Gizmo

That's not a really good example. BG2 specifically mentioned that these things are rare and you won't find them lying around every corner in the skill description. Fallout, on the other hand, doesn't communicate what's useful (and even goes counter to post-apocalyptic genre tropes sometimes, so common sense isn't as useful as it could be). That's not a really good example [of my example]. BG2 is huge, and the skill is "Exotic Weapons"; and the game had the player choose among the skills. Fallout's scale is comparatively miniscule here, and the game starts everyone with minimum proficiency in all skills; and those skills are 'catch-all' categories. 'Big Guns' includes miniguns, flame throwers, and rocket launchers. Its Melee weapon skill includes every melee weapon in the game, where BG2's sword skill does not include maces or even daggers. It's not the same thing at all. Fallout shouldn't have to tell anyone anything... In BOTH games [FO & BG2], it is an atmosphere of 'who the hell know what to expect out there', and in both cases it's gambling on the finding of highly advanced ~tech~ with no guarantees of anything. Well... technically the BG2 character should know more of their world than the Fallout character, so it figures that they would know that katanas are rarer items, and as such, you see it stated in the game. With Fallout the PC is tossed into the world with zero familiarity, and a head full of ~"how it was 80 years ago". The point the katana example was that making that choice gave your PC a longshot ability to use a rare weapon ~one that's out there, but that you might never find, and at significant cost too... one that pays off only if you do find the weapon. Why should this not be the same for Energy weapons... or even TRAPS in Fallout. (The traps skill being arguably THE skill that everyone seems to consider useless.... until they step on a mine or mess with somebody's hidden safe.) Traps is hard to assume useful in every encounter; you'd not search the floor of a casino for traps... but it was useful if there were traps around. *The flaw was that trap damage was usually minor by the time you started finding them in the game. But I do recall that in FO2, that setting off a trapped safe (in New Reno ) would bring a guard to investigate; where the player that did not set it off, did not alert the guard IRRC. Having a knack with traps enabled that. It was also a flaw that Fallout 2 was made piecemeal and cobbled together at the end... making for all sorts of inconsistent use of game elements ~including the presence of traps. So there is some merit after all with Traps being poorly implemented. (But it works when there are traps to be found. And is it really a fault that there isn't an excessive use of traps in the game?) **I'm going to miss it terribly in both POE and WL2 if there is no traps detection; probably more so in PoE. I'd call it a key feature of the Infinity engines ~not counting Planescape much. I remember having to send the rogue in to hunt traps many times. Traps that could often kill outright, and several of them in proximity.

Tecnhically the PA suits should be electric or even pneumatic exoskeletons that are laden with heavy armor ~or at least puncture resistant. They were described as reflective of lasers, and should almost be classed as a vehicle. Not post-apoc platemail. They are supposed to be the best armor you can get... but for balance sake, they are above average in FO3. Irrational ~balance~ at work. Logically anyone should choose the PA if acquired, and be basically pistol proof; and need a good reason to take it off. But in FO3 IRRC you could eventually kill a man in PA with a BB gun. Are you saying that the games [WL2 and games in general] should ensure that it's impossible for the player [character] not to acquire any [a] weapon they are skilled with... Like barring a door with a Shotgun, and they have to accept it to progress past the door? [Extreme ~but real-world example; 'cause they did that in Shadow Warrior 2013.] Baldur's Gate 2; katanas in BG2. BG games made katanas an exotic weapon, you could choose it, but there weren't many of them to be had. The setting was such that it made sense to have one in the jail (so the PC is guaranteed access to one), but they are generally rare. This makes sense in the setting; they just not plausibly common ~should they have been? If your character's rare weapon breaks (and it could IRRC), they should quickly contrive the appearance of a replacement? I understand your point, but the downside isn't favorable IMO; these games should not spawn weapons like Doom; (or practically.. as in the town merchant suddenly gets a Katana for sale when the PC breaks theirs). IMO this goes for energy weapons to ~or any exotic weapon. Fallout starts every PC with minimal competency in small arms; if they can't find a plasma pistol or one to buy or steal, they have skill with common guns until they do ~If they do. It's not as though they don't have them in the game ~that would be bad design. But IMO it should be on the player to succeed in finding one ~not be issued one from the outset, or be given one as they leave the first area. It could be different in WL2... the setting is such that ~at least hypothetically they could entrust a raw recruit with such impressive tech ~because they know how to use it... but... does that seem sensible on their first mission? Couldn't they easily lose it to raiders and have it used against them later? I think the higher tier weapons should only be earned, bought, or discovered; and not impossible to miss. You don't want to know the answer. (Seriously ~It's long and it involves discussing 'Middle Earth'.) Aside from that, I just don't approve of repec options during play, because it rewrites the PC while leaving their past actions intact ~even if they could not have done them with the new skill set. Perhaps the game could 'forget' and reset parts of itself ~and take back acquired items retroactively... but I doubt it.

... And I hated it... It was bad enough that Fallout merged all heavy weapons into 'Big Guns', but later versions made it worse. I have never liked Josh Sawyer's [public] stance on balancing either... the idea that a small arms pistol should be [ensured] as viable as an energy pistol, or heavy weapon like miniguns and rockets (which should be different skills IMO). Nor did I ever like the odd change to power armor ~making it a choice, instead of THE choice... because it is what it is; and if it isn't ~then it isn't. Making power armor a close option to other top tier conventional armor just makes power armor silly. I would much prefer a noticeably extreme change in defensive and offensive capability for wearing power armor, and then include places in the game where it's impractical to wear it ~not 'gimp' it for the entire game in the name of equilibrium. In Fallout it was said to make the wearer a walking tank; that it does not do ~not in any game after FO2. (I consider this a flaw.) Chronicles of Riddick did a far better job on power armor than Fallout 3, and that's sad. Certainly not ~it's full of flaws... but they are flaws that are akin to mis-measuring one's ingredients in a recipe for "Chicken Salad"; as opposed to instead misreading the choice of meat. I see Fallout as it was designed. I associate that as Fallout, and I don't see much of it in the later games; not gameplay, not atmosphere, not ~'vibe'. And I understand that Obsidian was probably on the leash with NV. I honestly can't comment on the writing in NV, because I haven't played enough of the game to make an informed opinion of it. But I did think it absurd that the player could have an entire casino try to kill them for picking up a cigarette off the floor. Oddly [to some ~but no to me], I see Wasteland 2 and Arcanum as the best Fallout games since the turn of the century; not the best games... but the best Fallout games, in that they have what I associate with Fallout. (In a way it's sad too, because while I love this fact... Wasteland 2 plays nothing like I'd have expected of a sequel to Wasteland. ) Technically you can consider the PC as an 'every-man' [in Fallout specifically; but possibly WL2], one with pinch-hitter's skill in the general areas. As such they should not really be professional anything; and/or unless they are well over 100%. "Big Guns" is not realistic, but it's far more so than "Guns". (Or any other streamlined merging of ~not really related~ skills.) But where does the 'gibberish' part apply? In RPGs [and this certainly applies to Wasteland2 and the Fallout series], I see the PC as the player's implement; the one (and possibly only) window into that world ~~Not as a placeholder/costume/formality to then essentially switch places with. (This puts me at odds with FO3 immediately). So the player should only have access to what the PC can logically access and accomplish. It's a bit similar to those claw machines with the plush toys in them. You "tell it what to do" (which to grab), and it does it's best ~so to speak. So I don't look at any skill as a benefit to me; I look at them as what the PC knows how to do; and if they find themselves out of their element in a situation... then so be it... that's how they would be and behave in the situation; it's an RPG. I expect a pacifist to get beaten up a lot; I expect a thief to get caught [occasionally] and have to suffer the consequences. I expect a weapons specialist to be skilled at the weapons they specialize in ~not that they will have guaranteed access to them... but it's great if they do. (Made greater by the knowledge that it's not guaranteed them to have access to those weapons, and when they find one ~it's worth its weight in gold; and Fallout allows weapons to self destruct too. ~yes I'd be mad if it happened, but I'd wouldn't feel anything if it was assured never possible.) Wasteland 2 includes 'Toaster Repair'. As it is, this seems to be access to a magic container; it might mean that extra skill in 'toaster repair' adds more loot, and more value to the loot. If that's all it is, then it seems pretty weak IMO. I had been hoping for the skill to be a catch-all jury-rigging skill that included toasters, and could allow special events like turning on a gas stove, and rigging a toaster to ignite the room in 2 minutes. It is a good example of your point for a player boosting up the ranks for Toaster Repair, and never finding any toasters. It's sort of like that now... you still have to hunt them down ~and have the skill... That seems silly if that's all it is; as any PC should be able break them open with no intention of repairing them. That would be bad design with a skill IMO.

I am not a fan of theme-park activity apps ~the games we so commonly get these days. Do you honestly demand that Fallout give access to a rocket launcher in Shady Sands, if the PC tagged and developed Big Guns to exclusion? (or even later in Vault 15?) Those weapons are there if you find them, and usable if you know how. The entire game is laid out with the land pre-looted (as it should be, given the context). Almost every container in the game is empty; unless it's inside an occupied structure, or inside a place so deadly that no one has managed to loot it yet. That's how it should be... that's the game world as intended. It is a trade off to specialize, common sense should tell [a typical player] that ultra high-tech will be scarce; (incredulous if it isn't. Like FO3... and their absurd peppering of mini nukes in farm houses and random book shelves ~seemingly). FO3 was a "GAME" in the worst sense of the term ~it shamelessly put the player on a pedestal and had the world orbit them for their own sense of empowerment. That's nothing like what the series was famous for; earned its name from, or how it treated its players. Disappointment in a fantastic recreation of 16 square miles of land in the Fallout setting. That's what I got out of it. My best times in FO3 (really appreciated times too), were solitary treks into the least populated areas, away from any town, NPC or encounter of any kind. That was when FO3 was near perfect. It was never close anywhere else in the game ~and got worse anytime anyone open their mouth. This tack should be beneath you, and anyone else. One shouldn't need to marginalize or insult the other person; and besides... do you know for fact when others are [regulars] from the codex or NMA? You are arguing [it seems to me] for an almost homogenized set of mechanics and resources... You seem to want Rock/Paper/Scissors... The triangle; Scout trumps Carrier, carrier trumps Frigate, Frigate annihilates Scouts; only it's wizards and warriors and rogues, or Raiders vs Brotherhood vs Mutants or something. Some games that employ that are really superb ~but not ALL games are meant to be that way, nor can they be superb if they were [shoe-horned into it]. It's true; and I don't know why. I can't imagine it would hold true had he done the artwork, unfortunately he has inherited color blindness; but he designs great games ~sometimes overly ambitious; but even the flawed ones show their potential... and get a free pass for it. It's aiming for the Bulls-eye instead of the barn... it doesn't matter if he hits the center ring, what matters is that he hit the barn close to the bulls-eye. *[Where others might target the barn and claim success.] What's a gimp character (to you)? Is it one that cannot use fire arms? Fallouts were RPGs originally, and you could approach your character as a tribal in Fallout 2... one skilled in spear and fist fighting; even tossed stones. Plausibly they could acquire grenades and like them. But they don't need to develop combat if they have the ability to get skilled friends. Odd as it sounds, you can make a tribal character that is very familiar with energy weapons ("from reading the old discs" ), and gets by with her knife and grenades, until one days she actually finds a plasma pistol. It could happen ~it should be able to happen; what should not be able to happen is her being given a plasma pistol by the elder, or as a thanks for killing the plants in the Shaman's garden. And if she ends the game having never found one ~so what? she ended the game right? Now the controversial part is that personally [me], I'm not actually against making the game un-winnable with builds that logically shouldn't be able to win... but I do understand why most people would balk at that, and I'd never press for it in a game. The Fallout team made a careful effort to ensure that there were usually three paths to complete any [principle] task; even if it meant 'gimping' the opposition.

I actually did not mean through bad design. What I meant was that a player should be allowed to discover alternatives that they may not of considered before. If they play the first few minutes and think they made a mistake (whether or not it really was), then they will use a respec option to obliterate what their character could have shown them, even before they had a clue about it. Ideally there should be no true mistakes in an RPG build; but some builds should offer their own unexpected or unconventional alternatives to the standard 'Walker Texas Ranger','Merlin', or Xena/elf/thief PC that is common cliche to almost all RPGs at this point. By 'naturally fail' I did not mean, "Surprise! You picked a lemon! You have to live with it!"; I meant that their choices should give them access to a different path that doesn't play out like the Expendables... Something they could likely have missed if they got robbed/tricked, or barely survived their first encounters, and respec'ed for a generic Tank PC; dropping the skills or traits that could have allowed some of the alternative paths through the game. *(Which of course should be there... it is indeed bad design to give options when only one is viable.) I don't hold to this opinion. Why should energy weapons be useful ~or even accessible for the first 2/3 of the game if the setting doesn't have them anywhere but the most dangerous ~and least looted~ locations in the game? having a background in energy weapons should be useless where there aren't any energy weapons, but having the skill would mean that if you acquired them, that the PC could use them, and if you didn't have that skill then tough; that's not what your PC was trained in ~so what? The player should not feel entitled to everything the game has to offer its players ~delivered from on session with on PC. Even if they never play the game again, they got the experience that PC should offer, and they didn't play another. It's okay not to ever acquire an energy weapon in the game ~skill or no skill. One shouldn't ever spend that to find 'kewl' character builds, All of the builds should be great, but noticeably different when varied by even a few points here and there. And the game should not allow 'panic respecing' by nervous players. You can't stop them from reloading, but IMO they should not enable them with features that encourage [radically] changing their mind mid game.

Yeah... that's something Bethesda offers (to my complete and derisive irritation) ~at least on one side; but on the other side... There is the understanding that their flawed design almost requires it. I use the save to start a new game, because of the tedium caused by starting a new game via the menu. I find the invitation to revoke any and all commitments made of the PC, as a rather insulting thing to include in an RPG ~when done after the game has commenced. It seems cheap. It cheapens the experience IMO. The problem with min/maxing for the best/ or smoothest build is that the characters then seem to lack any character. Players who discover [online] to always take or avoid some aspect of the game [skills/equipment/story path] are robbed of the chance to naturally fail... though granted, most of them likely won't understand why anyone would want to fail. It's a shame that it can't be explained without a lecture, or to players that take the PC's failure personally ~as if it somehow reflected on them as players. I am not a fan of respec options for characters; not if they recant on prior established facts. Adding, or changing a development path is fine though. It's at least sensible that a "thief" or "paladin" might change careers (even swap careers ), but not that a thief ~suddenly never was one, or that a slow and/or clumsy paladin ~suddenly always had been adroit and agile from birth.

Wasteland 2, Legend of Grimrock 2, War for the Underworld, Witcher 3, and Pillars of Eternity.

So it would basically would play like a middle-dark-ages version of... Face-Man's A-Team adventures... wheeling and dealing for a cause, and always makes time for the damsels in distress, duress, or states of undress. I could see that as working well, and could include cameos from Zoltan, Triss or Geralt himself. Perhaps under an overarching [voice over] narrative by Dandelion.

All it makes me think is that you either haven't read anything I said thus far, or you haven't understood a single thing... The only thing that I missed (first time around), was you saying,"No one here is justifying pirating".

Your point being? I can try to explain it, but I can't understand it for you. The man actually explains it pretty well I thought; did you read his article?

I do recall that brilliant [and devious] studio that released a game simulation about making games, and uploaded a version of their game to a torrent ~but that one added that the player's work would get pirated, and they got so many calls by irate gamers [edit:apparently not; just forum postings] that had managed to release their game, but couldn't seem to win because they kept getting pirated. Aha! http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-pirates-play-a-game-development-simulator-and-then-go-bankrupt-because-of-piracy/

Well we can agree to disagree on that point, it's pointless to discuss ideologies. We can agree to disagree... but that's not an ideology... that is a brazen insult to the the game studio; practically a slap to the face. (And probably feels like a kick to the groin.)

You seem to think that I care if they would not pay for it. I've never given that impression. Their disinclination to fairly purchase the product has no bearing on the issue... it is only that they are not entitled to have it ~without purchasing it. Most people do not value what is plentiful and costs them nothing to get... By definition, an infinitely reproduced work that costs nothing is not valuable. You mentioned this: ________ There are example of games that couldn't be pirated and still tanked in their sales. I remember when starforce was introduced, Prince of Persia: Two Thrones wasn't pirated for a whole year and it was still a failure to Ubisoft as the sales were underwhelming for them. Simcity was never pirated and they still failed miserably. ________ And I ask why this seems important to you in this context? Why should any of us care if the games 'still tanked'? It doesn't matter they are not hurt (but of course they are), what matters is that it DOES benefit the pirate ~and this is what's wrong with it.

Of course they compete ; They compete when a company is selling access to their work on one site, and access to their work is given away indiscriminately on another site,(or several) other sites. You seem to hold the genuine belief that payment for anything is just being polite. Do you honestly think that infinite [unpaid] duplication of a work does not devalue it? Or that the same does not obliterate the legitimate market for that work? Why do you consider it significant that games fail even without DRM? Do you actually believe also that those games deserve no payment ~and yet should still be playable unpaid for? (And that's justifiable to you?) Please tell me in your own words why you believe [if you do] that anyone who "would never had paid for it anyway", should expect to be given it for free; to benefit from it without recompense for the creator; who only allows access of it to those willing to pay them for their skills?

It hurts profit by saturating the market with free copies of their product. If someone spends several years investment in an endeavor, and brings it to market and they have to compete with free versions of their own product ~that hurts their profit.

What makes anyone think their purchase is welcome if they've previously taken items from the seller? I know that if someone stole [originals or copies] of my work, I would never sell to them ~period. Irrelevant. If they freely offer it to all then fine, it's their right to offer it; but if they don't, and they charge for their service [and it is a service], then it's simply not free. Accessing it for free is doing so against their will ~why do you think they are selling it(!?) instead of asking for donations? This is not justifiable. It is taking their work without their permission; when they've clearly prohibited this... it doesn't matter if it's a lost sale or a future sale. It doesn't matter if they cannot catch the twerp, why would anyone ~even those unabashedly committed to screwing people over and generally being jerks~ ever delude themselves into thinking it's perfectly acceptable and sensible behavior to buy or steal interchangeably?

That's not the problem. A content creator should be allowed to name their price (to whatever extreme) ~and fail to sell, or not... The problem is enforcement [fines and eventually imprisonment] against those who would take the products willingly and unabashedly against the designer's wish, when it's not theirs to have without recompense. Is it so different from a punk on the street grabbing a drunk's wallet and taking snapshots of his ID and credit cards... He didn't 'steal' them, they're still in the wallet and the drunk has them... but they knowingly did it because they knew the fellow could not do anything about it ~~wouldn't even remember the event or know who to accuse. It's brazen viciousness, and the person that gets away with taking a gum-ball, later gets away with taking a nickel, later a quarter, later a car. It's a complete lack of respect for others and of any sense of decency. I'm not talking about someone who has no clue what printer ink costs, and prints out an art book PDF on their friend's computer, or a seven year old that discovers a Barney Torrent; I mean reasonably accountable repeat offenders. People like that only understand a thing is wrong when the dog they kick bites them in the ass for it; and some not even then. A wise choice too. And you think that makes it correct behavior do you? Here we have so-called 'handicapped parking spaces'; parking in them is illegal unless you have a permit ~that you can get with a valid disability. People illegally park in them all the time and think nothing of it ~until they get caught and find out that the fine is 10x the penalty of mundane parking violations. People learn the lesson, and leave the spots open... So in that respect, it works. *Sadly, you do get disability fraud, and people rushing to renew their parking tag the day before their cast comes off. But on the whole it makes a dent in the callousness by taking a bite out of anyone idiot enough to so blatantly ignore the reserved parking for the disabled. Consider: The persons parking there illegally are taking what they want from people that probably can't do anything about it; it's not conceptually different from stealing from the blind, or even swimming in the neighbor's pool when they expressly prohibited it. You cannot justify anything as 'right' simply [only] because your friends all do it. People and corporations that dedicate their own time and their own capital to a commercial endeavor, do so to make a living (preferably a GOOD living), and it is not justifiable that random twits on the Internet should be able to benefit from their initiative and hard work without rightfully paying their asking price. The alternative is not to benefit from them until you can afford their product; there are plenty of artists, musicians, games, and software developers that gladly provide their work for free, and it's not wrong to take them up on it. It IS wrong when the owner of it says 'NO' ~even if they cannot catch you stealing it. Why should it need explained? If nobody paid it then they would lower the price if they wanted to sell it. ___ *Not paying their price means to ignore it ~not to steal it in some self righteous protest of the establishment. [This is not directed at anyone personally; it's just self evident.] Wanting a thing and not having it is not inherently wrong; wanting to sell it and getting robbed/ripped off by interested users is. ___

Except that in the US, what cost $1 in 1990, now costs $1.81. The value of the dollar has decreased, and you have to spend more of them for the same goods. The average $60 game today, would have cost $33 in 1990's currency [value].

Games are priced at the level most will pay for them; it's always been like that ~with everything (clothes, food, shelter, entertainments). Games are cheaper now than decades ago. "Eye of the Beholder" originally sold for about $90 [adjusted]. They are (and have been) priced at the market value.

? Is this supposed to mean justification to steal, merely because not to have it affects the person negatively? That's never justified ~not even for heart pills... but with heart pills at least it's a lot easier to forgive... though the person should still have to pay for them somehow. Yet... How does that work if it's two guys in a room with one pill, because one guy lost his? (Is it okay to steal it then?) *Yes it's a serious question; it's exaggerated for the point.

Years ago You see this quite often with 3DStudio Max & Photoshop; people want them, but can't afford them ~so they decide that it's wrong, and that it's wrong that they should have to pay more than they can afford... so they endeavor to get them for free. Can't say a thing to them about the reasons for this; because the message is ignored when it's understood to mean 'No soup for you!'.

It's an author's right; but doesn't that mean that Unity [at least theoretically] will try to defend your work ~wasting their time doing it, because the same assets were made freely available by the author elsewhere? *Somewhat like being in contract with a gallery that displays an artist's work and does their best to sell it for them, only to realize that the artist purposely set the same works on the sidewalk for free. That seems awfully unfair to Unity IMO. They enter the agreement for mutual benefit no?

Why should anyone put effort into anything , and make it public, if the [global] culture takes the position that if they can steal it, then it's okay to do so? A DVD movie (and probably any book or E-book), is licensed for a consumer's use ~not a public performance... so you cannot [legally] take your commercial DVD to school and play it in the auditorium for a crowd. What you own is the plastic disc ~not the media recorded on it; that is licensed for specific use. It's the same way with most software; some software you are not allowed to sell ~it's in the license that you agreed to before being granted access to the software. It wouldn't surprise me if the EULA on the E-books say the same, and/or prohibit performance of the work [reading it aloud for an audience]. In the case of a text book, one is basically robbing them of fair payment of the class, by buying one copy and sharing it. One really has to ask why should they bother assembling the lessons if their work will just be stolen from them... if everyone assumes they are free to steal the work, then what's the point? I have actually seen posts by people lauding a great work (in their opinion), and then actually suggest that the reader decide to pay for it ~like it's the unconventional nice thing to do. With Software, I have talked to people who had a common interest in commercial 3D modeling work... only to hear them say minutes later that their version is cracked ~and they say this in the manner of someone stating the color of their bathroom; rather than as one might expect them to [reluctantly] state the current septic overflow of their leaking toilet... No shame nor even the slightest concept that it's wrong, and that they do not deserve to have access to an illegitimate clone of the software~or movie, or text document. Some people [artist/designers/authors] want their works freely copied, and that's fine; but others stipulate an agreement prior to allowing access. In the simplest sense, it's your word of honor to abide by the agreement; but unfortunately far too few can be trusted to keep that agreement, and so we get that ghastly DRM crap that we all have to suffer under. Some people's honest opinion of copying seems to equate to: It's wrong to rob a bank, but if you throw the money into a crowd, it's okay for them to keep it. These people create our games, books, music, and software tools, to create a living for themselves, and every single cloned copy of their initiative and skilled labor, is a service rendered without compensation for their work. Absolutely everyone that benefits from them should pay them for it; or an authorized seller. *And of course people may find a book/ or a CD/DVD second hand and get a deal ~or get it free... that's great when it's legit, but that should be the exception ~never the [mob] rule.

Generally it means 'Choice & Consequences' ; *(unless you are a die-hard Westwood Studios fan; and I should know).

I would hazard a bet that this is why Ken Rolston left the company when the game finally shipped. I certainly don't know it, but I had the impression ~from somewhere~ that he was not a happy camper.