random n00b

That's assuming they will remove said things (as opposed to update), and assuming they will not replace them by equally good things. That's a lot of assumptions, and to me, it's blindly jumping in the hatewagon. Don't let that stop you from hating away at your leisure, though. Because it's the cool thing to do. I don't know what most people believe. That's why I stick to what they post instead of building my arguments around some questionable leap of logic, or some arbitrary interpretation of their post. If he didn't mean that previous installments will be ruined by FO3 sucking, why did he ask that? It's the argument I'm using because it's the argument he posted.

Yes. Read the "movie/book ruined by sequels" quote I was specifically replying to before accusing me of putting up strawmen. And better luck next time.

Eh, no. I really don't see how the quality of a sequel affects its predecessors. Will a poor Fallout 3 make Fallout 2 and 1 suck? What's this sense of holiness around everything Fallout that makes attempting a sequel something so neccesarily formulaic? LOLOLOgic. Yeah. Because if you don't jump in the hatewagon, you are stupid. I find quality in that flamebait to be severely lacking, even when compared to what we're used from you. At least put some effort into it.

That's why we work on using automated systems. If we have the tech of having a robot to vaccuum my floor or mow my lawn, in the next decade or two we may see the rise of automated farms. And Mars colonies, and flying cars that run on recycled trash fuel, and all of the contries of the world working together in peace and harmony. Yes! And then... 10/10

Yes. Again, what action are you referring to? Male PC gets none whatsoever. And no, "Force Sex" doesn't count either (who the hell came up with that name anyway, it's ****ing lame), it's just the glorified climax of a pathological obsession, and more creepy than romantic. And, btw. Roughly half of my playthroughs have been as female. I found Atton's antics far more interesting and substantial than the unbelievably socially retarded Handmaiden's "advances". And the Disciple is a fairly good character, regardless of his lack of "badassness" that usually makes male characters appealing as love interests (to female gamers, apparently). I really don't see where you're coming from. You just won the thread.

Well, that's obvious. Fallout 3 will not be a a game. It will be DOOOOOOOOMsday.

I don't get what's this "action" is that you're making references to, anyway... EDIT: Ah yes. By "action", you probably mean sparring with the Handmaiden. Yes, that's more "action" than meditating with Disciple. Not much of a difference if you ask me...

**** yeah! Is DOOOOOOOOM preaching an adequate substitute for life? Just wondering.

Not just speculate. Postulate!

"Over time" being the key here. And "most population projection models" don't attempt to make such far-flung predictions. So, yeah. Newsflash. Europe and the US are already receiving more immigrants than they can handle. I guess it's not that these models failed to predict that. No, that can't be. More likely, it's stupid politicians to blame. So what? If the only means to achieve that is by stepping over the individual's rights (see HOW one child policy was enforced), you are effectively supporting that "the ends justify the means". It doesn't matter if you said it explicitly or not. Yes. So, now with many governments actually encouraging couples to have babies (to the point of offering monetary bounuses), to stop the inversion of the population pyramid, the smart thing to do is actually encourage a whole generation to do the opposite. Yes, because you and some guys advocating "human voluntary extinction" say so. Um, good luck. As per the logistic function, yes. So, again, the point of this silliness is? The mistake is assuming that a (rather incomplete) model, that has been undergoing a constant state of fine-tuning and revision to produce its present results ever since its inception in the 40's, will be able to predict things in 200 years time. So, please, stop waving those extrapolations around as if they were fact.

No, they don't consider migratory movements, as the causes behind those are too unpredictable to make the factor a constant. What the theory does in retrospective is a different matter. No. Germany circumventing the Versailles Treaty served the purpose of turning post-WWI Germany into a solidly industrialized country. But that didn't end too well. That's usually the problem with "the ends justify the means" politics, they tend to get exploited quite a bit. And no, VHEMT can't produce the same results as China's one child policy precisely because it lacks any means to enforce their ideas. Just read the reactions in this thread. Most people will at least scoff at the idea of not having children as a means to attain some goal species-wide. Unenforceability, in this case, means unfeasibility. Smart thing, according to whom, and with what purpose? No species survives by not expanding. And the purpose of the human race is to survive, not to preserve some idea of natural balance or some equally arbitrary new-age ideal. The mistake you are making is equating the theory itself with the models derived from it, and the predictions said models yield. I don't dispute the worth of the evolutionary system, but will take any predictions based on evolution, that in X years people will have wireless interfaces instead of ears, with a grain of salt. That's the practical difference between theory and law.

Yes, satire. I simply cannot help but guffaw when presented with a "movement" that identifies itself as "vehement" and whose stated goal is "voluntary human extinction". I'm also hard pressed to believe that is not their intended effect (laughs, not extinction). It seems far more plausible to me that this is an effort by anti-environmentalists seeking to discredit their opponents in a tongue-in-cheek manner, than actual environmental activists. But what do I know, there are plenty of nutcases after all. I don't know what exactly you're trying to get at with this, nor how is it exactly relevant to voluntary human extinction. Are you saying that educated people will agree that the smart thing to do as a species is to stop breeding? What? One child policy is deprecated enough that I'm not going to bother discussing it. And, at any rate, totalitarian practices aren't considered to be of much use when trying to support one's position, more like the opposite. That is a prediction model, and as with all models, it should not be taken as gospel. The more complex a system is and the further in time a prediction is made, the less reliable said prediction becomes. In this case, the farthest reaching predictions are of 200 years (it's a 40's theory), while disregarding important factors such as migratory movements, and changes in societal roles, which interestingly, ties in with your original statement of the tendencies of educated populations.

If that was sarcasm, you need to work on it.

I'm tempted to reply to this with just "lol no", but that doesn't seem to sit well with moderation so I'll refrain. Now, how exactly are Sulik, Vic, or even Cassidy more interesting than even the worst of BG2 characters (Nalia, Anomen maybe)? Less dialogue, no interjections to speak of to NPCs along the game or other party members, no practical effects to having them in the party whatsoever? Now, that'd be fine if by "more interesting" you mean, "silent, inconsequential, and deadly in a fight". But unfortunately, FO2 NPCs are only deadly to the player and/or themselves. FO2 is one of my favorite games ever, but that doesn't make me blind to the fact that NPC development was most certainly not the game's forte.

Er... what do you mean? As I said, it's a hotfix for a bug caused by a typo that prevented Dark Planetars from using their improved scripting, as per the SCSII subcomponent. This bug apparently caused some odd behavior in those creatures, such as picking the wrong targets for their Heal spells, for instance.

This is the kind of satire organization I would set up if I had lots of free time... and actually gave a ****. 10/10

A hotfix has been released for a bug with the Improved Celestials component of SCSII. I wonder why don't they fix it and upload the corrected version instead of this?

It's okay. You can cancel your preorder now.

I don't know. Ignore it? I'm not a PR guy, but being confrontational and defensive about it sure doesn't help. A discussion on flavor vs meaningful choices, up to where I have read (not much, admittedly). Interesting, but not critical or deep-reaching by any means. How about a discussion on party-based vs single character? As for your other examples, I don't have the time to research the boards enough to form an opinion. And, at any rate, my original argument was not that you don't listen while pretending that you do, or whatever. I was in fact saying that I'm not fond of the idea of community feedback having sufficient weight to affect critical design elements. Maybe, MAYBE we can offer some interesting, useful, and feasible ideas, but does the marginally potential benefit make it worth the effort of sorting through all the trolling, flaming, and assorted other likewise worthless (albeit well-meaning) input? If so, then perhaps you have too much free time. Shouldn't you be, you know, working in the game? As I said, if I was a competent game designer, I'd be designing games, not arguing here with you. All I see there is a handful of quotes, without a context. I'm not going to pass judgement just yet, based on that. Yeah, I'd wager the game will have some pretty dumb **** on it. I have yet to play a game which doesn't, however.

It's entirely possible that I'm being unfair to vd. But, seeing his reactions here, those are my impressions. They changed the whole engine, you say? Well, I'll have to take your word for it. Was that decision prompted by fan input alone? No one can say.

Heh.

Installing now. Thanks for the heads up man!

O noes! Foiled again!

[quote name='H

Again, what I posted may very well not apply to your game, as it's apparently a custom-tailored setting. But, in D&D, good and evil are not subjective. They are a well defined character trait, with direct consequences, like Charisma or AC. Hell, there are even entire planes with the [evil] descriptor. And for SW, no. Turning to the dark side *is* evil, as stated by GL. It's not that I don't accept your morally relativistic rationale behind Anakin's actions. It's simply that GL defined his world in a black-and-white way, and that's all there is to it, really. I do applaud your choice of a relative reputation, though. Which, I'm beginning to see, is a nice loophole to deal with public criticism of your decisions. You claim you are open to suggestions, but obviously start out with a great bias against said suggestions, and deal with them in a manner most uninviting of further input. You say people need to "convince" you. But if you refuse to be convinced, and make good use of your codex-honed "discussion" skills, there's no way that can happen unless you think the proposed idea has some merit, beforehand. And, at the same time, this modus operandi leaves you looking like you listen to us (something apparently central to your discourse, for unexplained reasons). Well, can't dispute you do. It's just you don't give a **** most of the time. Clever. I'm not even going to touch this. That's interesting, but your F3 reference speaks volumes, I think.