Gromnir

You don't speak Volo? And I thought there was a secret club house for those with interesting mannerisms somewhere out in the aether of the internet. You've got a rationale for the description, any character that you can accurately describe with just a few words. Oh, it's subjective for sure, most things are and I've seen people who think the average Bethesda cardboard cut out is deep and well characterised- I'd likely disagree with them but I leave it to other people to decide where they personally draw the line. You brought up PST and Chris Avellone, and tried to use that to nitpick my wording when near the entirety of PST was about subverting expectations from first impressions- the chaste succubus, the evil angel, the anarchist machine etc. Caricatures never transcend their initial impression nor are anything other than cliche and stereotype- that's a FACT, a fact and indeed their definition. There is a distinction between first impression and character development for a reason. 1) any character can be described in a few words, but you is correct that it is complete subjective... so, is a FACT that you again make no point. 2) there were no nitpick of your wording... we will quote AGAIN (kinda fun) but is getting tedious. 3) once again, cause maybe this time is the charm, first impressions is one aspect o' character development. your attempt to distinguish is akin to telling us that 5, 7, 5 is not actual an attribute o' haiku. REAL haiku is 'bout balance and evocative imagery combined to achieve a transcendent whole. is NOT 5, 7, 5. *shrug* sorry, but just as you cannot develop a character without introducing that character in some manner, you cannot has haiku w/o 5, 7, 5. you wanna claim that chrisA's haiku is terrible? then argue that all that he achieved was 5, 7, 5. chrisA embraces the notion that with visual media, particularly video games, introducing the character is a far more important aspect o' character development than it may be in other media. is Gromnir's contention that chrisA relies too heavily on this belief... but that is for another thread entire. regardless, the attempt to perform some kinda gross surgical procedure and toss the bloody and cancerous mass that is the character introduction onto the operating theater floor, leaving CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT free of its diseased influence is only gonna successful occur in zor's imagination. 4) (a) we should dispense with this "first impression" nonsense as well. am seeing how zor latches onto such silliness. first of all, writers and developers INTRODUCE the character and the audience makes a firstest impression. two different players of a game may have different first impressions of same character. let us at least get correct vocab. writer is trying to create a first impression with intro material, but first impression is actual a function o' audience. (b) next, it were stated earlier that chrisA believed that the HOOK were of especial importance (primacy in point o' fact) in video game character development. chrisA also recognized that the HOOK were frequent visual in nature. that being said, there is nothing compelling the developer to makes the HOOK part of the character intro. in point o' fact, we can see wherein it would be much more powerful if the hook were revealed some time after intro. jeckel & hyde characters is probable not gonna have their HOOK revealed as part of intro-- audience impressions o' character after hook will hopefully be antagonistic with first impressions, yes? © "Ultimately though, the problem is one of Character vs Caricature. If you're dealing primarily with developing a character then the physical appearance of that character tends to be less important whether male or female."so, we is back full circle and having to deal with zor silliness. *sigh* according to chrisA, the MOST important aspect o' the character development process is the HOOK, which is frequent tied directly to appearance. this is direct antagonistic with zor quote. because we is dealing with visual media, physical appearance is necessarily impacting character development. admittedly, game developers does cheap route thing and create an obvious hook rather than embracing subtlety, but regardless, would be ignorant, and bordering asinine, to pretend that physical appearance is less important. no doubt we eventually reach point wherein physical changes to characters has as much impact in video games as they does in tv and/or film, but regardless, am thinking by now it should be painful obvious that appearance is not less important. ... maybe zor is a visual learner. you need a chart or graph or somesuch? you got so far adrift that we thinks you might just need navigation charts to get back, but that is what happens when you argue silly side-points 'stead o' actual issues. hopefully we has given you a way to steer back on course. HA! Good Fun! ps am done for awhile with the full caps bit. being crude doesn't bother us overmuch, but we not seem to be able to embrace as does zor. am getting that it can be used in lieu of having an actual point, but it won't be finding a permanent spot in our repertoire anytime soon. nevertheless, feel free to continue.

Oh please, appearance is less important in a character than in a caricature, FACT, because a character has other aspects than appearance. You don't even seem aware that you're saying the same thing I am when citing Okku. And first impression is different from overreaching character development, also FACT. It's an aspect of it, but of course when it comes to caricature there's nothing else but that first impression as that's what a caricature is, hence the distinction. So, you now know the difference between a character and a caricature as well as the difference between Richter and Mercalli. keep saying "fact" (capitalized and in caps? you is just so darn cute when you is being ridiculous) doesnt make things facts... or relevant. main difference 'tween a character and a caricature in crpg (or any video game for that matter) is conceit. if a person thinks dogmeat or dove don't rise to the level of your vaunted and imprecise threshold of "character," then they is relegated to caricature? *snort* Gromnir uses the caricature nomenclature our-self, from time to time. is little more than an insult, and a meaningless insult if we fail to supply a rationale for the disparagement. oh, and is a FACT (we get that right?) that you is being obtuse... or silly... again. first impression is a very important aspect of character development, particularly in visual media. your continued attempts to isolate and distinguish those initial impressions the audience has of a character does not lessen their inclusion and importance to overreaching character development. HA! Good Fun!

which is why we brought up the bear from motb. regardless, zor being dismissive of the role of appearance in character development of a crpg character is what prompted our response. while we hardly go as far as does chrisA insofar as the primacy o the hook (especial the visual hook,) we does at least recognize its importance. games is not the best medium for developing characters through dialogue, and rare is the developer/writer who actually has their characters achieve growth through actions, so appearance becomes increasing important... not less. HA! Good Fun!

"Ultimately though, the problem is one of Character vs Caricature. If you're dealing primarily with developing a character then the physical appearance of that character tends to be less important whether male or female. " in case you already forgot what you said. meant something a bit less expansive? fine. clarification would be to your benefit. that being said, is funny that you would wanna try to distinguish "first impression" from overreaching character development. is kinda... cute. *shrug* "It was also made in terms of video games being a visual medium so art design issues being important." you mischaracterize, but you are correct that video games is visual media. perhaps you should try to keep that in mind. HA! Good Fun!

chrisA would disagree with you. he has mentioned in a couple blogs and presentations at game conferences that a character "hook" is mostest important, and that the hook is most frequent visual. take motb characters as an example. kaelyn and okku is as much a product o' visual as they is of dialogue... dove, in particular, tends towards tedious exposition. her character and appeal is as much a part of visuals as cumbersome dialogue. no doubt chrisA learned hard lessons from ps:t. frequent criticism o' the nameless one from ps:t were his unpleasant appearance, whereas fall-from-grace, who had little quality character development, is lauded by folks on these boards. another classic example o' hook o'r substance: dogmeat from fo. its a freaking dog for chrissakes. chrisA mentions that is common that the concept artist creates the hook, the Visual hook, that defines the character. am thinking chrisA learned some bad lessons from ps:t and other games, but he, at the very least, heartily disagrees with you. HA! Good Fun! ps tolkien thought the mostest important aspect o' character development were the name o' the character.

"The issue isn't even about attractiveness. The new Lara Croft is still a very attractive woman. She just isn't absurdly and inhumanly proportioned like she was in many of the early PSX games." absurdly stoopid. compare new lara croft to old psx? HA! graphic capabilities of psx for rendering a sexual appealing female that were other than a static image were limited in mid 1990s. imagine telling a game developer circa 1995-1996 to create a "hawt" female avatar, playable in an action-adventure game, that had realistic/reasonable proportions. as we didnt bother reading alan post past this point, am not sure if he said anything of merit, but this nonsense pretty much shut door on alan for us. *chuckle* folks is frequent most amusing when they is trying to be serious. seriously. HA! Good Fun!

we would prefer 1860 pre-civil war as most o' the conflicts exist w/o any o' the resolutions. that being said, US anywhere/anywhen 'tween 1840 and 1870 would makes us happy with the setting. HA! Good Fun!

"And Wild West or Weird West would be cool" we has asked for similar in the past. but is no need to limit to the west... or even the traditional late 1800s "wild west" period. in retrospect, am actual preferring the mid 1800s US. underground railroad. us-mexican war. pony express. plains indians wars. civil war. california gold rush. utah war. transcontinental railroad. etc. a relative brief period from 1840-1870 offers extreme rich options for a setting in what is now the continental US. throw in magic and/or steampunk... maybe alter history a bit, and you gots limitless possibilities. HA! Good Fun!

dm/gm is not limited to rolls to determine outcome of encounters... is why we said "rolls or encounters." and dumping back in the lap o' the players is equal foolhardy. HA! Good Fun!

roll is ridiculous and adds nothing. that being said, if dm/gm is ok with roll, it is no biggie. after all, is the guy running the game sessions that is gonna be working harder if some folks is under-or-over-powered. in pnp it is not too hard for a dm/gm to put finger on scales where and when needed, but in our experience, it is the folks who wanted stoopid roll stats that is first to complain if they thinks gamemaster ain't being honest with rolls or encounters. HA! Good Fun!

nope, but if you don't add the "roofles," people will miss the joke that you is mocking vol... they will think that the idiocy in your posts is the result o' stoopidity as 'posed to parody. HA! Good Fun!

Whereas posting everything in unreadable affected English isn't. see, this is where we always gets confused-- being "ironic" and "butt-hurt" shouldn't be difficult to distinguish, yes? oh, and is you trying to one-up vol in the category o' Poster-Most-Likely Inspire-WTF? this message board wherein you post your intended pith IS a "fora such as this." duh. doesn't vol finish post with "lolz" or "roofles"? if you don't get details right, people won't get the joke and they will assume that you is an idiot. HA! Good Fun!

... am not seeing the confusion. random stat progression is hardly Less bad 'cause it occurs at genesis. in point of fact, randomized stats at creation is typically a greater problem than level-up randomized as in most systems more points is potentially distributed at genesis than at any other single leveling opportunity. HA! Good Fun!

random stat progression is an idiotic game mechanic... regardless o' the game. am not even gonna touch the "realistic" = good implication. HA! Good Fun!

the big bot's damage resistance and cluster bombing is making them annoying opponents. nevertheless, a single alloy cannon wielding assault soldier with both an arc thrower and combat stims can kill those suckers in 2 rounds. arc thrower with drone capture makes easier as the bot will fire on captured drones first. the combat stims halve your received damage and the assault's lightning reflexes negates 1 attack... assuming you have lightning reflexes... and why wouldn't you? if you dont capture a drone, you will still stay alive long enough to kill the big bot thanks to assault class abilities and the stim. alternatively, a tier 3 mec with the electropulse ability makes short work o' any kinda bots. HA! Good Fun! I must be setting up my soldiers badly, because I can never utilize the close range abilities of my MECs. The enemy is usually in overwatch, so if I try to move them during my turn, they get shot to hell. don't let 'em get into overwatch, or use assault. there is an understandable urge to move troops forward, but with sectopod we typical goes backwards. if any party member gots suppression or disabling shot, such abilities is big win v. sectopod, but regardless, get the bot to move to you and prevent overwatch planting. mecs can move further than any unit save for support with skeleton suit, so use your mobility. alternatively, make sure you got 1 assault soldier with the aforementioned combat stim. an assault in titan armour with a combat stim will absorb the overwatch so your mec's can move in and disable. that being said, trying to capture meld does interfere with good tactics. is ez to overextend or move forward into bad situations. meld has frequent made Gromnir do stoopid. HA! Good Fun!

the big bot's damage resistance and cluster bombing is making them annoying opponents. nevertheless, a single alloy cannon wielding assault soldier with both an arc thrower and combat stims can kill those suckers in 2 rounds. arc thrower with drone capture makes easier as the bot will fire on captured drones first. the combat stims halve your received damage and the assault's lightning reflexes negates 1 attack... assuming you have lightning reflexes... and why wouldn't you? if you dont capture a drone, you will still stay alive long enough to kill the big bot thanks to assault class abilities and the stim. alternatively, a tier 3 mec with the electropulse ability makes short work o' any kinda bots. HA! Good Fun!

am thinking that the developer's less than profound divulgement were more appropriate to a blog entry or a long-winded post on a fora such as this. to makes an entire pc game wherein the player is 'posed to share in the Epiphany/joke strikes Gromnir as, at best, self-indulgent. HA! Good Fun!

MC's Very Special Olympics HA! Good Fun!

yeah, as we noted above, fot gambling were busted... particularly before the patch. betehesda got gambling right by dropping it. too bad they made it so you could approach maxing all skills in a single playthrough. oh well, the developer giveth and the developer taketh away. regardless, this is a wasteland 2 thread. to get back on-track we will note that like spider, we would be looking forward to something along the lines o' fot... but w/o all the horrible fallout baggage that fot gave us. HA! Good Fun!

what on earth is you talking about? what did we mention first? that fot biggest shortcoming as a squad-based tactical combat game were that it were a fallout game, with all the combat shortcomings that were legacies of the fallout franchise? but it would be strange/hypocritical for you to argue that nma and codex raged that fot wasn't fallout enough, then identify ubiquitous fallout flaws as fot shortcomings. yeah, Gromnir already identified that there were an obsolescence o' weapon skills... although we did mention it were less o' an issue than previous fo games. after all, the best ranged weapon in the game (gaus rifle) were small guns. the cattle prod and ripper, coupled with right perks, were making melee viable throughout the game. so, o' the 19 fot skills, identify the 9 that were "useless." depending on which patch version we is speaking of, the only skill we would identify as arguably useless were pilot skill. and your memory is bad. the most useful skills in tactics were small guns, big guns or unarmed... is a good argument for any o' the three. weren't enough gauss ammo for everybody in a squad, but small guns were best early AND late in game. emp shells for the pancor also were keeping small guns useful throughout, but again, there were limited anti-robot ammo. big guns started out a bit slow, but saws and brownings were not rare, and browning were effective throughout entire game. as with fo games previous to fo3, energy weapons were not a particular useful skill for between 1/2 and 2/3 of game... makes it a bad call for best skill. as for other skills, they were all useful... too useful at times. is no skill we would call useless, and our squads invariably were build so that all skills were maxed. regardless, this is getting silly... is why we rare deal with codex or nma anymore. HA! Good Fun!

YOU create a strawman and then complain? HA! we never suggested that gambling were equal useful as weapons skills in fot... because only an idiot or a fo fanboy would expect such from fallout TACTICS. nevertheless, you want exact quotes? fine then... "half of the skill system was useless." your ridiculous denunciation o' fot skills is what prompted our initial response, and is why we yet again, before you try to reinvent what you said, call bs. happy? HA! Good Fun!

Yeah, you are right. Gambling, Speech and Stealing were all useful skills in Tactics, as much as any weapon skill. only a complete fo fanboy would suggest that gambling, ________, and stealing were as useful as weapon skills in fo. and as the game is foTACTICS, only a complete fallout zealot would expect the non-weapon skills to be equal usefulness to the weapon skills. but again, the skills were a holdover from fo. btw, we leave speech blank because as fot were a squad-based tactical strat game there were no speech skill. duh. regardless, there were no genuine non-combat skills in fot, 'cause, it were a combat tactics game. skills such as barter, gamble, steal, repair, and lock pick were in the game to give players who boosted such skills better equipment. outdoorsman were extreme effective for helping to avoid those pesky early deathclaw or supermutant random encounters. etc. is like firing on clay pigeons. HA! Good Fun!

Did I miss something? There's an R4 (p)review of the AoD demo on Gamebanshee done by Eric 'sea' Schwarz which is in parts not so complimentary as the previous one he did two years ago. Some people on fair codexia agree with him, some do not. For some unspecified reason this is significant as opposed to the other 999/1000 times that people on the codex don't agree with each other. AoD is a fairly divisive game on the codex anyway, it has a lot of ardent defenders but it has snipers and detractors too. FOT's biggest failing wasn't that it was a JA2 clone, it was that it was a bad JA2 clone. Too few action points, too many enemies resulted in TB combat being exactly the turgid and stultifying affair that TTON's combat detractors fear, too many characters and too quick real time combat (plus the horrible switch between the two) meant that it was nearly impossible to use tactics properly in real time and you did need to use tactics. aod is only seeming divisive to you because the typical codex groupthink is less pronounced. is not just vol and maybe two other nutters arguing futile. nope, vd cheesed off enough folks that perhaps there is five (*gasp*) folks not buying into the silliness that aod represents we-kid-you-not a "paradigm-shift in rpg development." guess it takes an outsider to recognize. oh, and it is more than a little amusing that fot's biggest failing were not that it were a ja2 clone, but that it were a fallout game. there were absolute nothing wrong with ap allocation, save for twitchy finger folks who wanted to litter the maps with empty shell casings and plasma burns, but fot did has all the major flaws o' fo and fo2... but perhaps less so. at some point small guns became far less useful than energy, so you kinda need plan ahead to allocate points appropriate. yeah, the obsolescence o' weapon skills were less pronounced in fot than in previous fallouts 'cause o' the inclusion o' particular weapons, but it were still an issue. there were a couple traits that were overwhelming superior, which is horrible design-- shoulda' fixed cain's mistake. there were also near essential perks, and useless perks, but they were fo perks. lexx is complete wrong 'bout fot skills, but much like fo, gambling were busted even before the patch. first aid were seeming relegated to multiplayer-only usefulness... and who played fot mp? am gonna concede that as far as we could see, pilot were a complete busted skill. it is indeed true that fot turn-based combat were frequent as soul-numbing as it were in the previous fo games. luckily, Gromnir were/is highly resistant to the Death-By-A-Thousand-Cuts that is fo tb combat. however, the real-time feature were, in point of fact, quite a relief as for ez battles one could simple switch to rt on-the-fly to hasten the otherwise interminable pace of fallout-style combat. nevertheless, for all its fo legacy handicaps, fot managed to be a very good squad-based tactical combat game. as an aside, am playing new xcom, and we note that the most obvious way in which the xcom developers addressed the trapped-in-amber feel o' tb combat were nothing particular profound or insightful. smaller maps is the xcom solution. all other aspects o' tb combat that can makes extreme dull is still present, but compare typical xcom map to (am forgetting the names as it has been so long) mardin(?) or jefferson. HA! Good Fun!

... is as if you don't even realize what you says/admit. regardless o' game strengths or weakness, codex and nma folks is somehow able to genuine like or dislike a game based on wacky preconceived notions? ok. and identify that one or two people don't get swallowed up by the group-think is hardly compelling neither as outside o' some cults, it is near impossible to get universal consensus on even the least contentious o' issues. a ja2 wannabe? *chuckle* lord knows why that would be surprising given it were called fallout TACTICS and marketed as a squad-based tactical strategy game with role-play elements... ain't even gonna get started on your "skills" comment. that one is funny. HA! Good Fun!

isn't boone simply kivan from bg... but with a beret? perhaps a bit more character development from boone? with boone you is 'posed to waste some old lady to get vengeance for his honey-bunny. kivan is hunting ogres who messed up his wedded bliss. the characters is functional interchangeable. sure, you get a couple more quests with boone, but both is mumbly/grumbly snipers who lost their girls and became damaged... am given to understand that women groove on the damaged anti-hero schmaltz, but we might be misinformed. HA! Good Fun!