213374U

So much for 'Designer Ramblings'.

:ph34r:

I agree. I don't know about Zelda because I've never played it. However Starcraft going TB doesn't make much sense because it's a RTS (as in Real Time). It's as if you propose they did Half-Life 3 turn based. However Fallout is a CRPG and there are examples of CRPGs with a RT based combat. So as long as they manage to make combat fun an balanced, anything goes for me.

Well, it's not only that there were lots of combat. The fact that there were like 4 sidequests in the last part of the game doesn't help much either. I like a bit more of role-playing in my CRPG.

hmmm So you roleplay your character per his "leadership", but you don't roleplay them per the force powers of light/dark? Interesting... :ph34r: You beat me to it.

Whatever floats your boat.

Yeah, that's nice and all. But there are two important facts about that you are ignoring. Purposefully or not, I can't say. 1) That's not the body armor issued to US soldiers. The standard-issue armor is called 'Interceptor OTV', you can find details about it in the link I provided, if you actually bothered to check. 2) The prices listed there are for sale to the open public, and NOT the price at which they would be sold to the US Army in case they were a Defense contractor. And you accuse me of bad reading comprehension? Oh well, it can't hurt to clear it up, again. Obviously it won't save everyone. Nothing will. However that's not reason enough not to provide adequate protection for the troops. Yep. Standard armor issued to police officers. I have already proven above that military grade armor can and will protect against rifle fire, including 7.62 mm rounds. Politics have nothing to do with you claiming that it's not cost-effective to adequately equip US troops.

You weren't allowed to do anything but fight through the whole den. That is not the approach my Ventrue would have taken. In a PnP session you would have had more options (bring down the building, lure in a team of vampire hunters, deceive them, whatever). You could do nothing but fight. Suckage. That one should have been able to be solved through stealth. Due to the level design and enemy placement, it was impossible to do it without a slaughter. Yet another part of the game in which you were forced to fight unless you had lots of levels in Obfuscate. No possibility of a stealthy/mental/social approach. That's not V:tM, that's DOOM. Not if you wanted to get any ending other than Prince Lacroix. You are forgetting the Nosferatu warrens, too. You could skip that one too, right? The last part of the game sucked because it completely wasted the mental/social talents your PC had been developing through the whole game, just to favor senseless killing. R00fles indeed.

Don't give me all that politics crap man, I'm just discussing facts here. I'm not interested in politics. And so far, you haven't posted any figures about the prices of body armor, so I'm just not going to take your word for it. Usually Defense contracts reduce the price of the acquired product due to the large numbers bought, so I don't think the same price you can get an armor vest for is the same price the US government is getting. Will body armor prevent all soldiers from dying? No. Will body armor save lives? Yes. You lose. And um, about teflon coated rounds, I suggest you do some more thorough research. It appears that while armor-piercing ammunition is effective against soft armor (the lower scales of the graphic you posted), its effectiveness against heavier types of armor is greatly reduced. Most hunting/assault/sniper rifle ammunition is considered AP per se, so if the armor protects against rifle fire, it most likely affords protection against teflon coated handgun rounds. You might find this read informative on 'Cop-Killer' bullets.

From the 'Interceptor OTV' body armor manufacturer:

Your point? Surely you are not arguing that soldiers shouldn't be equipped with body armor because it's uncomfortable? Or perhaps you think that since it won't prevent you from getting shrapnel in your face, body armor is totally worthless? And you have to remember that the militias in Iraq are not a professional, well equipped army, either. Obviously, body armor is not designed to be effective against machine gun fire, but that's not reason enough not to have every soldier well equipped. Body armor is an efficient protection against small caliber firearms and it appears to offer a certain degree of protection against rifle rounds. And it's definitely a lifesaver against shrapnel. I really can't understand how you are defending the idea that US troops shouldn't be equipped with every possible protection measure, even if that protection only provides a small chance of getting out of a combat alive. I am inclined to believe that if you were over there, you would want some body armor for yourself, too.

I'm gonna try real life. I've been hearing cool things about that lately. :ph34r:

Um, but there is a patch available for the game. And before that, there was an unofficial patch by some dude which actually seems to fix more things than the official patch in like... 1/10 of the size. Anyway, I don't care about bugs too much, unless they're of the game stopping kind, or affect performance seriously, like the Bloodlines memory leak. However for me it's not the bugs themselves. It's the lousy QA work that allowed those bugs to be in the final pruduct in the first place...

If you think Jedi Guardian is the most powerful class in K2, I think you are in for a little surprise.

If the delay meant getting a complete game, then by all means. If it didn't, well... I don't care much anymore.

Yeah dude, but who the hell is Black Isle Studio, again?

Spoken like a true core Fallout fan. :D

And what makes you think they'll want to keep the core fans interested? I mean, we have proven to be a pain in the ass and very hard to satisfy. If I was a game company CEO I would aim the game to the large 'casual gamer' masses first, then to the 'core' gamers. All that is in the realm of speculation, anyway. What I do know though, is that they're not going to sacrifice sales in order to keep the game 'true' to what the 'core' fans think Fallout is (or should be). And I can't help but agree with that...

That's your opinion. Opinions, however, aren't enough to make an objective truth. You say that FOT failed to be a good SPECIAL-based real-time game, yet I disagree. Um, I hope you're right, but honestly, I think that's wishful thinking. If it was Troika or Obsidian developing it, perhaps the chances of the game featuring a TB mode would be greater. But with Bethesda behind the game, I wouldn't count on it. After all, they have the license now and can do whatever they want with it.

Ouch.

A rather short-sighted opinion, if I may say so. Today the world is no longer a bunch of independent territories, Hades. It works as a whole. What other people do in their own countries is their business alright, but it can become your business as well thanks to globalization. Autarchy is outdated, even for retrogrades. You just can't have a flamewar and not be part of it, now can you?

So what are your plans for when the nukes start to fly? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'll either survive, or I won't. No problem. :cool:

There goes the neighborhood. :ph34r:

Blah... blah... blah... blah... I'll make it simple for you. If you have 100 dollars in your pocket, and you give 60 of it to the poor people down the street, not only are you carrying them along but you're making yourself poor too. Until you've taken care of all the problems at home, and have created an "abbundence of wealth" it's not very smart... and even dangerous... to just throw your resources away. Heh. Do you really think macroeconomics work as simply as 'the money you have in your pocket'? If you need to make such simplified examples, perhaps it's you who doesn't get it. The foreign policy is necessary to support the current economic model of the US. If you remove the military element from the equation, the foreign policy as it is now, no longer works. Right now, there are two things that prevent wars from being started in a lot of places. One is the fear of a nuclear retaliation (think India-Pakistan), and the other is fear of a US/NATO intervention. If the second element no longer exists, a lot of the commercial interests and resources that the US has access to right now, would no longer be available, causing the economy to collapse. Think Saddam's little adventure on Kuwait, only on a larger scale. The choice is, controlled, selected wars or all-out war? I suggest you take another look at your US History before swearing.

Agreed. If they can pull an Afghanistan again, the attrition would be negligible. However, making profound changes in the next target country is a different story. I don't think it can be done without a well established US/NATO presence. And um, that's the whole point of a war against tyranny, ain't it?