Enoch

Good luck. Isn't the Chem AP test statistically the most difficult one offered? I recall it being so when I took it in '97 (in terms of the % of takers getting a 4 or 5). Anyhow, my Chem AP class was interesting. I went to a big public high school (roughly 500 students per class), and there were 2 classes of Chem AP, taught by the same teacher at different points during the day. Now, certain ultra-science students or valedictorian wannabes would take all 3 science AP tests, by taking AP Chem as a junior alongside Phys I, and both AP Phys and Bio as seniors. My younger sister (younger by 17 months) was one such student (she now works as a biologist with a state environmental protection agency), which put her in AP Chem the same year I was (although she was in the class that met at a different period). Sis and I were polar opposites as students-- both of us did well, but she was the "work hard, do all the assignments, and study for long hours before the tests" type, while I was the insufferable "understand the principles in the initial lecture, take the grading hit for skipping the homework, and ace the tests on scant preparation" bastard. Anyhow, Chem AP was an interesting experience because for the first time I really had something forcing me to study-- my sister asking me to help her do the homework. (There were times when I was responsible for the majority of the answers on my sister's homework but still didn't hand in a copy of my own. I was quite the arrogant bastard back then.) It paid off handsomely, in the form of 8 college credits and one gen. ed. requirement I didn't have to worry about. A more prudent person would've used the AP credits to graduate early and save on tuition. But I was too in love with the collegiate experience to do that, so I registered for lots of interesting electives instead. Anyhow, the lesson is that, if you ever get the chance, having to teach the material to somebody else is absolutely the best study aid in existence. EDIT: My HS didn't offer World History. I recall taking AP exams in US History, Chemistry, US Government, and 2 of them in English writing/editing/whatever.

I am currently drinking a very nice Manhattan I made. 4 parts Sazerac Rye, 1 part M&R sweet Vermouth, a few drops of Angostura bitters, and a maraschino cherry in there just for looks (I rinsed it thoroughly to get the juice out and wouldn't dream of eating the thing).

You and I have very different ideas about what constitutes "cool." A game wasting my time because it gave me awful directions doesn't count in my book.

Ill probably regret asking - but what is so horrible about 4E Forgotten Realms? I haven't even looked at the books so have no clue. (Also it seems like in my experience that whenever a new edition comes out there are always those who complain about the artwork - I remember it about 2E as well). The better question is what is there about the pre-4E Realms that was at all worth preserving? The 4E Realms may be awful, but can they possibly be worse than the jumbled cavalcade of cliches that was the pre-4E Realms??

Cool. I really hope the AI reactions to corpses (and unconscious bodies) make it in. I also like the implied confirmation that weapon mods have differing levels of quality.

Easy. The legendary December 1933 cutting contest in Kansas City where Lester Young reportedly got the better of Coleman Hawkins.

Dr. Harry C. Beaver, OB/GYN

Profile still active: http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?showuser=24

Good question. I am also curious as to how the game is paced, in character development terms. I.e., is there XP at all, or is it a Deux-Ex-like system of direct character point awards? Are said XP/awards objective-based, or will there be opportunities to meta-game the system by picking every lock or subduing every guard we come across? Is there a finite amount of XP available so that the level of challenge can be scaled precisely to correspond with the predictable growth in character abilities? I understand that there is at least some flexibility in the order in which we take our missions-- are we given any indication beforehand of whether our skills need further honing before taking on the tough ones? Does the in-mission difficulty scale to our level/abilities/whatever at all?

Given that the setting is based heavily on spy movies, I'm wondering if there will be "chase scene" missions. (Either as the pursuer or the pursued.) They're a staple in the films, but I can see how they could be tough to pull off in a game. (E.g., the engine may not support large enough areas, cars/cycles/fanboats/snowmobiles and other vehicles are probably out, difficulty in such missions can be very hard to get right, etc.) But a scene where the Bad Doodz are chasing my character through a somewhat busy urban location, with multiple options for evading/confronting them, would be unbelieveably awesome.

From a game design point of view, I agree. Just as with the combat-heavy approach, in most circumstances a single poor decision/guess/roll shouldn't put the whole mission into a fail state. But this can be tough to pull off from a believability point of view. If you trigger an alarm, if you're spotted by a guard, or if you're forced to use a noisy firearm, it's tough to come up with a credible in-game mechanic that gets things back to the base state of boring ol' security patrols so that you can resume sneaky infiltration. (I think we can agree that guards just going back to their normal patrol routes once an alarm has been hacked into the "off" state is lame.) Perhaps a "reset" function-- jump out the window and come back to the site a week later? Or maybe the handlers have a one time "get out of jail free" trick (a cyber attack on security systems? calling the fire department? detonating a charge in the cafe across the street as a distraction?) that they'd prefer not to use, but can if you get into trouble.

Heh. Most of those are absolute classics in the jazz world. My high school jazz band played an arrangements of both "The Sidewinder" and "Take Five" during my years there, and "Cantoloupe Island" is usually one of the first tunes that student learn to improvise on (it's modal structure makes it easy for beginners to follow). Last tune I listened to was the Talking Heads -- Road to Nowhere.

The only Naima I know of was John Coltrane's first wife. He wrote a beautiful song named for her.

Yeah, Calax is roughly right on the trends, at least in the States. If you want to be ahead of your time, give your kid a name that a lot of people around 50 or so have. Not many people naming their kids that now, but in 10-15 years, it'll be adorably old-fashioned and all the rage.

I enjoyed the new Trek. I'm a rather casual fan of the original series (and the wife is a big TNG fan), but based on what I do know, I really think they nailed most of the casting. The villain was basically a Maguffin, which is disappointing, but the rest of the film is strong enough that it really didn't bother me until I thought about it afterwards. I thought it was particularly brilliant how they used

Fair point. And LC's point about how improved performance via PEDs is more noticeable in baseball is a good one as well.

The difference in the way we look at NFL and MLB PED use also stems from how the leagues have dealt with the issue. The NFL instituted a testing regime decades ago, and every year you hear about a few guys getting busted by it. This creates the impression (whether true or not-- it's pretty well accepted that, if you're willing to spend serious money, you can get stuff that the tests won't catch) that the league is on top of the issue and at least trying to keep it under control. The MLB on the other hand, staunchly refused to impose a serious testing regime until the BALCO scandal broke a few years ago. This creates the impression that the league was tacitly approving of PED use among players for a long time. That's where the outrage comes from.

I'm OK with using the FO3 skill list, provided that implementation of the existing skills is improved. The importance of the "access skills" needs to be decreased. I'd like to see explosives as an alternative to lockpicking. Not as a hard skill requirement, but a % chance to blow open a lock (along with a % chance to screw up and hurt yourself), with a wider variety of explosive useable for this purpose as skill increases. (e.g., low levels = cherry bombs only, with more effective mines/grenades/rockets/mininukes becoming useable as skill increases.) Also, condiiton of equipment in a blasted-open container would be seriously downgraded. I'd like to see fewer terminals to hack and more opportunites for Science skills to be useful in the gameworld (i.e., in dialogues, in item crafting, and in repair of very high-tech equipment, like Tesla Armor). Repair needs some work. I like chronicler's idea that skill with a particular weapon type should help in repairing it. This could dampen the "every player needs this skill!" factor that currently dogs Repair in FO3. More drawbacks to wearing heavy armor, particularly in stealth, melee, and small arms accuracy.

This is probably the best post we're going to get with regard to explaining the two sides of this particular argument in one succinct line. (FWIW, I'm in mkreku's camp. Gameplay in Fallout had its charms, but said charms got old pretty fast, often leaving frustration in their wake.)

Yeah, I've noticed in the released videos and screens that most of the characters shown either have very simple hairdos, or are wearing hats. I had been guessing that hair textures/animations/etc. are a "polish late in development" feature.

@ LC: Yes, that's exactly what I meant. @ Kelv: Thanks for the link. Will Carroll is pretty much the best media authority out there on sports injuries and PEDs.

Maybe, but most likely not. The stuff he was busted for was on the banned substances list because it is used between cycles of steroids to reduce side-effects. I'll admit that this is a very tough area from an ethical point of view-- really how do you ban certain medical aids to performance, while allowing others (like the shot of cortizone a pitcher gets in his shoulder to make his performance possible in the first place, or the laser eye surgery to get better-than-20/20 vision to help read the laces on a pitch)? But if a player tests positive for a substance that is on the banned list, he's got to pay the price, or the league rules are meaningless.

I really doubt that providing a platform for cackling, moustache-twirling, cartoon-villain evil is particularly high on Obsidian's list of priorities. Everything I've read about the game says that it's focused on morally ambiguous choices. Throwing in options for gratuitous acts of puppy drowning would undercut the impact and drama inherent in such decisions.

I haven't played Bloodlines, and I don't remember Arcanum's writing well enough to compare (although it not being particularly memorable isn't a positive indicator). But at the very least, FO3's writing is a ****ton better than the alleged writing that went into ToEE. That game's dialogue and storytelling was memorable for all the wrong reasons.

Uh. that's because Morrowind wasn't dumbed down? Oblivion is a dumbed down version of Morrowind, less skills, less possibilites, much less attention to lore or story, less weapons, less spells, Xbrick as the primary development platform. Even if one accepts the premise that O was "dumbed down" and M wasn't, I don't see how one can logically blame "consoles" when both games were console releases. O was "dumbed down" because 1) many of the changes were flat-out improvements, and 2) more user-friendly games tend to sell more copies, regardless of platform. The console/PC factor is irrelevant.