Gromnir

What was he originally reacting to, BTW? approx quote: "if a venomous snake bit your mother in the chest, would you suck the poison out if it would mean that you would win another championship?" or something close to that. after a bad loss during the 2005 or 2006 (?) nba finals, some local radio personality asks shaq a wacky question. shaq responded with the all-purpose "your momma" bit... "i would if it was your mother." am not 100% certain as it were a while ago... and Gromnir is no fan o' shaq. am only a middling basketball fan when the Bulls are absent, and the Bulls were not in that final. HA! Good Fun!

Quick as you are to suggest wishful thinking from others, this really stands out - especially in light of Qaddafi's history with terrorism. If you bomb someone's country -twice- and make every possible commitment -except for the one that matters- to make sure he's ousted, expecting him to just sit on his hands rebuilding infrastructure for the next decades is... not terribly realistic. Not that this is necessarily the scenario you were predicting. funny stuff. sorry we didn't see sooner. # ignores that this is, for the most part, an internal libyan conflict. is not gonna resolve itself over night, and whomever wrests control is gonna be dealing with Internal conflict for some time. add to the libyan's problems with libya, nato (not the US for a change) will have destroyed a good portion o' the northern african nation's infrastructure by the time somebody finally takes political control o' the nation. sssssoooooo, how exactly is the situation gonna be worse for the US? let the libyans rage 'gainst libyans. let libyans rage 'gainst nato partners. war is not funny. people being killed is not funny. even so, listen to clinton berate qaddafi for attacking civilians is... funny. as for your observations 'bout the us economy... eh? am not certain o' the relevance. morgoth made some patently stoopid and general comments 'bout the pansy nations sitting this fracas out, as if those nations as a whole is experiencing some kinda economic renaissance. somebody wanna check the number o' euro nations who has needed economic bailout in recent years? am not recalling where Gromnir boasted o' the grand power and stability o' US economic power, but the notion o' some kinda imminent cataclysmic US economic collapse is not only based wishful thinking, it is myopic in the extreme. the only folks in europe who is looking forward to US economic collapse is undereducated, middle-class socialist brats with no awareness o' the repercussions o' such an eventuality. bah. argue that China is quickly becoming a threat to US economic supremacy is a far different thing that suggesting that the US economy is 'bout to collapse and that euros will laugh when it happens. oh, and as China's economy is a few decades behind the curve, focused on manufacture and natural resources, it ain't as worrisome a threat as it has been portrayed in the media.... but that is a complete different topic. HA! Good Fun!

Isn't GoldBox original D&D rules though? My first D&D set was the red boxed set (and red books), but that would have been 83-84' or so, not before (I think). Though I remember playing D&D in the 70's (not the color of the books though ) gold box refers to the ssi crpg stuff. the red (basic) blue (expert) came along some number o' years after the original d&d rules were released in 1974. for some obscure reason we never could figure out, the original d&d rules is often misidentified as white-box d&d, 'cause in 1976 the rules were released in a white box. the actual original rules were released a couple years earlier and had hobbits 'stead o' halflings. HA! Good Fun!

rogues couldn't use such stuff in bg1 levels, and for bards to use wands were frequent inconvenient or costly. bards were combat and spell-casting duds in bg1... which were a frequent complaint from bard fans. actual, Gromnir rare utilized the wand o' monster summons save for a couple o' battles. have a bard just so we could use for 4 or 5 battles in the game? also, we preferred animating undead for our meat(less) shields. undead were immune to poisons, so were ideal to use in conjunction with stinking cloud at lower levels. were also immune to mind affecting spells... so no ogre mage or siren shenanigans. mages had some very nice spells, particular as some low level spells scaled to very powerful... likes magic missile and acid arrow. aside-- fighter/thief were also extreme effective in bg1, but that weren't on walsh's list o' possibilities. the most difficult traps in the game could be disarmed with a 4th level thief, and if you were needing to pickpocket, there were potions that could boost such skills when rare needed. play fighter/thief would save having to waste a party member slot o a rogue character, while providing very deadly combat support. HA! Good Fun!

exactly. the folks with the talent moved on to other jobs where there talents would be useful. where is the confusion? HA! Good Fun! Yeah Gromnir because that is just exactly how the world works. Those who are talented get to move onto to other jobs in their chosen field and the hacks have to do something else. Nobody undeserving has to make a career move and everyone who has to make a career move is deserving. The universe really is just that balanced and fair that talent always succeeds on its own virtues and those that don't are talentless. *snort* conversely, we find that most often the folks that complain 'bout the lack o' fairness in the american business world is the ones who don't work hard enough or don't have enough talent. am gonna suggest that your woe-is-me scenario is far less likely than Gromnir's. yeah, the fact that a certain stench possibly adhered to a troika resume mighta made a lateral move difficult for some. even so, talented folks who works hard will get jobs. find some rare exception is possible, but the exception is noteworthy only 'cause they is exceptions... particularly as we is talking 'bout 2005 and not 2011. btw, am not saying that everybody gets the job they deserve. is all kinda politics and unspoken qualifications that sees less talented folks promoted over more talented. even so, the scenario o' a genuine talented developer not able to get job (different than don't want) in spite o' hard work is far more difficult to believe than is the unfair theory o' business. HA! Good Fun!

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought you were anti D&D and plus Atari. on-line petitions have very little impact. get far more juice from a written letter, but folks is typical too lazy to put forth the effort. am recalling that some o' the black isle developers once commented on the impotence o' internet petitions... but that were more than a few years ago. even so, as you said, is not gonna hurt. just don't expect anything from an on-line petition... ever. HA! Good Fun!

exactly. the folks with the talent moved on to other jobs where there talents would be useful. where is the confusion? HA! Good Fun!

why on earth would Gromnir be caring how vol feels? we posted in response to what you said.... and even then we simple used your post to make a point. the day we actual concerns self with vol opinions... HA! Good Fun! ps vol missed the point... again. surprise?

yes, wizard is A right choice, and clerics is powerful. as with most d&d party-based games, relative power o' the player is pointless if your party dynamic... sucks. wizards, from the mid point o' the game onward, is also very powerful... but there is a big difference 'tween the efficacy o' a bg1 conjurer or necromancer and a bg1 enchanter or diviner. as the wizard choices in the game is all kinda lame, it makes sense to build-your-own. on the other hand, there is no specialist clerics. clerics all gets access to the same spell lists... and they all got a special power that the pc cleric won't have. you already got the cleric o' tempus with her mighty hammer, right? each cleric gots a powha that is kinda nifty and very useful. ranger/clerics is probable the most powerful multi-class in the game, with fighter/clerics right behind 'em. dual-class options is even more powerful, but is kinda silly to voluntarily play a gimped character for 1/3 to 1/2 of the game just so you can be superman for the remainder. *shrug* we typical played as a cleric in bg1, but from a pure practical pov, if we were wanting to make the best use o' available jnpcs, we would makes a weezard pc. HA! Good Fun!

observation: none of the specialist wizards available as joinable npcs in bg1 is what we woulda' chosen for ourself. on the other hand, there is multiple clerics available in the game, and some o' 'em has nifty powhaz that make 'em extreme effective. from a pure practical pov, choosing the weezard is the right choice. am not sure if is counting as spoilers, but you may wanna at least look at a list o' the available jnpcs for bg1...might help make your choice for you... or not. btw, choosing cleric does not make game harder. clerics is extreme powerful in bg, and fighter/clerics with the right equipment can almost solo the game. HA! Good Fun! proviso-- there is one super-powerful specialist mage available in bg1, but he gots "issues" with other party members.

is today false dilemma friday or something? look, is ok to complain that bio shoulda' taken their time and made a fifty-hour game WITH unique maps as 'posed to a thirty-hour game with recycle. bio made all kinda stoopid claims 'bout how their changes to da2 were for benefit o' players and not resource saving shortcuts. well shucks, mike couldn't find no way to dress-up recycled maps as a feature or boon, so he did the unimaginable-- he told the truth. the thing that bothered Gromnir is not the anger directed at mike, but rather the fact that the anger were seeming misplaced. on the other hand, some folks likes to parrot bio without doing any thinking of their own... which is convenient for bio, but is very discouraging. peoples Should complain 'bout recycled maps, but folks so easy split into the hate v. love camps that it not matter what a developer actually says. if love bio, then mike must be right. if hate bio, then surely mike is a filthy liar. too easy. to memao, sorry, but we do not recall you specific. that being said, we is humbled and grateful that you would post as you did. to be fair, you coulda' been right and we mighta' been wrong. is not as if we had some kinda crystal ball. is just that so many changes had the appearance o' being resource savers... and something 'bout the way bio presented 'em as "features" made Gromnir suspicious. the manner in which bio "sells" their games to the fan-base over the years has changed somewhat. an understandable change given the manner in which innocuous board comments from developers is likely to go viral nowadays. HA! Good Fun!

false dilemma/dichotomy makes baby jebus cry. HA! Good Fun!

is good that they went out of business. talent that were being wasted at troika gots dispersed to other more viable developers. the system works. huzzah. most o' the folks who has been applauding arcanum in this thread is part o' the same dozen or so that has been building arcanum's non-existent legend over at codex for the past decade. in their addled estimation, arcanum appears to have actually become better in the last few years. strange. nothing new. if one feels like sharing hugs with like-minded fans, make an "I LUV ARCANUM" thread over at codex. no doubt it will leave you all warm and tingly. http://www.rpgcodex.net/index.php is nothing being developed by obsidian save dungeon siege iii, which hardly even counts as a crpg. absence o' casual fans leads to more concentrated hardcore pov... which may not be a good thing now that we consider. HA! Good Fun!

the plebeian crpg fans with no sense o' history or pov would fail to recognize white box is original d&d rules.... though Gromnir had the wood-grain version. bishop/sawyer still posts, if a little less often. fergie almost never posts. war never changes? *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

am not doubting that da2 were rushed. in spite of all the bio commentary 'bout improvements, so many o' the changes from da:o to da2 had the appearance o' being little more than resource saving moves to aid the developers in meeting a deadline. the change in the camera were clear not benefiting pc players. the adoption o' a dialogue wheel and a fixed protagonist may have been welcomed by some, but it also were a time-saver for the writers. recycling maps were also a resource saver. but some folks is checking their objectivity and sense o' fair-play at the door. the quote that folks is slamming mike for is not deserving venom. does it suck that da2 were a rush job? hell yeah... is why we were complaining for the year leading up to da2 release. nevertheless, recognizing that da2 were rushed, mike gots a choice 'tween recycling maps and giving players more quests, or using unique maps and cutting content. is a tough choice... is a no-win kinda choice. even so, as 'tween substantial cut content and recycled maps, we would choose map recycle. and this ain't directed at enterix, but we believe that many folks is purposefully ignoring just how much me1 recycled. am not sure why that is so. HA! Good Fun! ps you is wrong that nobody would be complaining if da2 were costing $30.

you mentioned me1. folks seemed to suffer through me1 ok. also, as noted, is a resource saving approach. so, if game had been X hours shorter, then how many additional people would be complaining 'bout shortness? me1 and iwd2 prepared us for considerable recycle. sure, mike has shown how myopic he can be regarding fan-base feedback, so we ain't surprised he didn't learn lesson from me1, but the either/or scenario being presented seems reasonable. HA! Good Fun! ps keep in mind that Gromnir were at the forefront o' those complaining that so many announced da2 features appeared to be little more than resource saving features. the entire approach the developers took regarding da2 bothered us and we complained when many others remained silent or asked for understanding. am disappointed with the da2 economy approach. that being said, the fact that the aforementioned quote results in hate does not appear justified.

am not certain where the hate comes from on this issue. don't get us wrong, we do Hate some o' the things mike has done to the franchise, but recycling maps to so that more player quests were possible seems like a reasonable point to debate, and is a tough choice to be making. having not played da2 we don't know the degree to which maps were recycled, but we assume it were substantial to be causing so much venom. nevertheless, bio recycling o' maps has been common in many o' their offerings. bg, bg2 and mass effect is all games that used considerable recycle. heck, look at iwd 2. the obsidian developers recycled much o' their iwd maps no doubt to be saving resources. more quests at the expense o' recycled maps? some other mike nonsense regarding end bosses, camera pov, and the bio reliance on, and misinterpretation of, data mining makes us a little queasy. even so, the statement you folks quote is hardly gonna inspire our hate... 'cause is sounding like a reasonable design choice with no perfect solution. yeah, after the first mass effect game one would assume that bio had recognized that their fans could only tolerate so much map recycling. biowarians can be inordinate obtuse. nevertheless, it would be interesting to hear just how much content bio estimated would needed to have been cut if all unique maps were incorporated. HA! Good Fun!

you could be right. anybody know when santa's elves became popularized as pointy-eared faeries? HA! Good Fun!

as a dyed-in-wool curmudgeon, Gromnir longs for the days when elves didn't even have pointy ears. is seemingly a single obscure and posthumously published tolkien reference sends us down the slippery slope. oh, and while we is on the subject o' perverted elves, we insist that dark elves=dwarves. am blaming d&d for the ebony or purple skinned freak-show fey with the s&m inclinations. *grumble* HA! Good Fun! ps we recognize that the popularization o' the pointy-ear thing may actual be walt disney's fault more than tolkien, but why blame an American when there is an englishman available?

yeah... this don't make sense. troika's lack o' organizational acumen did indeed lead to many o' their development woes and their endemic tardiness in meeting deadlines, but arcanum's peculiar release were resulting in a relative unique story o' developer and publisher incompetence. anybody recall the translation debacle surrounding arcanum? arcanum were "finished" and set for a release date... but that date got pushed back months 'cause it were not translated into some inconsequential continental language... german or italian or somesuch. is understandable why sierra would not release the english version and delay the carpathian release, but the fact is that due to some ridiculous translation hold-up the publisher should'a foreseen, arcanum were having its release delayed not weeks or days, but months. arcanum lack o' polish were particularly startling given the fact that troika had far more time to bug-hunt pre-release than they had any right to expect. the problem with revisionist history is that some o' us were following the development as it happened. HA! Good Fun!

arcanum were a fantastic game, right up until we loaded it onto our hard drive. as with all troika releases, arcanum were conceptually intriguing, but the actual execution were lacking. a steampunk world as the setting for a game being built by some o' the same guys who developed fallout? sign us up. *groan* horribly balanced and often obtuse seeming rules? forgettable cast o' characters? buggier than a tijuana sweatshop? is a whole laundry list o' things that troika did wrong with their initial offering, but the most damning criticism we has o' arcanum were that it were boring. is no patch or mod or revisionist history that can fix boring. side note-- while fo and fo2 did not bomb, the sales o' those games did not justify fo3. nevertheless, for years uncle fergie struggled to find a way to get fo3 made... and bethesda finally went ahead and made a fo3. heck, according to one former interplay/black isle developer, fo sales did not actual justify fo2. is not bottom-line sales that justified fo3. actual reason for fo3 getting made is 'cause developers wanted to make fo3. has arcanum engendered that kinda passion? from the time fo2 were released until fo3 finally hit shelves, it seemed as if there were always a developer who were working on or pursuing a fo3. can the same be said o' arcanum? fo3 reveals that lack o' economic success need not forever damn a sequel. that being said, fo3 is clearly an exception. planets had to align. HA! Good Fun!

am understanding that the 1.02 patch for da2 were released. however, there appears to be more than a little dissatisfaction with the patch as it did not address any o' the awakenings/dlc import issues. as usual, be aware that any mods you gots may bork the patch. http://social.bioware.com/page/da2-patches http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/300/index/7048410/1 http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/300/index/7048387/1 maybe we hold off for 1.03 before playing... sometime in may perhaps? HA! Good Fun!

should make that your signature. am suspecting that vol no longer lives in kanada, but rather in the perpetual state o' point not found. *shrug* we get what we deserve for direct responding to vol. HA! Good Fun!

you mention schindler's list, but what 'bout transformers, and all the other formulaic blockbuster films? actually, the closest thing to a sure-fire win in the movie industry is family movies. why? bigger potential audience. games is expensive to develop and publish. movies is even more expensive than is games. sadly, schindler's list is an exception rather than the rule... and for understandable, if regrettable reasons. honestly, we wouldn't mind if games industry somehow became like movies. say what you will 'bout the movie industry, but by years end we typical can identify almost a couple dozen good movies (if documentaries is included). here is a couple "best of" lists for movies: http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/09/01/best-movies-of-2010/ http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/12/th...ms_of_2010.html http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/21/the-bes...f-2010.all.html looking at the aforementioned lists, we got no difficulty finding a dozen keepers... and there is some stuff we liked that doesn't show up on such lists. how many good games does we play in a year? three. HA! Good Fun! ps am not looking forward to the day when the game industry settles on a formula: the ideal mixture o' story and gameplay elements to achieve Blockbuster status.

no, it wasn't. their first product weren't even a game... were medical software. their first entertainment software, a mech game... sucked. then they made bg 1 and had great success. their second non-crpg, mdk2, did not suck. mdk2 was an excellent adventure/shooter, but hardly anybody bought it. bio makes crpgs. that doesn't preclude the possibility o' bio making shooters, mech simulators and adventure games. even so, the biowarians apparently learned their lesson well and since the release o' mdk2 over a decade ago, they has described all of their games as crpgs. duh. one o' our recurring criticisms o' bio has been that they tries to make games that appeal to everybody, which is functionally impossible. anybody who peruses the bio boards for 10 minutes will understand the sisyphean challenge they face. bio simplifies character development choices in me2 and a bunch o' folks like, and a bunch o' folks hate. after bg1, a vast number o' people complained 'bout the pointless wandering involved with the bg1 maps, so bio largely removes such stuff in bg2 and a new group o' people show up complaining-- "How could you remove the bg1 exploration? That is what made the first game great." *snort* am not sure what kinda endemic obtuseness has seized the bio brain trust that makes 'em think that there is a perfect development alchemy whereby they can find the ideal combination o' features and elements that will result in near everybody being satisfied with their game. taste in games is no different than tastes in food. there is no perfect food that appeals to everybody... and even if there were, if people had to eat the perfect food all the time they would get tired of it real quick. try and make the perfect universal food based on feedback from customers would result in an utterly unpalatable mess... 'cause some folks like sweet and others prefer sour, while some is liking heavy while others likes light, etc. nobody would ever attempt to makes the perfect food, 'cause tastes is too varied. nevertheless, bio is trying for something similar with their games. HA! Good Fun!