213374U

Indeed. This game is so under the radar that lack of news is hardly... news. Sega knows this. Or perhaps they have simply forgotten about AP altogether. Imagine if Beth tried to pull something like this with TESV.

While it's anyone's guess how things would have turned out without the bomb, the numbers for Warsaw Pact conventional forces sure are scary. It's difficult to explain such massive military buildup as "defensive in nature". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_formatio...ng_the_Cold_War

The fanbase probably this, Bioware likely that. Only... it's just you I hear. All you have to support your claims about the "user base" is your own opinion. Bioware was doing fine before they started watering down their gameplay. BG2 was as party-focused as it gets, and you can solo just fine. All it takes is *gasp* careful planning. Ah, **** it. I'm really sick of these same old discussions. And people would rather read that Twilight tripe than Brave New World, so you're probably right, too. I'll be in the HoI3 thread.

Fallout? Also, read the rest of what MC has been posting for the last two pages... customizable difficulty. So you, um, keep charging the adamantine golem until it rolls enough 1s in a row that your monk can beat it into submission? The DnD magic system means that unless you're a sorcerer, you need to have foreknowledge of the encounter for your mage to stand a chance. That's not a problem with BG2 (which it is, due to the blatantly cheat-scripted AI spellcasting), as much as it's a problem of the ruleset. Luck plays a central role, but since DA doesn't use the DnD ruleset, I don't see how that applies to this. The BG system is hardly perfect. It was quite unforgiving (insta-chunking) but mostly it was random. The weight of chance was overbearing, especially at lower levels. Can't we find a middle ground between that and what is essentially a retinue of immortal meatshields?

Interesting...

Hardly anything so dramatic. Was BG built around the death system? They simply accounted for the fact that X or Y may die if you were careless, and not be present for interjection with Z. I may be inclined to think they actually promoted NPC deaths, the way some were written... I don't know man, a central part of the fun in games that aim to have a strategy component is the looming consequences for bad calls. If you screw up, you learn, you get better. If the game doesn't have a way of telling you "charging the Adamantine golem may not be the smartest approach", there is no learning curve -- it's a plateau. The player will not refine his tactics, as there's no need. And when the big climactic fight comes, the player will wipe and blame the crappy encounter design, the terrible difficulty curve, or whatever. Or, conversely, the big climactic fight will not be quite so climactic from a gameplay standpoint, and beating the game will feel hollow and pointless. This is the approach taken by BIO ever since BG2. Remember Dave Gaider's Ascension? Yeah, that was pretty silly.

Before or after they magically get up a while after receiving the coup de grace? Just because I can "pretend" there's consequences to death in the game it doesn't mean those consequences are real.

Cute. Apparently, now the job of the US President is to be Mr. Nice Guy. I suppose that, by extension, the US should be the world's largest charity organization. Oh wait... He's a VAST improvement only in PR. So far he has done nothing. Except stepping up UAV assassination strikes in Pakistan.

90% of the time? Um, learn to play? Or, failing that, learn to spam potions. Let the player make that call.

Oblivion Lost re-enabled grenade throwing for enemies, presumably using the original mechanics which the devs chose not to use in the game. Every lousy bandit had an uncanny ability to hit you in the head with grenades, regardless of distance and field of view. That, coupled with the fact that grenades made no sound when landing among the abundant foliage and their lethality made the game quite difficult. They didn't really fix this for CS, they simply added a HUD warning that a grenade was flying towards you, and a rather mild sound for grenades hitting the ground. STALKER/CS is not a very good example of balanced (read: fun) grenade implementation. I remember reading one of the previews where the devs were repeatedly owned by bandits essentially spamming grenades everytime the player went behind cover. They reduced the frequency and STILL it was pretty ridiculous. You were actually safer in the open exposed to direct fire than behind cover...

Got banned there, too. I don't think Wals' comment was directed at me, though. Also, I'm probably a total n00b when compared to vets from countries such as the UK or the US. But hey, it's the feeling that counts, right? Thoughts: i. I never saw any gays while serving. Your guess is as good as mine as to why ii. The only people whose morale would have been damaged if that were the case would be the gays themselves, what with NCOs and corporals being for the most part a bunch of ****ing cavemen -- people with brains were unfortunately in the minority iii. I fully agree with lof on his ideas about anti-gay policies, in the army and elsewhere -- yet another example of the nefarious influence of the Pope iv. I also agree with GD on the (in)convenience of things, but depending on who you ask, the purpose of a school is debatable... Also, "reasonable" is closer in meaning to "consensual" than it is to "rational". In reality it has very little to do with actual rational reason. edit: just realized that lof's original post (the one Wals was most likely replying to) has gone *poof*. Coming close to becoming a non-user, I see!

Think again.

And don't you feel even slightly aroused?

War is peace.

"Madness" is just misunderstood genius. You are only deranged if you don't get to write history!

Yup.

I hope you're not implying that to be a successful communist one must be deranged!

Some things should never go out of fashion.

Interesting, I didn't know that. Hey man, don't complain. You're getting off easy. Julius had to win a civil war before getting his triumph.

Fun Fact #2: Gandhi wasn't good enough.

I guess about whether he should or shouldn't be able to dress in women's clothes and whether what he did wear was against a "reasonble" (in lieu of looking up the school system's) dress code. And since there is no mathematical proof for "reasonable" and it's hardly self-evident, there will always be some people that will stand against what is "reasonable", with whatever excuses. In this case, the excuse is personal expression (a subset of FREEDOM).

And, ironically enough, Nazi Germany failed rather spectacularly. Not the way they intended to prove their theories, I'm sure, but it's good enough anyway. Social Darwinism doesn't need your approval and doesn't care about your contempt - much like its biological counterpart, it's apparently the way of the world. But since there's no analog to the scientific method for history, there will always be some people that cling to sweet fantasies of dream lands where everyone can be happy and all conflicts can be solved through words alone. True. Anyone wishing for their neighbouring countries to fail should take a look at Somalia for a reality check on what failed states look like.

Yeah, that's the ticket! When everything else fails, bring up the Nazis.

Good thing you mentioned the wig, I had forgotten about that. If not FREEDOM, what's this about, then?

That's the Nobel Peace prize we're talking about, not the Nobel Sycophancy prize.