Nemo0071

One time activation is my personal line. I can't speak for everyone on that, of course. True. Blizzard is a sneaky bunch, if that's the case. Kudos to Activision for learning from their mistakes, then. I, as a customer, would prefer NOT being their guinea pig, though.

Sounds very "Wikipedia". I like it. Also; Imagine if you could access every game ever developed for a minimal fee. Other than the fact that I would die a happy man, I think it would actually reduce piracy, instead of encouraging it. Mark my words: Accessibility reduces piracy. Ditto for reasonable prices.

ALso did a bunch of other cool VA roles. Mr. Gutsy robots? Harold? Garrett? Win. He had a monotone but also deep & cool voice in Thief games. My point still stands about voice actors' job being easier while working on different "types" of characters. This guy also made the human/mutant/robot thing.

Maybe they should speak with a fake Italian or French accent, huh? Maybe. This guy is my personal favorite, and I was mostly thinking about these characters when I said "the exact same voice": Possible reasons for why these characters stood out: 1-) Some of them were in the same general area (Billy, Andy - Megaton). 2-) You heard some of them frequently (TC mercs - Randomly Spawned Bad Guys, Crazy Wolfgang - Merchant, Butch - Companion). 3-) They were all humans. 4-) All of the above (talking to Crazy Wolfgang at Megaton with Butch on your side. Bring along Sticky to tell his stupid stories in the background and I should definitely try this sometime... ). See? Humans, mutants, robots... But this one might also actually be a good VA if he really managed to pull off what Slowtrain said. That was priceless.

This always bugged me. I mean, I'm no expert but if they do VO for multiple characters, and use the exact same voice (their "default" voice, if you will) for all of them, can we still call them voice actors (i.e. are they really earning their pay)?

Thanks for the answers. From what I understand if things stay the same way when the game comes to PCs, I'll be riding horses for a looong time in this game. Both for the sake of saving and not fast traveling... Camping for saving makes sense, I hope they can make it smoother for the PC version. So, how does the fast travel actually work? Do we travel between previous campsites or something? Sounds kinda like "marking your territory". Considering how this is Rockstar's new "big thing" after GTA games, I'd expect the same formula, even the same timeline. I'd say 8 months, give or take 2.

All this glitch & ambush & death talk reminds me: How are the saves handled? I'm guessing the "go to your house & sleep to save the game" method won't work in an open environment. I even have my reservations about autosaving only when you finish a particular objective (for all I know it could take about half an hour to finish, say, a bounty hunter mission).

Kind of...

Which I believe that you believe is not present / possible in computer games, at least in F:NV. No comment, then.

I'd still say WWI, but that bit about "no gunpowder" is confusing... If the counter is constantly moving backwards, my money's on Rome.

That's true. I was thinking about the non-explosive traps when I wrote that. But doesn't it make matters worse then? Having 2 skills that perform the same function? I thought having different solutions to some (if not all) puzzles / challanges in a game (possibly with a solution that your character build allows) was a core principle in RPGs. I could be wrong though. For example, in the tripwire scenario, you can just run through the trap quickly and take a bit of blast damage (Endurance), jump over it (Agility; well, it did affect your speed), throw an object to it from afar to trigger it (Intelligence; YOUR intelligence, not the PC's ) etc. They're all viable solutions for that given trap that perform the same function (getting through the trap) through different means (taking advantage of different skills/stats). Again, agreed on that.

No argument there. I meant that I believe Science and Repair meet this requirement, they just need a bit more content. Just to be fair, there were traps that needed Explosives skill. Many traps. Actually FO3 traps followed a simple pattern: If it's a mechanical trap, you need Repair; if it's explosive based, you need Explosives. Not only it made perfect sense in the game (even in reality) it also gave you alternative solutions to problems (got repair? lose the trapwire. got explosives? snatch the grenade bouquet instead. etc.). edit: And if "making sense" isn't enough, the game gives you information on exactly which skill check you just passed/failed, iirc.

Yep, as long as the skills are each useful in their own right, then it's fine. I would argue though that the whole repairing armor/weapons stuff is tedious busywork and adds nothing to the game. Using the repair skill in the gameworld is much more interesting, though it could easily be combined with science. And how granular do you get? DO you separate mechanical repair from electronic repair, for instance? Is repairing something that already exists and once worked different from building something new from scratch? On the flipside, how simple do you get? One would argue that most of the skills (even stats) in the game can be combined under "Survival", for example. Personally I like the current system. 1 Science and 1 Repair skill seems to me like good middle ground. Like I said I just want skills to be more fleshed out / involved gameplay-wise. Did something fun happen while I wasn't here? :3 The usual stuff, nothing to lose sleep over.

Yep, I do agree that the consistency is the most important aspect by far. Also balance, of course. A lot of confusion can be prevented of course by having info easily available in the UI. So even though I don't intuitively consider jellied gasoline (or whatever FO3 flamer fuel is) as an energy weapon type ammo (other than in the reductive sense I mentioned previously), as long as something in the UI plainly says: "Hey, dummy, this is an energy weapon!) then in the end that is fine. Personally, I would like to see flame/fuel-based weapons under Explosives like others suggested, and I guess there's always room for more "explosives" from a balancing pov (as long as we get more diversity in energy weapons in NV). But like you said, as long as it's clearly mentioned in the UI (and that's the case in NV it seems) then I'm juuust fine. There can never be too much information in a game for those who don't mind reading stuff. And I think it's both (science for software, repair for hardware). DO EET Or combine the skills into one. Which I personally don't think is a bad idea. I would say that if skills are so similar that the boundary between them is pretty iffy, then they should just be one skill. Granularity of skills is fine, as long as it has a very clear point. "Geek" skill! Yay! Good idea, sort of. But that would be like taking the easy way out (as opposed to combining "aiming" skills, which just comes down to "one skill for pulling the trigger and shooting stuff" and therefore is very reasonable). I'd prefer more oppurtunities / gameplay elements to use Science and Repair skills separately, like mkreku's example, instead.

Oh, FYI, You are everything that is wrong with this generation of gaming. I'm O.K. with different tastes / opinions about gaming. Let's just keep it civilized. That is all. Yes, I think the design choices we've been informed of so far will be succesful in balancing the game between skill-based and real-time combat. Personally, I prefer manual aiming, if it's a viable method in a given game. I used V.A.T.S. most of the time in FO3 because it was "the way to go" for a better experience, imo. If it's an action-RPG with both action and RPG oriented "combat modes", I believe your experience should be satisfying regardless of which one you prefer.

oh, totally. that sounds so Fallout to me! and while we're at it let's cut out all dialogue trees/choices and replace them with cut-scenes and romantic interest mini-games. heck, we could even phase the pop-a-mole combat out of it so you can just roam the wasteland decorating your house! Although it doesn't sound Fallout, it is perfectly reasonable in any game with real-time combat (be it FPS, TPS, RPG or something in between). I believe designers have a hard time balancing player-controlled and skill-controlled combat, and that is why something like V.A.T.S. was created; to give the points put in combat skills more importance. I would even say Bethsoft deliberately made V.A.T.S. more enjoyable & beneficial than RTC to "point" people in the "right direction", but that's just speculation on my part... By simple logic, the more direct control a particular style / genre / POV gives the player, the less numbers needed in the game. Who knows, maybe in the future, there'll be cRPGs which takes your spoken voice via a microphone and process it as a "dialogue option", but of course in this case options would be almost infinite, similar to manual aiming. Would that kind of game be less of an RPG? Not as far as I'm concerned. It would simply be a game that Twinkie doesn't like. Maybe. Oh, FYI, I love decorating my house.

Exactly! Ubisoft DID do their research, and their research concluded that it was WORTH the "unfair" perception that SOME people would have. They didn't just randomly make this decision, which is what I've been saying. Sure they may revise based upon feedback/backlash, but Ubisoft did not cluelessly decide to require internet connection without acknowledging that this will be a deal breaker for some people. Of course they're not clueless, we're talking about millions of $$$ here. I'm not the CEO or whatever of a multi-million company myself, so I wouldn't know for sure exactly what they're thinking, as a company. I'm a customer, and from a customer POV I'm not happy with their decision. That's all. Simply being a potential customer, does not make you the target market. Do you think that people pulling in minimum wage are the target market for Rolex watches or BMWs? Ferrari doesn't look at Thorton_AP and go "how can we bring this car to him, because he's +1 customer." They say "We want to make expensive, exotic cars that only rich people can afford. They are our target market. People that cannot afford our automobiles are not. See, you're missing the point again. I can afford games. I buy games, I play games; I'm a gamer. I even have an internet connection stable enough to let me kick a** in online multiplayer (although it still has it's share of problems sometimes). My problem with their always-online-DRM is..... do I really need to repeat what's been said? In a nutshell, it's; - Unnecessary (it's a single-player game) - Unsuccesful (doesn't stop piracy) - [insert a whole bunch of different personal reasons for everyone] As if these weren't enough, our little conversation reminded me that it's also "arrogant" (not required, but desired; the DirectX thing). It's simple. Me customer. Me not like. I could care less about their financial status or company image, to be honest.

Very strange that they skipped Fable II though... maybe we'll see a rushed port to put it into a 'trilogy' very expensive pack? This is good news. I was always curious about this series, but didn't even play the first one because the franchise shifted to consoles. I hate it when a series is broken... For Fable II, yeah, pretty much what WUE said.

- Weapon (e.g. minigun) damage balanced? Check. - Skill points & skill specializations balanced? Check. - Strength requirements implemented in a way that works in real-time combat? Check. - Item descriptions? Pending. Overall, great job. Also, this: Gotta love the simplicity of it. Why? Because it just works, for RPG veterans and newbies alike.

I just wish some publisher stood up and said: "Pirates have enjoyed their hassle-free no-restrictions-whatsoever games for about enough! From now on, we will provide our customers with the same peace of mind. No DRM, no restrictions." But of course that could be like saying "it's free, come get some!" Or, it could be a perfectly reasonable and noble gesture... I don't know, I'm too sleepy to tell which...

Shouldn't that be Science? About 30-40 Science?

I love Hack & Slash games, to be honest. But GoW just... Then maybe you should check out the other GoW series...

Ugh. I hate it. I hated protecting / saving NPCs in any game I can name. I'm fine with just watching my own arse, thank you very much. Adorable. And as far as I'm concerned, it's proof that the game really nails the western feeling. "Hear it from the children." or whatever the saying goes. Are you doing this to torture us PC gamers?

I think Survival will be similar to Medicine, but for more general survival purposes (hunger, thirst, pathfinding, evasion etc.). I'm guessing it'll be MUCH more important in HC mode, maybe even practically worthless in Normal mode (similar to Outdoorsman from previous games). And that it'll have a close relation with Endurance, similar to the one Science has with Intelligence. If you're wondering specifically about the "cooking" aspect of it, I guess there'll be food in the game which is inedible unless cooked, and food which gives you more benefits (more HP and/or more "nutrients" ) when cooked, etc. edit: Your "cooking" (i.e. Survival) skill might even affect your relations with your companions... FO3 did have a radar, and it had a direct relation with your Perception. Hmm... Now that I think about it, maybe in Normal mode Survival skill will affect some HUD elements (like the radar, which will probably be left out in HC mode) to compensate for the lack of more obvious / realistic survival skills (like hunger) that are present in HC mode. Would be a good way to give the skill more balance & value in Normal mode...

Since the "Free Portal" announcement I've been practically forcing people to get it. It's awesome and free for a short time. They. Just. Don't. Listen! Other than that, World of Goo is brilliant (must buy, at least try the demo if you haven't, seriously), Machinarium is decent (I only recommend it to adventure addicts), and I just downloaded Gish demo. Will try it out as soon as I can.