personal taste. It's more like dealing with groups of slightly different tastes rather than groups of the same taste but of different adaptability levels to the game play mechanic. As someone has already said, if some people like the added game-play elements, they will keep the mode on. Quite many of modern games are trying to reduce the possible nuisances from the player side and I don't think it is totally wrong since the players have limited time. However, at the same time, there are some players who find these nuisances make the game more immersive and think these distractions give them something they cannot get from the games totally focused on their main game-plays. That said, seeing J.E.Swayer hasn't seem to have played any of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or Metro 2033 (Well, to be honest, I, myself, only played the original S.T.A.L.K.E.R. since it's quite a time-consuming game.) makes me feel that he hasn't done enough home work (I've gotten an impression that he hasn't played PC games recently.)...since, according to my game experience and the responses of other players, the series showed how it is tough to implement the feel of survival without diminishing the fun of other game-play elements. The designer can make the "flip-flopability" as excuse and claim that it's the player's choice but, if most of people ended up with turning off the hard mode since it is no fun at all, I think the implementation is not worth the costs/efforts. Talking of S.T.A.L.K.E.R., I wonder if its horror theme is worth being implemented in F.O:Vegas. The series' latest game, Call of Pripyat, reminds me of Call of Cthulhu and, in fact, the main game-play seems to be wandering in a spooky environment. If one of the maps is themed with such element with the feel of Cthulhu and Shock series, it might be interesting. In fact, the ruins which remind the player of their good days worked well in Bioshock, for example. It managed to emphasize the fall of a civilization well. Some small devices such as ironically cheerful advertisements and trivial daily goods, which cannot but make the players think of the absence of those who used them, wouldn't ruin the feel, either. That said, I wonder if the cost of implementing environment effects would worth it especially, aged graphic may show its own age and adding too many factors can end up with a disaster. I'm wondering the importance of the boards since visiting a news site seems to be much more time-saving nowadays. I just drop by and leave what I thought and, there are even times when I cannot even come back to check if there are any replies to my posts.

Hmmm... I think the graphics is O.K. Although I cannot but notice some uncanny valleys. I didn't think I was graphic whore when I was playing 2D games but I may have been simply unhappy with 3D presentations at that time. In any case, I think I will be busy when this game is released, so, I don't think I'm going to play this game soon. I tend to like complex plot twists and, if good dialogue is combined with stealth game-play, the game should have enough appeal to me. However, playing so few games, the cost of upgrading my PC rather makes me feel stupid especially when my current PCs don't seem to have any problem executing in my daily tasks.

Flou kindly posted this at NMA. For those who are lazy, the below is the translation result of the Finnish text with an online translator. I suspect the last sentence about negligible gangs may be just about the combat balance issue, conveniently fitted in the plot-development, though. There was an interesting post by Atreides while back. When I came across it, I doubted this was really possible but, three factions with their international conflicts might be not that impossible. At least, I strongly agree that this kind of sandbox game-play with dynamic NPC reactions are very true to FO series (Even Van Buren had the rival party roughly based on game theory...) and, if it were realizable in a decent and convincing manner, I'd like to play such a game. Of course, too much expectations are destined to end up with huge disappointments and, to be honest, I have a bad feeling that Obsidian and the players would end up with facing annoyances such as numerous bug-fixing/bugs, rushed/cut content, and/or tedious game-play experiences. However, if you ask me, I'd rather be interested in this kind of attempt rather than "polished" products based on risk management textbooks. I guess I never learn...

Of course, NWN2 would be enjoyable for those who enjoy Bioware works. However, our preferences aside, I felt NWN2 was too apologetic to the fans of Bioware. At least, in terms of the thematic development, it didn't do anything remarkable compared with a typical D&D fantasy story. KotOR II was different. Avellone studied the world setting of Star Wars carefully. However, the theme he chose was against one of the hearts of SW setting. Although I cannot but feel the work is incomplete, in terms of Auterism, it has a clear stump that it is one of the works by Avellone. I think Avellone is good at balancing two types of consciences: One is conscience as a professional game designer and he studies what the possible audiences/players want to see in his works. The other is conscience as an artist, which is oddly achieved by following pure instinct, ambition and ego as an artist. This is most notably seen in PS: T, where he seems to have done what he wanted to do rather than what people would expect him to do. The game design business has become much more "serious" business considering the amount of money invested. As such, Avellone seems to have begun to put more time on the research process and organizing his team but I don't feel he has become too apologetic to what the market would expect. He actually lament how younger designers lack creative ambitions, for example. Indeed, works like FO and PS: T may be just the products of the dawn of video game industry but I still don't think Avellone has totally given up the latter type of consciousness. In NWN2's case, Although I don't know the reasons, I've gotten an impression that Sawyer has given up his ego and just doing his job while, seemingly, crashed by his own conscience. In the context of Auteurism, I think, this can be one of the reasons why it is hard for us to see which the part of Sawyer is compared with that of Avellone. This is just my impression but Avellone seems to be better at balancing these two types of consciences. Of course, these are mere impressions, though. In any case, if Sawyer is enjoying working on FO: NV, I think it is a good sign since it seems that we have played only the games on which he was not too willing to work.

After all, it's just a view from outside. However, in NWN2, I felt as if Obsidian was pretending to be Bioware. Of course, some old members worked on BG...but...

Well, for me, the story is not that simple. In Morrowind, Ken Rolston did something between System Shock and old PnP supplements which introduce the imaginary world from the views of in-world people. In history section, they, at first, seem to be contradicting but you come to notice that it is designed like that: As the histories of our world, different viewpoints produce different version of stories. So, if you read in-world books with details, you can feel more rewarded by exploring the worlds, understanding these multi-layered backgrounds from various viewpoints. Rolston said that this is his way of story-telling. However, in Oblivion, this aspect was dramatically reduced. Although I understand that not so many people read in-world books, at least, the depth of Morrowind is totally removed in its "successor", about which, Rolston himself doesn't seem to be happy with. So, while I'm quite happy with the way of story-telling in Morrowind, I was totally disappointed by the direction of Oblivion. Talking of Auteurism, at least, to me, Bethesda lost what earned by Morrowind in Oblivion. This is just my personal opinion as usual, though.

Oddly, BIS/Obsidian is good at writing when it comes to these old hags. I, actually, didn't think someone else still remembers the Sheer in the prologue of IWD2, though. I have been almost unconsciously following the authors or auteurs of my liking since I tend to read novels and films by the same writers and directors. Not to diminish the significant contributions of many others on Mask, but George Ziets was really "the guy" who developed the story. And I'm glad that he came back to BIS. However, chemistry, too, an important factor, I think, since I personally don't believe Baudoin and Sawyer in NWN2 worked well. Maldonado and Avellone were not a bad combination at all as well as Ziets and Avellone were. Avellone emphasizes the importance of the other team members, and somehow, I believe it is not only out of his modesty. When Avellone is not taking the lead, he reminds me of what Miles Davis said of John Coltrane, though. It was something like : Having a Coltrane in a band is like having several saxophones in the band.

Is this new to you? Taste differs. We can state our opinions about what we like/dislike but the final decision is done by the designers. Rather, if the designers are indecisive about their decisions, I guess the result is more likely to end up with a lukewarm work which doesn't satisfy anybody. Quite many of us have a good picture of games of our likings and, as long as we also keep in mind the size of the market, we can see how futile to argue about our likings. After all, I come here for doing my share of feedbacks and gathering information...rather, I'd say, getting a grasp of which direction the designers are heading.

Do you mean "me" by you? I really have no idea why you think I need to agree with Avellone even about his possible favorite games while I was just talking of one of the main features in his game design. I, indeed, mentioned Avellone but in the context of role-playing element focused on story development through dialogues. Except this element, there is almost no similarity in the game-play of FO and that of PST and the prologue of IWD2 is most dialogue heavy part in all the series. As for the other game-play element, I don't hate FO3 since I have never played it. In fact, while I am unhappy with the "standardized" content of Oblivion from the world of Morrowind, the melting pot of various cultures, which contains subtle political struggles, I liked the game-play of Oblivion better than that of Morrowind. I enjoyed Thief series, on which Emil Pagliarulo worked, too. I'm fine with different game-plays as long as they feel completed in their own ways. Rather, my initial concern when I first registered to these boards was about the fact that Obsidian hasn't proven to be good at FPS style game-play. For example, I don't think Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines' game-play was good. The game-play there screamed out that it was hurt by PnP rule-set more or less. I don't have a direct experience about how the game-play of FO feels like but, in general, it seems to be accepted as O.K. However, I read enough reviews to figure out that Bethesda reduced the story elements, which made FO3 no deal for me: I didn't like to feel the same way when I played Oblivion. So, if Obsidian is able to achieve the standard game-play from Bethesda and bring back the content of classic FO, it will be able to take me back to the table again. If they are more ambitious, they may sharpen up the content even more but, considering the time they need to spend on modern complex engines, I guess it would be hard to put new experiments in terms of content. In fact, even Avellone mentioned something like it is enough for him if he is best remembered by PST in this industry, which is quite discouraging. Actually, I'm simply repeating old me here: The game play should be fun to the majority while I'd like the world and the story development more interesting. For the game-play works in short term while the content does so in long term. Obsidian need to modernize the game-play to keep the commercial value of their products. Skimming the designers' posts in Bethesda, I've gotten an impression that they are working hard on learning how to tame Embryo. Reading the blog post of Avellone, too, I noticed they are trying to keep the game-play smooth and enjoyable, rather than adding extra features to the established game-play. Personally, I wouldn't mind if FO: NV felt like an expansion as long as the content is solid. The designers may be able to satisfy the majority if the game-play is not frustrating. Indeed, it's purely unrealistic since it doesn't exist: You were painting my personal opinions with your own image of typical classic FO fans. I guess you spend too much time on browsing these internet boards. To my eyes, these "inter-forum politics" is rather an obstruction for communication. In fact, I find myself more or less similar to the guy who is quoted by Avellone in his blog at that he states his honest onions about games, not concerning any forum politics. I guess you are a student. There is much more in the world than high school cafeteria-ish relationships... I hope not . If an important NPC is killed, just think Biff the Understudy This is a pretty classic issue. If killing NPC opens up different paths in terms of the story development, it's interesting but, if it simply brakes a quest...well, it's just a bug.

I cannot but feel games are people who are much younger than I am nowadays. If so, I cannot but wonder how the feelings of the designers who are older than thirty years old could be. I personally think NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer made a better use of mythology in the Forgotten Realms compared with other FR based products but I'd like to see RPG outside of FR or typical D&D fantasy. Any medium I still keep in touch feels that it is for older people. Some "youngsters" may think watching flame wars are fun but such people have no idea about how much of their time they are wasting. When I come across to such a situation, I leave the boards immediately. Well, this is not one of my new customs, though.

I may sound a hardcore FO fan to a certain people but what I want is simply a game which I can enjoy without feeling patronized. I haven't played games recently, which shows how I feel about the industry itself. "An author can show no greater respect for his public than by never bringing it what it expects, but what he himself thinks right and proper in that stage of his own and others' culture in which for the time he finds himself."

[Off Topic] I'll post again about the off topic issue just to avoid giving a wrong signal as a player. I liked the atmosphere of IWD, which is composed of the usage of mythology and the art direction. As some people pointed out, it was rather surprising that the designer managed to keep things interesting in a game which is intensely focused on combat. However, of course, if BIS had been able to make something like FO or PS: T, using the same amount of time, I'd rather forget about all the IWD series. The problem here is that the players cannot judge the works which are not released. That said, I'm another who is looking forward to FO: V. I hope it can compensate ex-BIS members for the hard time of their suppressed ambition.

Then, my misunderstanding about the commercial part. I think a member of BIS wrote something like IWD2 managed to keep the company float back then. So, I thought the income was not that good but, considering the condition of Interplay at that time, there must have been much money needed just to keep the ball rolling... A heavily indebted company feels like a black hole, which sucks everything. As for the repetitive game-play, the combat focused game-play probably comes from D&D ruleset. While IWD series tried to make combat game-play itself interesting with various settings, Bioware tends to put mini games and riddles in the game. It seems that the latter turns out to be more successful. Also, I guess the unbalanced quality of IWD2 reflects the condition of BIS at that time, to some extent. There are some good parts but, unfortunately, they ended up with emphasizing worse parts. The prologue part by Chris Avellone was memorable, for example, but, probably, the whole work didn't justify the human resource in BIS as Sawyer pointed out. IMO, the mercenary setting also had its hit and miss. It made the game unique compared with typical FR campaign but, at the same time, it didn't feel right in the context of tactical combats: A small party manages to single-handedly defeat an organized militant group felt rather ridiculous. The whole scenario would have been more suitable to a strategy game. It worked in the prologue, where it was just for defending a small village, giving the feel of seven samurai, though. Talking of the mood, I think that of Mask of the Betrayer, which is probably the best work in all NWN2 series and Obsidian works so far, reminds me of that of IWD series. However, to come up with the world with original feel is one thing and to sharpen it to an independent work is another. While IWD series established/tried to establish its own original feel to the world out of the rather unimpressive Forgotten Realm setting, basically, the players cannot do anything with it outside of combat, which significantly differentiate the series from FO and PS: T. The art design, music and the mythology are good but they were just "wallpapers." Jefferson or The Black Hound seems to address the "issue" but it was canceled. Since it was not out, I guess I have to talk about completed works. Mask of the Betrayer is what we were finally able to play under a setting with more or less similar feel. Mabybe, my appreciation to IWD series simply shows how I am tired of stereotypical North American fantasy setting. For example, I think the Witcher is another work, which managed to establish a fairly original fantasy world through Slavic folklore, although its setting is probably best remembered as the hybrid between fantasy and hard-boiled factors. By letting the players allow reasonably change the fates of some characters, I think, it was successful in both keeping the dark atmosphere and offering the meaningful choices to the players. For, if the protagonist were able to just anything in the dark setting, it would make the setting, itself, a joke. I don't think it was successful in revolutionizing RPG genre as the designers, or, rather the PRs claim, but it was a fresh change of air to the rather tired setting and, IMO, it was successful in keeping the mood from the start to the end. Thinking about it, I seem to be favor of original and atmospheric settings and possible story development in them. This probably explains why I haven't played FO3 since I don't think Bethesda is able to give these factors justice. Nobody needs to be overly authentic to the lore but I'd like the setting to be through rather than it to be apologetic to what people expect to their typical RPGs. Even if it is imaginary world, it should be respected. I don't need knights in shimmering armor in the crazy post-apocalyptic world, at least without any humor or parody touch. However, judging form what I gathered so far about FO: NV, I don't think I need to worry about such thing, at least. Rather, I guess I should hope Obsidian will manage to nanny Embryo for every platform in time. Of course, I don't like it implies tons of repetitive Fedex quests but, my understanding is that, it's a good position to alienate the PC while keeping him/her accessible to/from different political powers or factions. I think the PC in Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines took a similar approach.

It's something that many of us try, but few succeed at. You don't like HoW? I don't feel much love to IWD series even from ex-BIS designers especially compared with that to Fallout and Planescape:Torment. Also, they are not considered as success either in terms of commercial one and one as independent works. However, personally, I don't think they are totally bad since it tries to introduce some legends/myths which are not so familiar with AD&D players. Probably, historical/religious knowledge of the members played a certain role. Talking of it, we all know even the basic concept of The Black Hounds are based on the story of Irish hero. I liked the arts direction of them, too. Although the above is just my personal opinion, while quite many people seem to have forgotten, you cannot ignore the impact of the music on the later works. Where do you find Zur or Soule, before this series? Of course, compared with FO and PS:T, they are not as good as they are but are they really just garbage?

How could you forget about Heart of Winter expansion for IWD? I think the story was not bad at all. However, I wonder if he needs to include crazy woman in his works...

Hmmm... I hadn't been around here for a while but I feel the boards were changed into a chat one rather than a discussion one... O. K. I'll write down my impression about the info revealed so far. I think we've got different view to what makes Fall Out Fall Out. Some point out turn-based combat but, for me, it's a post-apocalyptic world, where people lost the civilization after the highly-systematized world has committed suicide with their most powerful weapons, while still clinging to the rusty remaining of it, especially who try to make use of it to try to take the power. So, there are still power-struggles even in the miserable situation of what was called civilization, where the player is to be thrown into. The point of the RPG is, IMO, enjoy it like a mischievous child who is given a sandbox filled with various toys such as laser guns, interesting characters/settings, garbage to be scavenged, and the power-structures which can be played out. Especially, I'd like to fiddle with political structures and to make fool of these power-mad people, who are still trying to take advantage of the remained technologies. The factions may be only divided into only three of them but they seem to have their own power structures which has their own causes for conflicts. The touch where the PC is allowed to make NPCs fight each other in Yojinbo style is classic in this game. Judging from what I have glimpsed so far, Obsidian is right in the track by making use of the experience of their past games, whether they are done or not. I'm glad that Obsidians seem to be enjoying the development process after these years of some canceled projects and hope their long waited work will finally be given birth. I wonder how many of gamers will like it but I'm definitely looking forward to it.

And may I expect a discussion about FO:NV in this thread?

Oh, there are many more things we could talk about such as conflicting factions (Actually, Atreides was not bad at expecting these political conflicts, IMO and I'm rather glad about it). Weapon upgrades and possible Science Boy/Gal skills, which is most like to be proven useful in the latter adventure in Black Mountain...