PK htiw klaw eriF

And while you may declare that you and your buds from down the street should be considered a militia, you don't have a clear chain of command, and wouldn't come, as a militia, to the military in a time of emergency. You'd instead just be flat out drafted and turned into a proper military soldier. Sure "well regulated" may have changed it's meaning over the histories, but so has "militia". In the times of the founders, a Militia was basically the current US Army Reserve/US National Guard. You show up for a few weeks a year to sort out drills and practice shooting, as well as retain a military commission based on that service (Daniel Boone, for example, was a Colonel in the Kentucky Militia). No neighborhood watch group, or gun club, or whatever you want to say, can claim that their militia will have carry over into the US military in terms of rank. Also, from the same guys who made the constitution you have the First and Second Militia Act(s) of 1792, The first simply saying that the President could call up the militias to active service, the second saying http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm So, the 2nd amendment basically says that the soldiers in the Reserve or National Guard have a non-infringed right to bare arms, but the average Joe doesn't. And the Militia act of 1903 established the National Guard to replace the militias constructed under this and previous systems. Arrrgh... I hate the way quote works now, even with the flipping of the BBCode switch it's still more work. I've seen your argument before and there have been plenty of law professors to rebut it. But at the end of the day, there's no point in arguing about it... The murders are only going to get more frequent because men do not think clearly when under heavy emotional stress, like the stress brought on by a system designed to bleed them dry and keep them impoverished. What am I saying? The right to bear arms is irreverent when the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is so downtrodden. There have also been plenty of law professors to support his arguments. When reading the US constitution you have to take in to account that at the time it was written, there was no universally accepted rule on how to use commas correctly.

I personally don't care how dragons look, but I want them to be incredibly powerful, somewhat rare, and have quite a bit of lore behind them. I don't want Skyrim dragons, because not only were they too common, but I saw one get killed by a god damn bear once.

I would prefer a blank slate to origins, and origins to a set background. I prefer a blank slate because it allows me to create any background(that fits reasonably in to the game world) for my PCs.

The name just doesn't seem to roll off the tounge. Definitely will be following the development though.

You know he hates writing romance, right? Why have them at all if you want one of the best writers in video game history to be forced to write things he can't stand? How does that improve the game in any way? Or do you just want MCA to suffer? Well, those Ruskis are big on watching Westerners suffer.

I think I'm going to get this from GOG. I remember putting a ridiclous amount of time in to MotB.

Well yeah, but they kind of were bitches, so at least it fit their character.

The deleted parts are out. No cooldowns, you can miss, and level scaling will be exactly the same as BG. You know that BG had level scaling,right? The scaling you are afraid of is Bethsedas and it won't be in this game. As for no combat XP, tough luck, is in, and frankly, is a good thing. I thought that you would get XP if you defeated a random pack of bandits, but that it would be determined by the encounter, not the number of bodies. Anybody know for sure?

I saw Movie 43 yesterday. It was like a live-action Family Guy.

The first two problems have already been shot down, no idea about level scaling, and I'm not sure about the XP thing(hasn't been discussed recently IIRC).

I like romances(in all media) that are treated as any other complex relationship. I don't want it to be considered the highest form of relationship for every character(it might be for some characters, but not every character), or reduced to "flirt, bang, happily ever after" or some other shallow crap. I want it written with the characters in mind, and not break the characters to satisfy someone's need for shipping. I don't want romance slapped on a character to fill a quota or because some people request that the character in question be "romanceable". Romance(like any other complex relationship) only works well when it fits the characters involved, and should not be if included if it doesn't mesh well with the characters. Also, I wouldn't want them to shy away from romances that fail or end tragically.

So you don't want explosive power growth?

Eh, 19% given rounding. 19% is "about" 20%. Using "about" as synonymous with "approximately", which is what I assume Hurlshot meant by "about".

Don't you know better than to use facts in an Oby thread? Yea.... except that isn't correct by most estimations, and Oby is pretty good with his/her facts. Much better than most others posting in these threads. By most estimations, smoking peaked sometime in the 50s, and began declining after then, though not buy much in the 60s. The two decades that saw the largest drop in smoking were the 70s and 80s, where over the course of those two decades smoking amongst the adult population went from around ~40% to ~28%. Since around 1990 the prevalence of smoking dropped somewhere around ~5%. The last ~20 years has not seen a huge decrease in smoking, despite all the draconian laws that have been put in place in the last 10 or so. Those are of course estimations. And if one looks around at the various figures out there, there are some differences between the various estimates. Oby? Good with facts? Only if you are a bat**** ruski or libertarian who thinks RT tells the unbiased truth. Also this. 19.3% is about 20% in most circles. no?

Don't you know better than to use facts in an Oby thread?

@OP I like or am neutral on everything but... The problem I have with this is I fear the game may lock the PC out of a faction or quest line for some arbitrary reason. To use Skyrim as a reference, it would be like being locked out of the Dark Brotherhood faction because the PC sided with the Empire in the civil war, because the PC kills the Emperor in the DB quest line. Of course there are occasions to lock the player out of factions(like if it is public knowledge that the PC does things that violate their values), but I believe that it would be better to let the player choose what is right for their PC. So if someone wants to join a group and later assassinate their leader as a task to another, they should be able to if they believe that it fits their PC. As for the whole ten commandments, I think I may post some tomorrow, I am very sick at the moment and a bit too tired to adequately express the top ten things I would like to see PE do.

What for? Extra mouths to feed that bring no utility to what has officially been stated to be a combat-centric game? Do you want to bugger them? Or to kill them? I don't recall anyone at Obsidian announcing that P:E would be a child-rearing simulation. Human Sacrifice?

They were probably pissed off that the squid was gone.

To be honest, I don't care about animations at all. If I had to choose, I would go for combat(includes dodge, block, and parry) animations over death animations.

Quite a bit of fear porn in this thread. BTW Girl 2 looks better, 8/10.

Am I the only person who thinks that romances are just another type of relationship and they don't make or break a game? Obsidian isn't Bioware, if romances are in the game, other relationships will get plenty of attention as well, if they are not, the characters will still be well written and complex. Half the people here need to just chill the **** out. Romance, like ANY GOOD relationship, should be written with the intention of allowing roleplaying, serving a thematic purpose, and providing one route for character development(there should always be an alternative). They should not break the NPC's character simply for the purpose of letting the player get what they want(I don't want to get into the whole **** to pixels thing again) or be the only possible relationship(or contain a much larger share of content than other relationships). IMO, pretty much anyone who is strongly anti or pro romance comes off as unreasonable at best. I especially loved it a while back when they started calling each other the same thing(emotionally stunted IIRC).

1. Horrible mechanics 2. Gameplay/Story segregation 3. Overly restrictive classes 4. Action gameplay 5. Level Scaling 6. Doors that magically lock behind the party during combat

GURPS, Megaversial, Shadowrun.

It seemed to me that he wasn't very consistent. He claimed that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect the citizenship from the government, yet does not want people to have the same weaponry as the government. And he sounded like a 12 year old. And looking sane next to Alex Jones is not very hard, I think not looking sane next to Alex Jones is what is near impossible.

I don't ever think I have had that problem with a game with well documented mechanics and a decent manual. I love being able to design the PC's abilities before I play the game. Yeah, Arcanum was not very well designed IMO. Arcanum would have been much better if different point systems were used for different things or if there were different costs between abilities(like GURPS) and if the combat system was better designed.