Gromnir

functional gender equality in a GAME setting makes perfect sense. there is absolutely no reason to antagonize 50% o' your potential fan-base by adhering to antiquated gender notions, even if such notions is reasonable in a given setting. we is talking 'bout a fantasy setting, so reality can always be reworked with a simple act of will on the part o' the developers. that being said, am agreeing that as this is a new setting, there will be an urge to do things different to set PoE apart. social progression is not bothersome to us, but different is not always better. do same old stuff the same old way will never be better, but different ain't inherent positive either. with ps:t, for instance, the developers made a point o' doing things different, but the goal itself were to be different. that were foolish. ps:t were not made better because it didn't include swords or elves or whatever else the developers were thinking were cliché in fantasy crpgs. we liked ps:t. in spite of its flaws it were/is our favorite crpg. nevertheless, we hope obsidian guys has matured and come to realize that doing different is having value only if you are believing that doing different will improve the game. HA! Good Fun!

"I really want a game set in Evil Slaver Blood Mage Empire," am supposing this is your obstacle. how do you write the "full-throated supporter" o' guys who has been written as over-the-top evil? it works for a comic book villain, but it is tough to write as a companion. alternative, is likely that you could create an eyes-wide-open supporter o' tevinter that has either personal or practical reasons for his support. is still not an easy write, but it is a bit easier than vandal savage. HA! Good Fun!

am realizing they is doing different, but is some similarities to what we envisioned. "wounds would damage both health and fatigue. health would require medical and/or healing magics to regenerate" past a certain threshold, a "hit" would damage health as well as fatigue. sounds similar. am curious to see how is actual implemented... and am optimistic that in future games they could improve. as we said, am waiting for beta. HA! Good Fun! ps am thinking it goes without saying that Gromnir approach is better, but one expects baby-steps from obsidian. am kinda joking.

Yes, yes it does. ...And that's a feature because...? Only if you lack imagination. They send a moron out to get killed if you create a character with low INT, the overseer has specific dialogue for this occasion. There are many reasons for being chosen, they're not all about being the most capable. Well, the validity of other character concepts doesn't make the lacking-in-imagination character concepts invalid, does it? is just not worth the effort. you is fighting against +10 years o' inertia. we fall into same trap every year or so and try to make headway, but is futile. heck, we got folks trying to compare fallout and special to bg/bg2 and d&d... which wholly ignores what we thought were the oh so obvious fact that the developers o' a d&d game is stuck with d&d license. fallout is not a game- is a religious icon. fallout's existence and features is used as proof o' the right way to do things in a crpg... in all crpgs. is kinda mind-blowing. fallout is not a game. your mistake is you is arguing as if it is. HA! Good Fun!

we has been lobbying for years, with virtual every new ip from bioware and others, to have a health and fatigue mechanic. hardly any new ip from obsidian, so has rare been an issue. manna strikes us a silly and potential unbalancing bit o' magic nonsense, but we has always envisioned fatigue/stamina as functioning similar to manna. constitution, endurance and/or whatever is frequently a dump stat for mages, and even for some ranged fighter type characters. have all actions cost fatigue is not only making sense to us, but is resulting in players having one less obvious dump stat. sure, poe will probable still have dump stats, but those dumps should be costly. for us, fatigue would be regenerating quickly, particular out of combat. wounds would damage both health and fatigue. health would require medical and/or healing magics to regenerate. special abilities would allow a player to use precious health points to boost actions. etc. we had whole systems worked out for health and fatigue and we found that they worked quite well in pnp. 'course, when we made health and fatigue, it were always built 'round tb pnp. if action A cost 3 points o' fatigue, and action B cost 6 points, it would be easy to track and compare and plan out action ques. rtwp wouldn't be ideal for Gromnir notions o' health and fatigue. also, as is a typical flaw o' Gromnir rules mechanics, we could make things a bit too complex. but that ain't an inherent quality o' health and fatigue. obsidian health and stamina is not same as Gromnir notions, but has enough similarities that we is pleased. however, am waiting for beta to see how it actual functions before we says yea or nay. HA! Good Fun!

complete disagree. again, as we has beaten this issue to death many times, we will be brief. we will not discuss everything that is wrong with bioware style romance. is not important for the nonce as we is only speaking o' how we can see as a pro on a pro v. con list, yes? so, moving forward... first, a considerable amount o' resources that could otherwise go towards companion development is wasted on romances. using bio as an example, if they took all romance resources and used them to improve the individual companion dialogues and quest material, Gromnir would benefit greatly as we never use romance save as infrequent and rather painful experiments to be seeing if bio has changed. is never gonna be a 1:1 kinda resource allocation, but regardless, what isn't going to romance is going elsewhere, and as romance is necessarily bad, elsewhere at least has the possibility o' good. is not complete analogous, but am thinking it might help illustrate. if we learned that the us post office were gonna stop televising commercials for stamps we would be quite happy. the us post office has been operating in the red for years and yet they pay for national televised commercials for stamps... in prime time. is not as if Americans got an alternative to buying stamps, so what is the point? if Gromnir finds out tomorrow that the post office has stopped p1$$ing away money on stamp commercials, we would be happy... would be a Pro. next, obsidian is looking to make poe into a successful property-- is not envisioned as a one-off. for some inexplicable reason, as terrible as they is, many people like romances in the bio games, and the romance fans is one of the most (if not the most) vocal segment o' the bioware social network. the following is Not hyperbole: every thread about a party npc in a bio game posted at bsn eventually becomes a romance thread. furthermore, if the thread in question exceeds some relative small critical mass, it will become an alternative lifestyle romance thread. ... is fine for folks who like such stuff, but they already has bioware games for that kinda thing. for folks who want a high density o' romance, weird romance, deviant romance and just plain sick romance discussions, bioware social network is a haven o' sorts. bio has made folks comfortable with discussing any and all matters that relate to sexing up any and every potential companion. calling that kinda thing romance actual offends us a bit. we don't want such. if obsidian were to add romance, we foresee it as a potential opening o' the floodgates for future poe games. hey, perhaps the obsidian boards would remain largely the same as they is now even after they hypothetical included romances in poe. is not as if the tob discussions and nwn boards were all that different from the bg and bg2 boards. it genuine took years for the bsn to become what it is today. nevertheless, every time an obsidian game doesn't have romance, we sigh with relief. furthermore, romance is not just a random issue. more than a few folks on these boards lobbied for romance. we were genuine concerned that in spite o' some obsidian developers having voiced their concerns 'bout the viability o' crpg romance during past developments, that they mighta' caved to fan pressure, particularly as this were a fan-funded project. finally, is not as if there is an alternative Pro for romance absence. abandoning vancian magic requires some other kinda magic system... if a magic system is part o' the game. if Gromnir were happy 'bout about abandoning ie/d&d vancian magic, we would have the new magic system to identify as the Pro, yes? is not the case with romance. absence o' romance does not result in some clear and superior alternative, but from our post above, one must concede that we is clear relieved that romance is not included, yes? am hopeful this satisfies. regardless, addition by subtraction is not a concept limited to sports teams, excessive gym workouts, or elimination of marginal clients in business. get rid o' romance is a Pro. HA! Good Fun!

reply/quote is not good for you. we say, "it's not a good example" and then explain why is a bad example in next two or three paragraphs, but you has already replied asking us why is a bad example. is ... annoying. at very least read entire post before reply. *shrug* "No ~of course not. I can use Fallout to prove itself ~it IS itself. I'm truly boggled that this is really an issue for you. What have you against self-evidence?" and this is so completely false. the fact that there is text describing what power armour should do or be like in fallout is neither evidence that pa should be implemented thus, or that developers o' other games should implement as power armour were described. the rest is so utterly repetitive that we will concede that even our preternatural patience has been burned into nothingness. in the battle o' attrition, you is the weiner. we predicted this eventuality back in post 13 of this thread. this will be 59. am thinking we deserve a cookie for sticking with it this long. HA! Good Fun! ps you want back to channeling bester? "Or that in every RPG the PC should start with their best weapon ~by contrived chance?" be better than that.

we gave rather brief explanations for both our pros and cons. given our difficulty with brevity, full explanations o' our thought process regarding Ten separate features/aspects o' poe woulda' been... excessive. as we pointed out, we has detailed why we loathe crpg romance elsewhere, so at least that aspect is well-tread ground. HA! Good Fun!

I find this sentiment interesting, because I personally have no interest in playing an "evil" character. Evil quest paths and the like will be game content that I never see if it is included. However, I recognize there are people out there that love "evil" stuff, and so I'd never say it shouldn't be included because I personally don't like it. I am kinda curious why people don't take a similar approach to in game romance. well, some o' this is having an obvious answer. raise your hand if you has ever encounter a game npc that simply annoyed you or tried your patience past endurance? everybody? maybe you didn't choose the, "slip a dagger between his ribs" option, but the fact it were there were enticing, and perhaps you even utilized such options on subsequent replays of the game. ironically, evil options makes choosing the bright and shiny path more palatable for Gromnir. that being said, some o' the inherent flaws with evil is indeed same as romance-- some. evil typically gets done as impulse driven and psychotic. this is done for gaming reasons. each evil act is, perhaps necessarily, insular. if you is gonna have the opportunity to good next time encounter, the evil you do in this one must be limited in scope. also, as developers wants you, the player, to embrace the illusion that you is making the choices and moving the action forward, it is difficult to create smart evil. what we mean is, smart evil is gonna have a plan, but how do developers give evil players a chance to plan? even if developers does work a clever evil plan into a game somehow, it is gonna be the developer's plan and that is possibly gonna annoy players. as such, one great flaw o' romance is same as evil-- it is insular. but to answer big question o' why we is seeing abandonment o' romance as a positive, that too should be obvious at this point. is many features in games we is unlikely to ever use. the aforementioned evil is one, though we has played evil in past. there is likely gonna be weapons and spells n' such we never use. chances are there is features in the game that even after a dozen replays we will have no interest in exploring, but we don't begrudge their inclusion. so why is romance different? because romance can't be good. we like romance in stories, and that is the problem. as an insular and tangential companion side quest, we can envision no way to improve such romances significantly. best writing in the world won't overcome what we see as insurmountable hurdles. results, regardless o' the best intentions o' the writers, will be juvenile and insulting. is not like druids or dual-wield flails or other such stuff we is unlikely to make use of in multiple replays, 'cause romances can't be considerable better than we sees now from bioware, and to us that guarantees their suckage. we may never play a druid, but we don't see the resources used to implement them as a waste. however, if we knew with absolute certainty that the time resources going into the inclusion would be better used so that cain or avellone could take up salsa dancing (perhaps together) on the company dime, then that would be wasteful, no? am not in favor o' including features that must necessarily be bad, 'cause those same resources could be used to improve the game in other ways. HA! Good Fun! ps we could go into all the reasons we thinks crpg romances is irredeemably flawed, but we has done so soooooo many times that we suspect more than a few is tired o' hearing our reasons yet again. we can indulge, but for purpose o' our response here, suffice it to say that romances is a waste o' resources.

The answer to 1-2 is, I guess, partially "it's supposed to be an IE successor game" and partially "thematic coherence". I think there is value in differentiating between characters who draw their special powers from their connection with nature / personal faith / study / martial practice, even if they all fuel this with the power of their souls. Also, you can have fun class-based reactivity you couldn't otherwise. Also, godlike (especially death godlike) are awesome. As someone has so eloquently put it, "(they have) bony scabs that have grown over the void that exists on the Death Godlike's face, the hole from which all that darkness leaks out. I think if you removed the bony growth all you'd see is darkness tingled with the essence of death leaking out from a hole in thier face." You could totally write at least half a black metal album's worth of lyrics around that side note: one practical advantage o' classes we failed to recognize is that frequent the developers o' classless systems is not always doing a particular good job. fallout gets held up as kinda a great example o' a classless system, but obsidian developers has noted in the past that there were a bare handful o' common builds that were actual played by the overwhelming majority o' purchasers o' fallout. am not certain o' how they came up with such conclusions, but am not seeing any advantage they woulda' gotten from misleading us. thus, a poor balanced classless system may only provide an illusion o' unlimited customization when in fact it is providing fewer practical options than a similar class-based system. if you gots a class-based system with 10+ classes that is all genuine appealing, then perhaps you end up with greater replayability than at least some classless systems. 'course, such a situation presupposes that the developers could not develop a more... egalitarian (?) classless system. HA! Good Fun!

there is a dorian thread at bsn, but it appears that it very quickly turned into a gay-romance thread, so we kinda lost interest in reading further than page five of 240+. HA! Good Fun!

am recognizing that class were part o' ie traditions. that is the reason we mentioned 'bout "meeting expectations" o' the fans. that being said, we see no value at all in the thematic stuff. is no reason why any character in game should be prevented from choosing to identify as a priest o' _________ or thief from ________ or whatever. could very easily add a list o' professions and/or backgrounds that the game would be equal reactive to w/o having special powers attaching to them. such a method would be far easier for developers to add such, and would allow more freedom for players-- same reactivity. as for godlike... am as much disturbed by the name as anything else. godlike? seriously? get a room full o' 8-year-olds with a box o' nilla wafers and some milk and we bet they come up with a better name before nap time. HA! Good Fun!

C'mon, he looks cool. In sort of a shady porn actor-y way, but still. ... we thought the mustache were a joke, so we went to the bioware site and sure enough, the mustache seems to be legit. have seen better mustaches with wooly willy. http://www.patchproducts.com/aimg/x2_a25a785142da9f3b16a8c1038b809c81.jpg HA! Good Fun! ps perhaps june 26 is a kanadian april fools kinda thing?

sadly, this is true. HA! Good Fun! ps as to ann coulter (who the hell is ann coulter... she is that woman who wishes she were bill o'reiley, yes?) we took the article as being a bit tongue-in-cheek, and some observations were clear ridiculous, but she managed to get a few chuckle-worthy snippets in as well.

Cons 1) class-based system why? Why? if greater customization is indeed a goal, why limit particular abilities to a specific class? other than meeting expectations o' those who played the ie games, we cannot see value in a game that is aiming for great individual character customization, while locking a player into a class. 2) classes can fulfill any/most roles flip side of first con is that if you is gonna indeed have classes in the game, then what is the point o' making them so malleable? 3) animancy something is missing. developers analogizing to stem cell research makes us think either we don't know enough 'bout the setting, or that this unique aspect o' the setting were not as well considered as the developers were thinking. the whole scenario in which nobles and rich folks voluntarily make selves guinea pigs is acceptable in extreme rare cases, but not such as would result in plentiful undead. something strikes us as being... off. 4) godlike yeah, am knowing assimar and tiefling and gensai were popular in d&d, but "godlike"? even if this race ends up being better than it sounds, how drunk did you need be to come up with "godlike"? how many at obsidian needed to be drunk to agree that "godlike" were a good choice. 5) monks no, poe monks need not be unarmed and unarmoured fighters, but that is what they are. cain mentioned that there will be situations in which a monk will benefit from donning armour or using a sword, but if such examples is situational, then why bother mentioning. if poe developers really wanted to make the bruce lee and chuck norris fans happy, they should just have made unarmed and unarmoured combat viable... period. monks as a class is a waste. Pros 1) obsidian we typical like obsidian games, but we haven't bothered to purchase ap, ds 3 or south park. am hoping that this title represents a needed sea change. 2) quest based xp xp for specific actions is making balancing unnecessarily complex. am knowing that folks get a little thrill when they see that they got 23 xp for unlocking a door and 5 xp for each goblin killed, but it makes so much more sense to reward xp for successful completion of quests and let players decide what is best way to accomplish their goal. yeah, am suspecting that developers could spend loads o' time figuring out how to balance various xp awards so that different play styles gets same pay-out, but why bother? quest rewards is simple and elegant alternative to such balancing alternatives. 3) customization there would appear to be a great deal o' customization options. this is an assumption based on fact that we has been told there will be many opportunities to customize, so we is taking claims at face value. 4) no romances to waste effort on what needs be a largely insular and tangential companion side quest that will necessarily be seeming rushed or juvenile 'cause o' limited opportunities to engage in love-talk would be near criminal in a game development with limited resources. 5) not a licensed setting (coulda' been a con btw) the game mechanics should fit the world and vice-versa as the developers is building from scratch. is no need for developers to ask license holder for permission to add a class or kill an npc. is no canon for fans to rail 'bout. etc. am optimistic 'cause this is all obsidian's game. 'course, is no safety the license provides. obsidian developers, many o' whom brought up their work on the ie games in various interviews, has made many wonderful games that were sequels and or having a license for the obsidians to build 'pon. ps:t, iwd, how, totl, iwd2, kotor2, nwn2, motb, soz, fo:nv, ds3, and south park were all games in which the developers working with the benefit and curse o' license. ap is only recent game that obsidian has built setting and mechanics and, well, it were not exact a commercial success. am recognizing that many o' our pros and cons could be going the opposite way, but til we at least see beta, we can't commit more than we has. HA! Good Fun!

What a deplorable and inaccurate generalization. Might be nice not to perpetuate an elitist stigma that harms the growth of human capital and personal welfare in the United States. if you say so. we personally think it perpetuates a social stigma that promotes human growth and capital. applauding a degree form cc is kinda like the awarding o' participation trophies that became o' so common for youth sports a decade or two ago. if folks feels a little shame that all they got is an associates degree and such embarrassment spurs them on to get a genuine useful degree, then so much the better. shame is an unappreciated teaching tool nowadays. A-F grade system is actual a holdover from a more enlightened and less touchy-feely time. post graduate is indeed more bound to traditionalist thinking which does carry with it much anachronistic and counter-productive notions. nevertheless, in spite o' fact that our primary and secondary education has fallen behind the rest o' the world, US grad and post grad school productivity is unparalleled, and such programs is more willing to embrace shame as a motivational tool. we challenge and threaten and scare the hell out o' law school, med school and grad school students, and that is the area in which we got an undeniable world edge. go figure. HA! Good Fun!

the good thing for you is there is actual only 'bout two dozen o' them... can all fit on the same bus if need be. HA! Good Fun!

am not a fan o' outdoorsman for fo2 neither, but please note we said fallout. there is fo fans who even today dont know what outdoorsman did in that game as it didn't seem to work as described anyway. less damage from dehydration and rockfall encounters... maybe? and That is the beauty of fallout. HA! Good Fun!

Well, if the game clearly communicates that this is a gamble, I see nothing wrong with that. But it didn't. ... But how could it not be a gamble? Energy weapons would be the most expensive guns in the game ~excepting miniguns, and that makes them rare by default, no? True enough, but based on the info the game hands out to you ("It is a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Anything might be out there"), basically every skill except melee weapons (you get one at the start, doesn't require ammo which might or might not be rare outside the vault), outdoorsman (it's a post-apocalyptic wasteland, knowing how to survive there will surely come in handy) and perhaps stealth (wide utility, universally usable on all enemy types) is a gamble. (Worst of all, even these skills are somewhat underpowered.) ... "how could it not be a gamble?" response is simple and obvious. only a jackass o' a developer would offer a player skills that were not viable. if a player starts with the assumption that because the skill is available at start of game, then obviously such skill will be useful and beneficial, we would no doubt agree that such an assumption were perfectly reasonable if not ideal logical. who the hell would suspect that character development choices is a monty haul scenario? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKR6dNDvHYQ HA! Good Fun!

Well, if the game clearly communicates that this is a gamble, I see nothing wrong with that. But it didn't. ... But how could it not be a gamble? Energy weapons would be the most expensive guns in the game ~excepting miniguns, and that makes them rare by default, no? (Or financially out of reach for a good bit of the game.) ** If I'd found one first day in those games... I think I'd have sold it for the small fortune it could bring, and saved myself the expense of the ammo. it is a bad example for multiple reasons. as said, we is warned in bg2 that katanas is rare (which is actual not exactly true btw.) for a new player o' fallout, you get no such warning about energy weapons. you can very easily get ten or more hours into the game Before you realize that you took a gamble. the only customization available to bg2 characters after start is weapon proficiency... and spells for mages. is a Horrible example. who is the characters that can get katana proficiency? fighters o' all flavors. paladins, rangers, thieves and bards. at most, a ranger and paladin may put 2 (+) into a single weapon. by necessity they will have other weapons tagged as well. thieves and bards can only put a single (+) into a weapon so they too will also have other weapons tagged. the only 2 character builds who could even accidental lock self into katanas at start of bg2 is a ranger who places 3 (+) into dual wield at start of game and has only 2 more (+) for weapons. or, a fighter who goes grand mastery route. there is a katana available in irenicus's dungeon, in spite of the warning, so at least at start of game, even our dual wield ranger and grandmaster fighter has a weapon. there ain't no ammo for melee weapons in bg2, so once you find or buy a magic katana, it will suffice for the entirety o' the game. you can buy a +1 magic katana at numerous locations. +2 magic katanas drop in the thieves den quest in amn, which is one o' the first major quests you is led by the nose to. furthermore, unlike energy weapons, the arguable best katana in the game is available potentially very early. in fact, celestial fury is the easiest/quickest Super Weapon available in bg2. am recalling that on more than one occasion we considered giving our ranger characters katana mastery as katanas were along with war hammers the best single-hand weapons in the game. is really a horrible example. not as bad as shady sands rocket launchers however as at least this example is, you know, real and possible. even so, you and others is making mistake o' trying to compare bg games, which had very little customization options after start of game, to wasteland 2 and fallouts. we won't be finding true analogous scenarios no matter how much you try to make'em so. "Tecnhically the PA suits should be electric or even pneumatic exoskeletons that are laden with heavy armor ~or at least puncture resistant." and again you is using fallout to prove itself. stop it. serious. we didn't bother to read your remaining bit about fo3 power armour. you wanna beat the stuffing out o' fo3 rules mechanics? be our guest. fo3 mechanics is flawed on many levels. is not gonna be a particular good argument against balance however. "You don't want to know the answer. :lol:" actually, we kinda do. otherwise you got no valid reason to oppose respec. am thinking we can all agree that creating balance requires extra effort on the part o' the developers. they needs spend many hours testing mechanics to rid system o' over weak or over strong options. is equal hard to make skills and features that give few opportunities for use some value that will make them as reasonable a choice as those features that is getting much use. the beauty you see in lack o' balance is actual taking far less effort to achieve, and by its very nature is more subject to exploitation than balance. if you is against respec 'cause of exploit, then am gonna need call the hypocrisy hammer down upon you as balancing is the most common developer tool for combating exploit. a single respec. that is what we is talking 'bout. a respe used by players other than yourself to reduce frustration encountered 'cause games has the imbalances you seem to like. HA! Good Fun!

"In Fallout it was said to make the wearer a walking tank" again, you is using fallout to prove the validity o' itself. use fallout description o' an item or feature to rationalize the lack o' balance is... wacky. is not as wacky as is creating an absurd or irrelevant example and then pointing out the absurdity of the absurdity you created, but is close. be better than that. "(I consider this a flaw.)" am getting that. the why is the problem. a new player who chooses a combat skill should not be rewarded with frustration. a skill that doesn't actual provide use is likely to cause frustration. this should all be obvious, but am uncertain why it is not. fo:nv has a wide range o' weapons, and some is considerable more powerful than others. nevertheless, Gromnir is knowing that choosing any o' the combat skills in fo:nv will provide us with an effective combatant from start of the game to finish, and that is as it should be. discover 10+ hours into a game that energy weapons and ammo for such is extreme rare. how the heck were we to know before playing fallout that energy weapons would only be useful somewhere past halfway of a long game? assume that Gromnir didn't want our character to only be combat efficacious for last 1/2 to 1/3rd o' game (and ten hours in, how would we know when/if energy weapons would become more useful?) is that not a valid choice as a player-- to want a chosen skill to be relative useful? there ain't no inherent beauty in lack of balance. if fallout had had weapon distributions and skill breakdown o' fo:nv, virtual every quest and all aspects o' the setting would survive unaltered in any significant way. however, with fo:nv skills and balancing, fo would have been less frustrating to new players and it would have offered more replayability. we mentioned already, replayability for Gromnir is not 'bout the frustration o' restarting a game 'cause we realize after ten hours of gameplay that a feature is not actual useful. that is just stupid. honest. call restart due to frustration replayability (as some has above in this thread... and is one such example o' the gibberish being shared) is insulting. replayability is wanting to play game again, which kinda presupposes we enjoyed game enough to finish a first time. whether You like fallout imbalance or not, one would s'pose you could at least recognize that the typical player o' a game requiring tens of hours of investment would wish for chosen skills to be offering a discernible pay-off... but that isn't the case. "It's okay not to ever acquire an energy weapon in the game ~skill or no skill." balance wherein skills is equally viable and useful is far more likely to promote replay. there is a pretension 'mongst the canists that suggests that a person who would choose a combat skill and actual expect it to be useful from the start o' the game is lacking "taste" or is "idiotic" (more gibberish). such nonsense should be stamped out as quick and as vigorous as possible. even if you hold to such a notion, why do you assume that Gromnir and others should also find beauty in imbalance? (and before you do reply/quote, read next paragraph... please.) however, we is going in circles... and ultimately gizmo, as others, is losing sight o' the actual issue: respec. a single respec would make your peculiar desire for imbalance more palatable to people who do not share nma or codexian notions. the developers would need be less concerned with balancing to avoid frustration as respec would provide a safety net of sorts. and what would be the drawback o' such a feature? none for you as you would not be thinking it were necessary. some folks might choose to use a single respec opportunity to exploit an imbalance created by the developers. so what? is only a single opportunity... and why would you care if some random guy respec's his character in a sp game? is ironic, but is actual the folks clamoring for beautiful imbalance who should be advocating respec as it would reduce pressure on developers to implement balance. HA! Good Fun!

a no-hitter is an amazing achievement, regardless o' the opponent. that being said, san diego offense is just so darn hapless. 'course, we hasn't genuine followed baseball close since the strike year. is too bad too as the white sox finally won a series in 2005 and we couldn't even manage enough interest to watch. HA! Good Fun!

am gonna avoid reply/quote as it would make response extreme messy. if we miss something you feel is extreme pertinent, remind us o' our oversight and we will address in another post. first, do not do like bester. in your words, "This tack should be beneath you, and anyone else." rocket launchers in shady sands? naughty boy. fo:nv developers actual provide a simple solution and is identifying the flaw in your reasoning. big guns need never have been a skill in fallout. very easily coulda' been merged with something else or altered or any number o' possibilities. you is making the same mistake you made elsewhere in believing that fallout as it were developed were perfect or beyond reproach-- making major changes to improve doesn't even occur to you even when such obvious examples is available... particular as you is posting on an obsidian message board. while you think lumping folks together as codexians or nma is beneath us, such generalizations is as helpful as is labeling a game a crpg or a jrpg. sure, not all japanese crpgs has same qualities, but such generalizations is helpful, no? nma, in particular, is a site devoted to the exaltation o' a single game developed before the turn of the century. as often as not, the nma guys don't like fo 2 or fo 3 or fo:t, so what we got is reverence o' a single game that has been getting dissected and re-examined by many o' the same guys for over a decade. you needs must realize that such an environment will lead to a homogenization o' opinion. codex? is not as different from nma as you might s'pose or wish. is any shock that you and ocelot got same perspective? is no more odd than two different jrpgs having similar qualities. as for gimp characters... we need not really address this as you already made your peculiar point of view clear. "It's okay not to ever acquire an energy weapon in the game ~skill or no skill." this perspective is simply too alien. it complete denies the worth o' any kinda reasonable balance... and that is Not hyperbole as you specific observe that is ok to include a skill that the potential player would never benefit from tagging. any balance argument we might care to develop is gonna fail to impact you if you truly do not see a problem with including a skill, trait, feature, or whatever that in practice provides Zero actual benefit to the player. HA! Good Fun!

san diego is less mercurial. worst hitting team in baseball by a large margin. so let's give some credit to the real heroes o' this no-hitter. am kidding 'course... sorta. HA! Good Fun!

aside: observing that we liked 3 of the 7 da 2 companions is not actual bad. ps:t, our favorite crpg, had two excellent companions (morte and dak'kon) and a couple we liked in spite o' some serious flaws (nordom and annah.) the rest? meh. ravel puzzlewell were the best character in the game, but not a companion. regardless, rare does we have a game for which we likes more than 50% of the party npcs. for us, as long as we have a few good/great companions, the "meh" party members is adequate as long as they is still useful beyond story elements. on the other hand, with some games virtual all the companions is meh or worse. heck, hate for companions is, to our way o' thinking, better than complete forgettable. am talking to you arcanum. HA! Good Fun!