Gromnir

concept art? you didn't seriously point to the concept art as a reason to be having faith in ds3... much less suggesting that such stuff makes one thinks ds3 will resemble iwd. ... is perfect reasonable to assume that if you liked past obsidian products you will like a new obsidian product. even so, to point to concept art as a meaningful parallel 'tween iwd and ds3 is... amusing. HA! Good Fun!

we is particular opposed to the retread o' any game for which the original publisher/developer is still 'round and may have influence on the development process. 'course, as you say, we is also opposed to any non-original IP. is like developer equivalent o' fan-fic.. at best it is a bit gauche. HA! Good Fun! Ah, I guess I understand your position. I'm more than happy personally to give a look at any game that piques my interest, sequel, remake, relaunch or original IP. In fact there are a few moldy IPs I'd like to see get revamped or relaunched (although most of them are from developers that don't exist any more or were swallowed up by other publishers (like SSI and Ubisoft). fair enough. am honest enough to admit that if some developer we respected were making a new planescape game, we would, at the very least, be curious. am s'posing that if little more than the setting is retained by the new developer, then we probably gots less resistance to retreads and resurrections. HA! Good Fun!

The first one sold over a million units IIRC. it sold well. it resulted in a sequel. it were responsible for a movie adaptation that cost $60 million. somebody obvious thought that ds did more than just okie dokie. HA! Good Fun! ps we never understood the appreciation arcanum gained with a small group o' die-hard fans. arcanum were most interesting previous to its release. the steampunk setting sounded neato, and having fo guys working on it made us optimistic. too bad the combat were poorly balanced, the engine were buggy and clunky, the writing were tedious and the characters wer3e forgettable. nevertheless, for those that wanted a sandbox game, arcanum were the only hardcore example available, so...

3 points worth noting: 1) we already noted the economic acumen behind working on somebody's IP. kotor2 and nwn2 were boons for a new developer. and how many police academy movies were made? no doubt it were a lucrative franchise too. do a project with a number after the title is typical far less risky, but is also lacking in originality. so congrats on working on police academy IX, or whatever. 2) fo was NOT a particularly lucrative franchise. is not as if bethesda was genuinely mooching off of the success o' interplay. one o' your predecessors at black isle (briareus) once went through a rather detailed explanation o' how fo were not a noteworthy commercial success. was enlightening. 3) we also noted that our serious sticking point were with IPs for which the original developer/publisher is still alive and kicking. who was bethesda's master on fo3? no publisher and no previous developer... so perhaps your example is less than analogous, yes? HA! Good Fun!

we is particular opposed to the retread o' any game for which the original publisher/developer is still 'round and may have influence on the development process. 'course, as you say, we is also opposed to any non-original IP. is like developer equivalent o' fan-fic.. at best it is a bit gauche. HA! Good Fun!

arcanum didn't sell well enough to warrant such attentions... am not certain regarding anachronox. ... am wondering what other moldering franchise will be meat and mead for obsidian. once bio were done with nwn and kotor, obsidian gots a chance to scavenge. were understandable at the time 'cause obsidian were a "new" developer, and an indie at that. get a chance for a new developer to work on two highly anticipated projects appeared to be a coup for fergie. now we gots a fallout game, which even though it is a castoff project o' bethesda, many o' the obsidian developers actually has put in time working on one or more fallout projects; fo:nv seemed to be a good fit for obsidian. 'course obsidian's aliens got canceled and ap has garnered less than stellar feedback. so now it is back to picking over the scraps o' bigger and more successful developers? has obsidian settled on such an unimaginative development model? lawyer joke: what is the difference 'tween a catfish and a lawyer? answer: one is a scum-sucking bottom-feeder, and the other is a fish. perhaps lawyers and obsidian has more in common than we suspected. is it too late to change corporate name? perhaps Grave Robber Games would suit better than Obsidian Entertainment... or maybe Ebon Vulture/Onyx Condor. maybe ds3 turns out to be the bestest crpg evar, but is difficult to be enthusiastic 'bout such a project. on the positive end o' the spectrum, now obsidian gots an excuse to gets burt reynolds to do vo. weren't burt in the cast o' the ds movie? have paul crewe/gator/lewis medlock do vo would be earning some kewl points. HA! Good Fun!

you're serious? really? how often does corporations drag their feet when it comes to fixing problems they created? auto makers discover a defect in a car and don't fix 'cause it is cheaper to pay injury/death benefits than it is to fix the car. "you can't put a value on a human life." sure you can. companies do it all the time. it looks like bp rushed their gulf platform construction and they didn't have adequate measures for fixing potential problems... but do you really think they didn't anticipate a disaster and affix a dollar amount to a worst case scenario? *chuckle* tobacco, asbestos, petrochemical, etc... name all the industries that has been accused o' reacting slowly (or not at all) to environmental or human disasters. btw, folks is still fighting with exxon over valdez. it is very possible that the most cost-efficient response for bp is to do as little as possible... look good for the cameras while this is a public disaster, and then find ways to mitigate and avoid eventual fines two or three years from now when only the locals care/remember. I would have thought that the damage on their reputation, and also the cost of cleaning up the whole mess, and the policy implications for future operations, etc., would have been sufficient incentive for them to get a move on. On smaller scales, like your car example, sure, the money wins out, but in this case I'd have thought it was more economical for them to get the clean job done. But this does let me understand things better: Also, now that I think about it, there's surprisingly little media uproar surrounding BP... telling, really. am glad enoch cleared up for you. no, wait... "btw, folks is still fighting with exxon over valdez. it is very possible that the most cost-efficient response for bp is to do as little as possible... look good for the cameras while this is a public disaster, and then find ways to mitigate and avoid eventual fines two or three years from now when only the locals care/remember." am guessing that this is like advertising and tig simply needs to hear multiple times for the message to genuine sink into his brain. HA! Good Fun!

josh made some very reasonable iwd2 kit suggestions... myrmidon were one such. each kit included minor bonuses and drawbacks... helped to distinguish kit from the base class. unfortunately, people hated josh's suggestions. so josh comes up with some doozies: super-powered world-crusher kits. predictably, people didn't catch the sarcasm behind josh suggestions. the boardies Loved his new suggestions. is good that 3e were implemented thus making the kit questions moot. not the brightest moment in bis board history. HA! Good Fun!

That's pretty much it. How unrealistic would it be for a publisher to fund a low budget, semi-old skool (i.e. technical equivalent to what BG3, van buren would have been) RPG nowadays? Man, that would be pretty ace. troika screwed up that plan for everybody... at least until publishers forget 'bout troika and toee. publishers is understandably unimagina similarly, when a game fails, publishers avoid doing similar. there is far less risk in copying the success of others than in breaking new ground. when you is speaking of an investment o' millions it don't pay to be imaginative. ps:t killed any chance o' another planescape game, and for at least five years afterward every crpg developer, when speaking o' their in-game dialogues would note "not as much as planescape" and they were not doing as a criticism, but as a way to reassure. toee were 'posed to be a low-cost and relative quick development of old skool d&d modules... with a plan for a whole series o' sequels. troika screwed the pooch, so you can forget 'bout any other publisher taking a similar risk anytime soon. a small, indie developer whose only hope o' success is to be different ('cause is no way to compete with the big boys resources) is probable your only shot at seeing an old skool crpg anytime soon. a willingness to risk it all on a seeming fringe project is needed. if such a project becomes an unexpected success, then publishers will once again line up to copy such success and you will see a flood o' such games... but don't hold your breath waiting. HA! Good Fun!

keep in mind that iwd is extremely "linear." there is a world map in iwd, but you have a very limited number o' available locations you may travel to, and no random encounter possibility. the critical path gots a simple a-b-c-d kinda progression, so if the illusion o' freedom is important to you, then iwd will have limited appeal. also, unlike bg1, am not certain that a mod were ever created to enhance the interface, screen resolution and character development choice availability... am unaware of an iwd tutu as it were. no kensai/mages in iwd. compared to bg1, iwd benefited from better writing, more varied combat... and more tunnels. HA! Good Fun!

is an unfair comparison to iwd, for multiple reasons. there are joinable npcs in soz. the soz jnpcs is much more akin to bg1 jnpcs or fo:t jnpcs than anything we has seen in a crpg for a long time. a collection o' stats and little else. you do create your own (up to) four member party at the start o' soz, but there are jnpcs available... is easy to forget that point, so we hardly blame hurl for failing to mention. heck, you can very easily create a 4-member party at the start o' bg1 if you so desire. soz is more akin to bg1, before you arrive in bg city, than it has in common with iwd. you is much more likely to random be attacked by wolves in soz and bg1. you is much more likely to have extreme brief overland map encounters in bg1 and soz. your jnpcs is unlikely to makes your playing experience noticeably better or worse in both bg1 and soz. the encounters in bg1 and soz were more repetitive than iwd encounters. am not certain how many times we encountered the same group of hobgoblins, bandits and gnolls in bg1... had deja vu for soz. bg1 had a cave with a chest, two web traps and an ettercap... call it an encounter. huzzah. bg1 overland map encounters were brief and largely forgettable... just as were soz encounters. nashkel mines in bg1? pretty boring and underdeveloped in retrospect... kinda similar to the handful o' larger set pieces in soz. bg1... pre-bg city. conversely, the entirety of iwd supports the development o' the critical path, you cannot say the same o' soz. iwd had memorable npcs. soz had volo? combat encounters were far more varied and deep in iwd than bg1... or even soz... in spite of old ad&d rules. iwd had a cohesive and engaging plot which soz lacked. iwd had large and highly developed dungeons... the kinda thing that should garner mc approval... lots of tunnels. no such stuff in soz or bg1. however, we does admit that iwd had yuan-ti. am supposing that for some folks, yuan-ti were THE important similarity. now keep in mind that we understands that many folks on these boards love bg1. we think some o' that it rosey-hued recollection. nostalgia is what genuine drives positive recollections o' bg1, 'cause if bg1 (up to bg city) were released today with an updated engine and a new name, it would get less love from the critics than AP is getting... and rightfully so. 'course much as bg1 is half a game w/o bg city... *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

am not sure of the accuracy of the comparison, but we would prefer to french kiss a light socket than take another stab at troika's vampire game. HA! Good Fun!

not hypocrisy... 'least not intentional. an obsidian developer once observed that crpg fans is those most forgiving of bad mechanics. perhaps he shoulda' anticipated the ap backlash, no? is ap a crpg or a shooter? well? am thinking that obsidian created their own elevated standard compared to the other crpgs you mentioned. obsidian made a game that looks and feels like a shooter, even if it doesn't exactly play like one. as such, in regards to mechanics and ai issues, ap is being judged by many with the shooter standard, rather than the more relaxed crpg standard. as for ap's lack o' polish and its technical issues... *shrug* haven't played ap, so am not gonna speak to tech issues. nevertheless, am thinking that whatever flaws one could identify in mass effect and some o' the other AAA games you mention, lack of polish were not a primary issue. ap is a genre bending game, and unfortunately that means that it is being judged as both a crpg and a shooter. you think it is unfair that ap should be judged so? maybe you is right, particularly if you is primarily a crpg fan. maybe you is wrong. in any case, am not seeing any conspiracy. heck, we don't even genuine see a problem with the disparity in the reviews. HA! Good Fun!

None of these offer proof, I'm afraid, quite the opposite for the first two as none of the provisions applied to a ship which was not slave trading, a pirate, not flying a national flag etc. Under the definition given therein Israelis engaged in piracy- and the first two are effective duplicates too, fortunately I already knew the relevant sections so wasn't put off by link bombing- unless Israel has a recognised treaty which supercedes the provisions such as that used to monitor NK vessels, or it was part of a legally constituted blockade. Getting something from the US military saying they regularly ignore the relevant laws isn't proof either, it's as pertinent as me saying that because people regularly ignore speed limits those speed limits don't exist. The only legal recourse is that the Israeli blockade is legally constituted (and since it's recognised by three whoops two now countries and specifically has been condemned listed as violating, at the least, the humanitarian component of a valid blockade that is very much an open question) the default position is that seizing boats in international waters is piracy. as this is a side issue, we will respond despite our withdrawal from a lof perverted thread. sure they offer proof... you simply do not listen ... or read. please review our actual statement... the one you quoted. "a foreign warship may board and inspect on high seas pursuant to "right of visit" and treaty." we noted that the issue in question were much more complex than as defined by mk. we also noted that we did not know israeli treaties. so, please identify how Gromnir did not offer proof for that which was actual stated. regardless, our proofs clearly fulfill requirement. HA! Good Fun!

no doubt some interesting comments has been made, but as lof has entered the thread, we will ignore henceforth. HA! Good Fun!

if you like soz, then there ain't no need to apologize... however we will take exception with the aforementioned quote. differing expectations for a game does not actual change the quality of the game. we has made this point before, with very little success, so we do not presently expect better results. compare a game developed by bioware v. iron tower. should iron tower get some kinda free pass 'cause they is indie and first timers? why? when comparing the objective quality o' games developed by bio and iron tower, does one consider the resources and experience o' the developers? why? playing a game developed by thumb-less morons is not inherently more fun then a game developed by cal-tech grads, is it? with soz, you were only expecting humble pie... now personally, we don't thinks the pie were particular well made regardless. even if you were only wanting one aspect from soz, you would still expect quality from that single aspect, no? as noted, the trading function were bugged, and the mechanics o' the overland map (tied to the Leader's skills) were irrational and poorly balanced. the random encounters were amusing... the first dozen or so times, but afterward they became tedious to say the least. apparent there weren't a clearing or uncharted beach in all the FRs that were not populated by some sorta savage beastie. so many large predators in such a small area musta played serious havoc with the ecosystem... and am not sure what economic theory would support so many bandits (ignoring the fact that the bandits seemed to be able to ignore the beasties.) is a fantasy world, so normal rules need not apply, but even if you thought the first bear attack were kewl, am not seeing what thrill could be derived from bear attack #8, as there were no variation from attack #2 or #6. ... if in da:o you had an encounter such as the hunting cabin described above, it would be derided, but 'cause soz had a couple dozen such encounters it is kewl? am not seeing how that makes sense... on any level. the little bits o' pie were not particular good in soz... but you did get lots of 'em. am recalling a kid we knew long time ago. his parents were kinda uninvolved with his rearing, so for easter they give him $10 and tells him to get whatever candy he wants. he lived much closer to town than did Gromnir, were only an 8 mile walk. the kid with his crisp $10 bill treks to town and buys $10 worth o' jellybeans... were more than five pounds. when he arrives home his mom has a fit and tells the kid to go back to town and return all those damn jellybeans. personally, we thinks the kid were treated unfairly by his mother, all things considered. make a kid walk another 16 miles to return 5 lbs o' jelly beans? nevertheless, we is reminded o' the jellybean kid when we hears that mc liked soz. is no way in hell Gromnir could stomach 5 lbs o' jellybeans, bust some folks apparently likes such filler. is apparently why woolworth were able sells jellybeans by bulk. HA! Good Fun! ps to continue mc metaphor, we thinks that if mc were expecting pie, we thinks soz developers were providing little more than crust, and not even particularly great crust at that. only got a hint o' cherry/apple/peach pie filling along with his pie. mc got 1/2 pie. pps to stay on-topic, we think it is very bad form for bio to have not provided a new patch considering all the bugs da: awakening and 1.03 created.

the hyperbolic strawman is hardly convincing, eh? in any event, you is clear missing the point. the risk management approach does not dissuade multinationals from engaging in risky ventures in part 'cause the worst case scenario, in which a couple billion dollars is lost, may be largely mitigated. the sheer magnitude o' this disaster were not enough to encourage bp to be more careful? is not as if bp were unaware o' the risks involved. so why did bp ignore safety in favor o' speed? risk management means they understands worst case scenarios before they start construction. if the Genuine cost o' mistakes and failure were higher, then multinationals would be much more careful. HA! Good Fun!

What a waste of time and talent then. not necessarily a waste. maybe working on wot gave the developers something to do when they were not actually fixing ap. HA! Good Fun!

our primary problem with soz were that it were 1/2 of a game... and the less important half at that. the overland travel map were intriguing, though the implementation were a bit odd. unfortunately, the critical path encounters were extreme lacking in depth, and many o' the overland map encounters were equally uninspired. am recalling how the folks over at rpgcodex gushed over a hunting cabin encounter. huh. the hunting cabin encounter involved a two-room cabin encounter: a priest o' malar shouts a peta slogan and then he and his furry woodland friends attack. we never could figure out why the codexians thought such an encounter were REAL rpg fare. maybe that is why we don't get their fascination with arcanum neither. in any event, 80% o' soz were composed of similarly shallow encounters... and the more defined set-pieces were hardly more developed. the underdark black market that josh were so proud of hardly made one forget the bg2 market map... were more akin to the iwd deep gnome village. the trading/merchant stuff coulda' been interesting, if it weren't bugged to hell. on the positive end o' the spectrum, soz may be the first obsidian/bis game (other than iwd) in which the climax were not a disappointment... but that is simply 'cause we were expecting so very little from soz by the time we reached the Final Battle. 1/2 of a game. if the overland map, mini-encounters, and trading aspects o' soz had been included in nwn2, then we woulda' been genuine impressed. all the tangential features and mini-encounters woulda' been great... if they had been attached to an actual game. am suspecting that the developers were working under the misapprehension that the gestalt o' all o' soz's little 5-minute encounters would result in a compelling rpg experience, but that were not the case for Gromnir. the absence o' any kinda depth o' encounters or characters left us thoroughly unsatisfied with the soz experience. HA! Good Fun!

OK, so Sweden has just declared war on Denmark, what happens now and how is that relevant to anything? Oh yeah... Post Proof or Retract. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agr...nclos/part7.htm scroll down and find right of visit. you is of course free to look for individual treaties as each is unique. http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instrumen...8_high_seas.pdf is numerous provisions in the aforementioned that reference the superseding power o' treaties. http://www.jag.navy.mil/organization/docum...curityMyths.pdf please scroll down to "myth 4" as for the sweden scenario... ZOOM... right over your head. O.K. maybe not tasers, but I'm pretty sure, being one of the best equipped armies in the world, they could come up with something better than paintball guns and switching to their live ammunition sidearms at the sight of *gasp* a knife. Like it's totally unpredictable. In a crowd. ... but you don't see a problem with using tear gas... on a boat? btw, is the tear gas to be used before or after the israelis shimmy down their ropes from the helicopter? HA! Good Fun! ps everybody should have a westlaw subscription... would make these kinda posts much easier for Gromnir.

So it'd be OK if the police in America opened live fire on, say, tea party protesters who hurled rocks or tried to take their guns right? An eye for an eye is neoconservative policy these days, right mate? if the tea party protesters were attacking the police with knives and metal bars, we would expect the police to respond with deadly force. Don't be a ****, you'd expect them to use tasers and tear gas. ... HA! it may seem inappropriate, but your observation has provided us with the first genuine mirth we were able to appreciate in regards to this incident. tasers and tear gas? HA! Good Fun!

I had no idea. Nevertheless, if you wanted to inspect the cargo of the convoy, why would you send warships, helicopters and heavily armed commandos in the middle of the night? Does that really sound like someone who wants to innocently inspect your ship's cargo? is kinda sad that as a citizen o' sweden you probably got more rights when dealing with the U.S. while on Amercian soil than you does on the high seas. thanks to treaties, you don't even get the benefit o' "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" when faced with an inspection by authorities. even so, am in agreement that the israeli operation were not well considered. commandos dropping down from helicopters in the dead of night? what is the likelihood that at least one idiot peace activist would gets trigger happy out of fear or anger? once the israelis were attacked, the end results were predictable... and it cannot have been complete unanticipated that the israelis would be attacked. 'course, it typical requires the stoopidity o' multiple people to create a charlie fox scenario like the one that is the focus o' this thread. am always a bit surprised that such stoopidity is rarely contemplated until after the corpses is counted and the wounds is tended. HA! Good Fun!

Ahh, but that's how it goes, isn't it? Once the government plays its part (boarding the ship) then it's all on the soldiers' shoulders, who in turn can always play the "self-defense" card. Then even the individuals with the best of intentions and the best of judgement can easily overlook the fact that it's a "bad political decision". Additionally, in this case it doesn't even qualify as self-defense, imo. It was at best "bad crowd control". Very bad. At best. This would be spot on IF both sides of the incident were trained & equipped soldiers. The end result gives a pretty good idea about the "danger levels" for both sides (injuries vs. deaths). all of which complete ignores the fact that the knife-wielding peace activists attacked the soldiers. the danger level to the peace activists were in the control o' the peace activists, as is evidenced by the results on the five other flotilla boats. even so, the israelis shoulda' anticipated peace activist stupidity/aggression. am not seeing how the end result could be a genuine surprise to anybody. HA! Good Fun!

eh? where is they to back down to exactly. the israelis is on a ship at sea. they has been dropped off by helicopter. where is the safety to which they could easily back down to? some o' you folks is being genuine unreasonable. again, am not suggesting that this were the best considered plan, but to take calax example... "it's like stopping a family vehicle at the end of your street with a four person family inside, to check it for guns because you don't want them to shoot up your garage." once the folks in the family car start attacking the cop with metal bars and knives, does we ask why the policeman defended self with lethal force? no. hell no. 'course the israelis had even less opportunity to back down as they were on a ship at sea. again, we ain't suggesting that this were a well considered venture by the israelis, and they shoulda' contemplated the possibility that not all ships would come along peaceably (apparently five o' the flotilla ships did surrender without incident.) israel tends to ignore the political implications o' their actions...which is understandable to some degree. nevertheless, this don't appear to have been the best considered plan for dealing with folks who were clearly attempting to create an international incident by running the gaza blockade. unlike most folks, what bothers Gromnir most is that the israelis put their soldiers in an extremely dangerous position without seeming to consider what would happen if things went to $&%#. poor planning results in injured israelis and dead civvies. HA! Good Fun!

So it'd be OK if the police in America opened live fire on, say, tea party protesters who hurled rocks or tried to take their guns right? An eye for an eye is neoconservative policy these days, right mate? if the tea party protesters were attacking the police with knives and metal bars, we would expect the police to respond with deadly force. "do what is necessary to protect yourselves and your fellow police officers." is all kinda arguments as to why the israelis should or should not have been on those boats in the first place, but you is bugnuts if you thinks the individual soldiers were unjustified in firing on those poor civilians who were attacking with knives and metal bars. international crisis be damned: if Gromnir is the israeli commander, we tells our men that their first priority is to protect selves and their squaddies. you is on a boat, in the dark, being attacked by an unknown number of knife-wielding adversaries. you perhaps expected the israelis to use those paintball guns they were carrying to defend selves? again, am not suggesting that the israeli solution o' boarding the flotilla ships as they did were politically advisable, but once on-board, we cannot see how you fault the israelis for defending themselves. HA! Good Fun!