Gizmo

As an alternative, I suggest just buying yourself a tin plate and keep belting yourself on the head each time you start up the game. Nah... It was an impressive prop for April fools; I'd love it if they included that in a collectors edition; For the SSI games, I had some of those disc memorized so I didn't even need to look up the answers.

Is there any possible chance they could put a code wheel like that in the collector's box, and simply add a few reasons to need it in the game? *Yes I'd definitely want one of those. (And for those that don't know what they are: Some notable PE and BG/BG2 precursors from SSI had them, and used them to ask the player questions that required a coded answer. Obviously it's merely decorative now that the list of such questions ~with answers, would spread over night online if tried seriously. But it's still a pretty neat prop.)

I haven't it on excellent authority that they both escape on a goat.

No. *Also: That was only 'Act 1', there is more of the game to come; later this year.

Wow; that ~technically~ makes it a roleplaying game... Where the assigned role it that of the routed mechanized infantry in retreat; and the players get experience [awards] for playing in character and achieving the character's goals.

I'd say those were good reasons... Of Fallout: While it's my favorite RPG, I don't think it's a better one than Planescape ~though I do think it the better game. **"Better" is highly subjective, and itself subject to local attitudes and appreciation. There is a cultural difference apparent in regional games... One cannot pin it to any particular person or small group of course, but it seems common that [generally] one market approaches a game as "What shall I do next", where the other's approach is "What should I do next; (as in 'supposed' to be doing next)"; this is a none too subtle difference in design, and can be the point of failure or success in that market. In such circumstance, the open world and 'hands-off' developer approach can cause failure, and that would not be "better"; (while the reverse is also true ~ in a different region). I think it's not a 'who is better' duel; rather it's more of a Peanut Butter vs Vegemite sort of contest ~if contest at all. It's not easy to judge two competitors who are striving for different goals using different rules. **It's funny, this brings to mind the Celts. Romans derided the Celtic artists for producing cartoony doodles in stone instead of masterful figures... and the Celtic knots and beard pullers were often absurdly complex... but they were forbidden to create accurate effigy, and were not always doing the art for human appreciation.

What are a few examples of that 'no'? *Aside from that: wasn't the quote perfectly on topic?

Wouldn't that be larger textures? (and/or sounds?) *Don't know; I don't have the game.

Currently? Shadow Warrior [2013], and the 'One Room Round Robin #2' mod for Legend of Grimrock.

Or they are people that are not entirely focused on being He-man and want an impartial gaming system with time tested rules for representing a balanced experience; one that really excites when things go their way ~because they know it doesn't have to (and because they know it might not continue to). Games like Skyrim & Oblivion are the very antithesis of D&D and all it represents... [How's that for a blasphemous cRPG opinion?] That may sting like a whip to some, but that doesn't mean it ain't true. Some jokes you have to understand the reasons behind the humor ~or it's not funny. With Planescape it helps to understand the setting and the concepts involved... If you don't then the game is a wordy mess... if you do; (or even think you do)... It can be a masterwork. Planescape is a better RPG than Fallout 1 IMO.

Homeworld(There are others?) Ah.. okay: Homeworld:Cataclysm (HW & HW:C are full 3D RTS with individual ship control. That means that you can attack with an armada, and send the wounded back for repairs; The HW2 devs ruined this by making fighters into minimum numbered squads with one fighter taking all the hits and dying before the next, and to send one back ~sends them all back. It also meant you had to risk five ships on a suicide mission instead of just one. The game has three modes; R&D, Sensor map, and 1:1 combat/harvesting... Most of the game ~for good players, is played in the 'sensor map' screen, with simplified abstract graphics that tell what's happening on the larger scale.) The game's cutscenes all have an intense intro where the visible screen morphs to a theatrical 'wide-screen'.HWQuick Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLhS46IcnSs Full Example (with gameplay): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps3xEv1ArmQ HWCFull Example (with gameplay): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcN-2l0ON9M Myth 1&2 AFAIK this is the first 3D RTS (3D landscape/2D units). Each unit has internal stats, a name, and the top survivors improves and carry over after each mission if they are applicable to it. Loosely derived from Glen Cook's "The Black Company" novel.Mission Briefing Example (done as diary entries of one soldier): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJs2jeeZPOw Gameplay (this is not as easy as it looks): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMwqv_3BvAc Planescape, BG & BG2 & Fallout [1] Arx Fatalis: An excellent FPP RPG where the stats actually matter, and do their job. Fantastic spell system, and creepy undead. The game has functional hidden passages that look like someone might actually build them with a reason. The game also pays attention to details, and even has devalues mine stocks in the bank ~that increase in value once the unrest at the mine is resolved.

The option I'd prefer, is a Total conversion mod of whatever their most recent Fallout game is, and convert it to Fallout series gameplay, and optionally rewrite the entire thing from scratch, and cannibalize the recorded voice work, mixed with 'over dub' voice impressions. It's pointless for them to remake the originals; impossible in today's messed up global culture... It'd be like Disney doing an animated remake of Schindler's List.

Have you played Homeworld? I thought it was the other way around! The further back I went, the more I liked them; the more recent ones were the most disappointing. [some might call that blasphemous opinion.] Planescape was a 'level up over lunch' kind of game... there weren't even any swords in it.

#1 pretty much ½ of the reason to play. #2 is absurd; ½ of those are better than most we have now. #3 was tried by a silly person at SSI and they ruined 'Eye of the Beholder 3' for it. The games are designed around timing and multi-tasking in combat... To reduce it to an "okay everybody... get'em!!" button, negates the entire concept of most of these games, and is only useful to those estranged souls stuck playing the wrong type of game for them, either by mistake or bad circumstance. Not so... it's choosing between visiting ponies, or dolphins... these are not directly comparable. Turn based is not RT/w [a longer] pause; and RT/wPause is nothing like turn based... and neither try to copy or excel at the other's style of offered experience. These are something to seek out ~each for its own sake; not something one has to settle for, or presume inferiority of.

And I mentioned that I simply don't see it. A 3D open world is the same 3d open world whether the camera sits on the shoulder, in the eye, or above in the sky... Same assets, same engine... it's just that Iso style seems generally more intensive to render; IE it's easier to do FPP.

But I don't recall any of 'them' saying that; I know for a fact none of those I recall actually want a Fallout 2.5, and none have any misgivings about using 3D.... But then 3D is not specifically first person, it's how the data exists and is handled. There are several games out that are self described as isometric, but are actually 3D.... Pillars of Eternity is one of them (just for instance). One of "the good ol' days" concepts that is better done in isometric [3d or 2d], is the bit for which Fallout was envisioned and made to provide: Namely a PnP style experience on the PC (or as close as feasible); which they admirably did IMO. When it comes to combat FPP doesn't cut it. You might find it surprising to hear from me ~but I would be far less antagonistic about FO3's use of FPP had they simply restricted its use to exploration and not combat... favoring a more FO2/WL2 approach (as depicted below). But I can; and here it is!;(but it's not like I spent any time on it; it's just conceptual). This screen looks [to me] like a game that would provide the kind of gameplay challenges implied (and usually afforded) by use of the name "Fallout". This is possible with [real] Isometric...so it's certainly possible with 3D [fake] isometric. Name one ~(seriously); I cannot think of anything specific to RPGs that alienates ~or fails to exploit, an (available) 3D open world technolog if it's done in 3/4 top down. What did you have in mind? I can think of the reverse easy enough; but then Neither Fallout 3 of NV seem to exploit it either. In 3D there could be targeting nodes in the models that conform attack animations in real time while the target moves. That could mean that the stock punch in a 3D game could track to the face, or shoulder, neck, or groin of a moving target ~~allowing aimed strikes on par with Fallout, instead of the silly 'anywhere' punch in FO3 that affords no tactical attacks to the melee fighter. These same nodes could be used with skills & actions... the PC could equip say... Bolt cutters (as an FPP weapon) and the animation could depict the PC cutting a lock off a door (for simply standing close enough and attacking it with bolt cutters). Turn-about is fair play; It's what was done to us. <_< You certainly aren't aren't the only one; the resources between the games are fantastic, and more than enough; they should just add what they need that they don't have.

Were the 'mapkins' ever that accurate?; I liked them, I still have the one from NWN.

This is true, and it's a limitation of cRPGs. You seem to misunderstand stat/attributes. Stats reflect the person's strengths and limitations; their aptitudes, and their short-comings. They exist to say, "no"; but sometimes "yes". You assume [wrongly] that it's the flip of a coin [first off], and that this is actually bad if it were true [secondly]. I's not true because it's almost never 50/50 odds. A weighted percentile system (for so skill-rolls generally are), affords an impartiality of the [make-believe] reality. It effectively represents the state of the universe ~as it were; all things in flux and in progress; and a bit of past & future chance wrapped up into a single roll of the die. This is not controllable by the player ~~And never should be~~. The player should always be at the mercy of the PCs ability to influence a given situation. If the PC is an expert lock picker then their skill and confidence shifts the odds well into their favor, and yet they still cannot (and should not) totally control the outcome. Professionals can make mistakes, and even be unintentionally sabotaged by current or previous [or even extrapolated] events. No one is perfect, and yes indeed failures at 1% chance do happen in life; it is when they don't happen, that something is really messed up ~not the reverse. In general use, under a weighted percentile system, PCs that are skilled, tend to succeed more often than not, and PCs with little to no skill, tend to fail most of the time ~as it should be... but what's neat about it, is that it's not always beyond possibility that fluke success happens; and it's not corn-ball or contrived when it does happen under a fair system. When I was a child ~of I think 6yrs; I unlocked a secured combination padlock on a janitor's pool closet in our building; this was a without actually looking at the lock (needing to reach above my head to grab it), and it truly was by randomly spinning the dials; this stuff happens... it also happens that even people with the key to their own house cannot always get the lock open with it ~this stuff also happens; one can't control if something is wrong with the lock or if the the temperature has expanded the door, or if the door is glued shut; or if the PC gets a cramp in their hand at that moment... the actual details are insignificant, and all that matters is that they were not able to succeed at something, or that they were. Most times it doesn't matter much, and they can simply try again. (Have you never dropped your keys trying to unlock your house; and then tried again?) It allows for an impartial reality in the game; what occurs, what's influenced, and what cannot be predicted. In the game Fallout, it didn't matter if the character had 140% chance to hit with a gun, they still had a 5% chance of missing ~because nobody is perfect; and even if they were: the rest of the environment isn't, and so there would STILL be a margin for error. No, the character has a problem ~for being out of their element... that's not a problem for the game; not every PC should be able to win at every situation. ~Personally [though it's bad game design] I say that not every PC should be ~guaranteed~ able to win the game... That's not to say they couldn't win, but that they might not if the situation comes that they lack the ability to succeed at what's needed to win. *Generally it's good compromise to have alternate ways to win; for just that event. This is a bad thing; the player isn't supposed to have freedom beyond the "failings" of their [character] class. The whole point of a character class is to outline what you cannot do ~(and what they happen to excel at). When this is circumvented, the game degenerates into 'lets pretend' and becomes a servile sandbox like Oblivion/Skyrim [gameplay]. Even games that eschew a class concept should still enforce what cannot be done; else it's devolves into a digital-daydream... That's the problem with [recent] TES games; they never say "no" to the player; they only say 'yes' or 'not yet'.

Agreed... but... I don't understand the problem there; the point is to develop the character and make the best choices available to them... ergo, it has to be limited to their stats; why should player agency come into it at all? (Aside from perceiving the best options available to the PCs... and hopefully succeeding with them; perhaps with a bit of luck.) It's not like the game is supposed attempt to swap the player for the PC; we have enough of that crap in game like Skyrim. The rules in D&D based cRPGs at least afford them some immunity to that. Crawlers are my favorite style; though I've not played one that I'd call an RPG. Why exactly? FO2 is effectively the same game as Fallout 1, but with a worse (and less original) storyline to it. FO2 does have some UI fixes that Fallout needed; but I can't see how it's better than Fallout ~just that it's bigger is all. IMO the FO2 devs misunderstood the setting and honestly rather polluted it.

Irrelevant. If you give anyone money to do a job ~it's their money so long as they deliver the work. If they buy a computer for the job that computer does not belong to you nor are you entitled free access to it. If the job was paint a digital picture and they coded an image editor to do it ~that software is theirs not yours. Obsidian did not offer up their tools as part of the deal; they are not obligated to offer them to anyone... You should know this, it's common sense.

I didn't think so... but then touch screens are not a positive feature for me; for one thing the level of control goes down, and for another a keyboard & mouse (aside from offering superior control); are a LOT cheaper to replace if they get messed up with finger oils/dirt/cheetoes cruft, and the like. That never happened for me. The only issue I can recall, is that later versions of DirectX had an emergent issue with some textures appearing as full white; most noticeably the giant mice. This was fixed with a later patch. My only qualm with Arx is that the conditions by which shani gets killed are either very unclear or they are bugged.

What possible incentive for that is there? These are custom tools that you can make a game like Pillars of Eternity; that can be licensed to another studio. It makes no sense to give it away for free.

Ohhh, I forgot about Dark Messiah of Might and Magic. And Arx Fatalis. Those were pretty bad. Sound in terms of gameplay concept, horribly executed. At the very least Oblivion, for all its flaws and depth-free combat, didn't have realtime classic grid-style inventory management in a game with real-time first person combat. Arx was a top notch RPG with few peers IMO. The game had great art (for its system requirements), and great rule mechanics, conversation, the spell system is unmatched to this day; the undead were actually scary; the stats & skills actually did their job. The spell selection included undocumented spells that the player goes deduce and then use; the secret passages were actually functional and not arbitrary... I could go on... but I'll stop with the note that the banker in town even sold shares in the mine, that you could sell back to him! incredible! *Hell... you could get the bards drunk, and they'd play their tunes drunk & off key. (And curiously, Arx also had the most credible 'jump' in FPS games that I've played)

I plan to try modding it if it seems possible and they don't actively prohibit it. But they did not promise a toolset for modding; so I won't be expecting one.

No I don't; I backed them for the game, not whatever tools they made to create it. Had it been a backer's tier award, then I'd likely have backed at that level, but if I didn't, (or couldn't), then tough. ~but they wouldn't have done that anyway, because the tools would have been passed around anyway; but it's for example sake. So? (Seriously, how does that matter to anyone but them, and they can choose not to if they wish; they did not promise us mod tools.) No they most certainly do not. (And they cannot.) What they do is recompile the toolset after stripping out middle-ware they are not licensed to give away. And also it's not strictly beneficent either. To use the tools, one must agree to the terms; and the terms state that they effectively own what you make with the tools. This is self protective, and gives them the freedom expand on concepts they see in the mods ~on the remotest chance that they had not already thought of it themselves. This means that no one can make bogus (or true) claims that Bethesda stole their idea; and they are in the right... They offer the tools for free and those are the terms. **Technically ~even back in the Black Ilse days... Modding is legally iffy behavior without permission... Black Ilse's official policy was "No!" (but unofficially, they would ignore it). But they reserved the right not to ignore it if it became a problem for them. The tool set is basically a contract that gives restricted permission without giving away the baby.