Diogo Ribeiro

I think it's unreasonable that the game gimps the character because he hasn't enough points into a skill but the player can go around that point shortage by way of reflexes. I remember steadying the sniper rifle by forcing the mouse on a circular pattern that did away with most of the wobbling given to portray lack of skill. In the earlier levels I could easilly do this. Enemies have certain blind spots in their line of sight and general perception, so much that I can be crounching and walking right behind them without them ever noticing me. Not so much in the later levels, but still. I feel otherwise based on the examples I gave throughout the thread but to each his own.

All firearms had a given amount of reloading time along with other modifiers (speed, accuracy, etc.). This could be improved via Denton's increased expertise with firearms and/or modifying firearms to become better. I didn't found a problem there, it felt fairly balanced. I had more issues with the game telling me Denton was weak with pistols but I could just run up to an NSF trooper and compensate for his lack of skill with a close range bullet to the head. Not much of a point in improving a weapon skills if I can just circumvent the skill system entirely by running up to an enemy at close range and whamo his weak body parts.

Spoken like a true Obsidian board patriot. Which is to say like a self-serving jerk, jerk.

Troika did a lot of things right in their CRPGs but breaking new ground wasn't one of them. They only thing they broke was their games by allowing ambitious design to get in the way of planning, playtesting and meeting deadlines. And I'm as close to a rational and fair Troika fanboy as you can get.

Having discussed this very same thing time and again, especially with Hell Kitty, I have to agree that immersion is largely in the eye of the beholder although I suspect if we went by the word's definition we'd probably shatter many of the ideas surrounding what it actually is. However, I can never find any kind of coherent argument that proves the triumph of firstperson over thirdperson as a more immersive factor in videogames. Even disregarding that 'immersive insofar as videogames are concerned simply denotes the quality of something that captivates the player to a point where the line between fiction and reality blurs, I find there's absolutely nothing that firstperson does better than thirdperson when it comes to interaction, story presentation, roleplaying, or much else. Crafting a role is achieved by making meaningful choices, interacting with characters, developing a personality - not by watching the character's arse or only seeing his desembodied arms or floating sword flailing in combat. A firstperson shooter has no merit or improvement over a thirdperson one if the underlying game mechanics are still the same, and the ability to roleplay is likewise uncompromised by wheter I'm looking at - or through - an avatar. Deus Ex was a great game that would work all the same in thirdperson. Trying to save Paul's life from a MJ12 raid would mean the exact same thing in first or thirdperson, and would not be better or worse in terms of character development because of how the player looks at the characters playing through the script. Fallout was a great roleplaying game that would not gain anything from a roleplaying perspective by showing the Master in firstperson. I'm sure someone is going to say 'realism' but that remains a pretty superficial analysis, much like that of realtime being more 'realistic' than turnbased - window dressing for the mechanics buried behind the facade. Realtime is rather unrealistic if the opponents in a combat situation present unrealistic behaviour like shoothing themselves face to face until one's hit points drop to zero, just as firstperson in itself doesn't suggest to me one speck of realism as it's just a different kind of way to look at the same unreal worlds of always.

Boas Festas!

Funny thing, the third time I played the game from start to finish I used bleem! to play it on PC (the first and second were on the original PSX with a japanese and later PAL version) and it worked very well aside some minor graphical artifacts (caused, I believe, by my then older than Mick Jagger hardware in the form of a Voodoo 3 PCI card at 16 MB).

Yeah but, Bill Gates and all that laffo. Awesome I am thinking of getting PoR as well though I've heard it isn't quite as good as DoS. But that preorder package sounds - and must look - great.

I had one... Right until Symphony of the Night, even. After a while the lack of games that interested me was almost non-existent, so I sold it off. I do have a PS2 though so running SH1 on it should be fine, except most places I turn to people tend to overprice the game (like SotN, which is usually at 200+ euros). I'll keep tracking it down, though. After all I've waited to get my hands on an official version of Wizardry 8 for years and I managed to get one just in time for the short Codex retrospective I did on it, so not all is lost.

I'm trying to get the Silent Hill collection. Unfortunately, this edition does not seem to feature the original which is what I was really looking forward to get.

On the other hand, I should have the right to sue my PC for every single BSOD it's been giving me lately.

Then it's even more astounding how Oblivion got nominated.

A game where we can travel back in time to kill the time travelling lizards from NWN... With all that time travelling creating more paradoxes and plot twists than the Blood Omen and Soul Reaver series.

The Bard's Tale. Sharp things thrown at my eyes may not be as painful.

Finally I can experience my dream of being surround by Vault Dwellers telling me to 'stfu n00b'.

I've just purchased a special edition of the original trilogy while sidestepping the recent titles that were available. Guess that counts as a vote of sorts.

That would explain the tension that always existed between both of us. Anyway. Bioshock Spore Age of Decadence Hellgate: London Twilight Princess Phantom Hourglass Supreme Commander Knigths of the Old Republic 2 and Jade Empire, only because I'll probably review them for the Codex.

Fallout was never as text-heavy as Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment, though.

Well, time travelling lizards aren't exactly the end of the game; they pop up earlier. You actually just spoiled her by saying they would be at the end of the game, alan

Oh. Not having played NWN2 extensively I really can't say how much more open ended a game would need to be to qualify as having a design similar to Fallout. Though I'm not sure this would be the solution since there's a bit more to the game's design than being open ended. My gripe is that Fallout is not a perfect roleplaying game but a damn good framework which really hasn't been surpassed ever since it's inception. At times it feels we're actually getting worse than Fallout nowadays, with limited options to advance in a story or gameworld (ie, unkillable NPCs, the need to be the Hero or the Cruel, Bloodthirsty and Greedy... Hero), bland gameworlds, forced companions, and so on. I guess that kind of breaks down some of the issues I'd try to work around but as I've stated, I'm no developer.

I didn't mean to imply it was originally aimed at a mainstream market; simply that said market is where Obsidian is now aiming its crosshairs. Also I'm not a developer so I don't really get why you're asking me that

I think he would like some consequences to go with those options so the Elder Scrolls, at least in their current state, would be a no. I don't think Obsidian would develop a Fallout styled game for today's mainstream market, even if they wanted to. Fortunately there is a semblance of that design in their games until now. Small comfort for someone who enjoy seeing a spiritual successor, but comfort nonetheless.

I'd gladly let them have Dragon Quest IX in exchange for Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops.

R00fles!