random n00b

And shades of gray not only do not exist, but cannot exist. Eh, OK. As defined by whom? Perhaps I'm more interested on seeing how my CE rogue doublecrosses her partymates than watching her fail repeatedly at backstabbing some immobile bozo that is only a few inches away from the tip of her weapon. Role-playing does not mean Baldur's Gate. So then, roleplaying for you is just min/maxing. Interesting. And because Oblivion failed at delivering a balanced blend of player skill and character stats to affect the game does that mean that it cannot be done? DOES NOT COMPUTE

Have you played DDO? It's a party-based, PvE-focused MMO that plays very much like that, and used to benefit from a large simultaneous playerbase. Soloing is possible as well. You don't want to pay monthly fees for periodic new content, that's fine. But the gameplay thing is just an excuse, or you haven't looked enough.

[quote name='H

Anecdotal evidence is hardly enough to assert a general rule. A KotOR MMO failing could mean trouble for the franchise, but otherwise there's no way to know if a MMO would preclude a third installment.

[quote name='H

[quote name='H

Huh? And here I thought this thread was specifically about combat? Nice try at going off on a tangent, though. Yeah, it's really awesome to sneak behind some goon, stab him in the head, and then have the game display *miss*. The paradigm of immersion, indeed. Or you try and find a compromise where player skill isn't irrelevant and stats mean something. Wow, that was hard. The first is PnP gameplay, where there's no other way of determining outcomes. cRPGs are NOT tabletop RPGs, nor do they necessarily play the same. Yeah, whatever floats your boat. The bottom line is that Deus Ex had a hybrid system you liked, but since it proves you are wrong, you are moving it outside the scope of your point. Opinion alone does not constitute fact.

cRPGs ≠ PnP RPGs. Funny that you would say this, and then praise Deus Ex's rather lackluster combat. Also, I'm surprised nobody has noted how dreadful is to have the player play flawlessly, only to have the game tell her that her efforts have been for naught. Purely stat-resolved combat died with isometric games. In DX, stats affected how long it took for the crosshair to settle down and also added a small percentage to base weapon damage.

'Cause I'm pure dagnasty evil. It's just a fact.

☜

Yeah, being part of the intellectual elite is such a bummer.

Only if you group with total retards. Seriously, have you played any MMOs? QFT

I didn't know he also worked in DX. <3

They know their ****.

I'm just glad it's not SOE doing it.

Unfortunately, there's no way to be completely certain that an adult will be able to "appreciate" the effects of any form of deadly force - not everyone gets military training or otherwise first-hand experience with that sort of thing. The idea that such a thing is required for criminal liability to exist is a slippery slope I'm afraid and legal minimums must be placed somewhere. I think that being aware in a purely intellectual sense that doing something can (and probably will) cause the death of others is enough to have people answer for their actions. The "gut feeling", emotional backlash and other consequences of killing or maiming another person can probably give a deeper insight, but they are accessories, not requirements for liability, the way I see it.

Yeah? I thought I read somewhere (FO wiki probably) that the tech demo was no longer available. It's entirely possible that I just brain farted, though. ☺

That made me cry. Well, yes. I'd rather watch Van Damme's SF than have needles driven under my nails. But it's not something I would do if the alternative wasn't guaranteed to cause injury and/or excruciating pain. R00fles! Game Over! et al.

As far as I know, Van Buren was never shown in detail. A skimpy tech demo and a few design docs is all we have to compare (and I'm not sure if those things are still available). I could be wrong, though. Ever read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7070201743.html That's not really... an argument? Is it a big revelation that the gaming PR industry tries to sway reviewers? I'm giving Jaesun the benefit of doubt in this one - I don't think he was actually trying to make the point that FO3 (p)reviewers have been persuaded into praising the game regardless of its actual quality. "Spoiling" the press with that sort of thing is not just restricted to the game market. IBM is happy to treat journalists to a weekend at a ski resort to showcase their latest Notebook, and nobody raises an eyebrow or questions the reviewers' objectivity. That's how it's done with consumer products all across the board.

For some, fanaticism is worn like a badge of honor. I'm more of a fundie, myself.

Huh? Are you trying to say that you didn't know that tossing grenades at people could kill them? What did you think grenades are for, then? Juggling? Feeble, even for you.

"However, among fanatics of the "good era", it seems rather unlikely that Fallout 3 could manage to make them forget what could have been if Black Isle did not fall at the end of 2003." And there you have it. Something that never was, and of which very little is known, is better than something that *is*. Yeah, I think I'll let this guy do my thinking for me. Lol gaming "journalism"

Nice logic. So, if treating a child as a terrorist is "child abuse", treating an adult as a terrorist is assault?

Wrong, actually. You needed to be *consistent*, not sycophantic, as extremely low influence scores yielded the same results as extremely high. Of course, some people's skin crawls when anything suggests a less than optimal result in a game, and just reload (OMG NOES! influence lost!). That's not the devs fault.

Or flowers. With master-level chess skills.