Gromnir

how is there a "correct" here? there was something about the original games which gave me this "devotion" and reeled me in. those things, for the most part, are absent from Bethesda's version. those things (some more tangible and easily defined/explained than others) are things i want to return. that's as complex as the issue gets. it's not about right/wrong objectively speaking. 'least not from my perspective. there is indeed "correct." sure, is no "correct" when you are discussing matters of taste. you liked fo... is not possible for Gromnir to find fault in your like/dislike o' fo. 'course not all issues discussed on these board is simple matters o' taste. were fo1 jnpcs well-developed? were fo1 skills balanced? did twink sudden do 180 when josh pointed out that fo1 hand holding were more extreme? etc. some fo:nv issues discussed is not matters o' taste. there is "correct." adoration o' fo is not wrong. is many game developers that admire fo and maybe even enjoyed it more than does twink. there may be some developers that got into the biz Because o' their fascination and enjoyment o' fo. am well aware that immediate following the release o' fo2, there were numerous black isle developers that were eagerly anticipating the opportunity to work on another fo game... and they were greatly disappointed that black isle/interplay never managed to finish such a game. is loads o' folks in the industry (and possibly more than a couple at obsidian) who thinks fo were one o' the bestest crpgs evar. but so what? appreciate fo not mean you gotta defend fo design. is possible to like fo IN SPITE of some poor design, and there ain't nothing wrong with admitting that cain and co. didn't do everything right. there is "correct." being an fo apologist not make you incorrect. apologist label is nothing more than a way to explain certain inconsistencies... and a recognition that there is point beyond which rational argument is pointless. for example, Gromnir is a Robert De Niro apologist-- we purposely didn't watch Rocky and Bullwinkle or Righteous Kill as we didn't wanna have to confront the possibility that De Niro could give a bad performance. HA! Good Fun!

is difficult to identify sarcasm in some message board posts. HA! Good Fun!

not really, no. but in hoping the next game is improved, you usually discuss the issues you have with the previous games, correct? so i talk about the things which Fallout 1 or 2 did to make me fans of the series, and what Fallout 3 did to make me not a fan of Bethesda's direction. not too hard to understand, even though devils advocates or Bethesda apologists like playing this card. it simply isn't true. the issues i tend to have with Fallout 1 or 2 get brought up, but just not as often as there not only weren't as many...but certainly not as game-breaking for me. It's pointless tring to explain it. Once you've been branded a "FO Defender" or a "Bethesda Basher" people stop reading what you're saying and simply attach whatever meanings they want to your post. I still make my posts re: Fallout 1/2/3 and Bethesda but I don't bother going back and forth with people about them. Absolutely an exercise in futility. woe is you. to be labeled as a fo apologist (different than defender) you gotta show an obtuseness and a resistance reason similar to vol's comments concerning nwn or dragon age... or boo speaking of bg2. of course the fo apologist is not a absolute label but a helpful guide; aids in explaining bizarre inconsistencies and sudden reversals. very helpful. nevertheless, just as we does not dismiss every vol comment, we does not instantly ignore the response o' the average fo apologist... 'cause much as it is true that being paranoid don't mean "they" ain't out to get you, a slavish devotion to cain or the imagined fo ideal does not preclude the possibility that the fo apologist might be correct. HA! Good Fun!

we never realized that Ruth's hands were so mannish. HA! Good Fun!

1) He was a murderously effective melee combatant. 2) People like dogs. 3) He was sufficiently vague that people were able to mentally ascribe to him characteristics of actual dogs they knew and loved. witty dialogue and character growth not makes your list? dogmeat were comparable to hk-47... the original kotor incarnation. neither character existed beyond the surface level attributes, and both were disproportionately popular. hk-47 were, in point o' fact, a one-trick-pony. Gaider admitted that he got tired o' writing hk-47... added that assassin-bot encounter on korriban as kinda a personal penance. the psychotic robot had his "meat-bag" shtick. dogmeat had... his doginess? flat and static characters can be fun, but is hard to claim that they is well-developed, and if flat and static is describing your Best character, then something is serious wrong. am suspecting that for folks like slowtrain and twink, the genuine difference 'tween the poorly developed jnpcs of fo1 and the limited reactivity to player choice in fo3 were that the posters in this thread liked fo1 and didn't like fo3 as much. there is an understandable tendency to dismiss the shortcomings or mistakes of those works a person enjoyed. just as folks defend tolkien's prose style if they were fans o' lotr, the defenders o' fo1 have a difficult time finding fault with cain's game. HA! Good Fun!

I don't know if calling it a weakness is fair though. IIRC, Tim Cain was very clear that Fallout was considered a solo PC game with joinable characters who would tag along for a short time. The design goal was to have the pc start the game alone and finish the game alone. It's probably more a credit to the designers that the jnpcs turned out to be so popular rather than a mark of weakness. you are joking, no? trying to re-imagine fo jnpcs as a strength or deserving of applause is going a bit far. also, the fact that you start and finish alone is somehow necessitating that the characters be underdeveloped? why? the "best" fo jnpc were a friggin' dog. a Dog? spin however you may wish and you still end up with relative poorly written and under developed characters that added little more to the game than what were evident from their stats page... and maybe (frequently) they tried to shoot you during combat. writing as a whole were not the strength o' fo... which is fine. a sandbox game not necessarily need engaging characters and well-developed plot to be fun. is arguable that the more you develop a coherent critical path plot, the less freedom you is allowing the player, but that still ain't an excuse for failing to develop characters. there has got to be a reason to wanna continue playing in the sandbox, and the presence o' intriguing characters can only bolster overall game enjoyment. don't need 'em? fine, don't add... but if you is gonna introduce such characters and give 'em stories, there ain't no excuse for leaving 'em... lame. HA! Good Fun!

you realize that you is increasing the seemingly necessary luck factor? *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

Here, let me put it this way: even if we assume such a ban would be ineffectual (btw it wouldn't), how could it possibly hurt? Whoa, cool, irrelevant cases. The fact that I have established is that the Supreme Court can and has overridden the rights of the populace in the interests of the ruling class, especially in times of war. Coincidentally, the Holocaust occurred during a time of war. how can it hurt? is not a serious question, is it? btw, you still have not answered our query 'bout the legal rationale and mechanic utilized to ban nazi participation. (honestly... look the info up instead o' spouting the senseless party line. this is a situation where you could learn something, and if we simple give you the answer you will do your typical nonsensical rhetorical reply. Look It Up... figure out how the Germans ban nazi participation.) as for irrelevant cases... HA! is only irrelevant 'cuse you don't know 'em or didn't bother to look 'em up... though is kinda embarrassing if you is not familiar with most of 'em. regardless, you still not seem to get that you is sabotaging your own argument by suggesting that govt. can't be trusted in any event. HA! Good Fun!

Well, the M200 was designed for soft targets but take a few minutes to read up on its specs, it ridiculous what can be done with the complete system. Hell, even the host of Futureweapons was able to put 3 of 6 round into a human size target at 2530 yards! the biggest obstacle, until recently, were actually the ammo. cartridges have effective ranges too. max current is something like 2400 meters, which is considerably better than previous cartridges. in any event, it is our understanding that the reason the U.S. military doesn't even bother tracking accuracy beyond 1500 meters (the approximate max range o' the weapon the British corporal utilized?) is 'cause genuine battlefield conditions make shooting at such distances a matter of luck, as much, if not more than skill. max range is based on ideal wind and temp conditions and at sea level. once again keep in mind that the Canadian and British gentlemen were not using a cheytac intervention... no military currently does. *shrug* as noted above, the Canadian gentleman, a fellow by the name o' Furlong, couldn't replicate his feat under similar conditions. a hole in one. cheers. applause, but is not an accurate measure o' skill if you cannot do again... not that such is a criticism, 'cause nobody with similar weapons has pulled off same trick twice. HA! Good Fun!

the best you got is pointing out spelling errors? *sigh* some folks not know when to quit... though these continued faux pas of yours does make it easier to disregard your input. revised opinions after the fact and missing quotes that is the target o' your response as 'posed to the material you actual quoted. if you thinks the larp is amusing, you can probably only imagine what some o' us thinks o' your responses. keeps the grammar and spelling tips coming though. "Having some more unique content for them sounds good, just as long as they don't turn into the classic story-based RPG partymembers too much (where they feel pretty much integral to experiencing the game in a good way)." party-mates are static. as such they is a better vehicle for advancing a crpg story than is the protagonist, who must almost necessarily be left vague and ill-defined so as to accommodate various playing styles. 'course you could dispense with joinable npcs altogether and simply advance story through narration and dialogues with non-party npcs, but that is wasting a very effective opportunity. the black isle/obsidian folks managed ok w/o jnpcs when they developed iwd. nevertheless, forgoing jnpc development would seem to be a waste of obsidian talent. nevertheless, we will be satisfied as long as they don't have the jnpcs engage in tedious exposition or cliche navel-gazing. 'course not everybody thinks that the critical path story is genuine important in a fo game. makes a sand box and fill it with interesting characters and side-stories? is a valid approach. HA! Good Fun! ps we prefer developed party mates and we not have some kinda notions 'bout the propriety o' adding them to fo. a weakness o' fo were its poorly developed jnpcs... am not gonna try an re-imagine as a strength.

the Olympic medalist must replicate his feet of skill many times, regardless of the event. these distance records is never repeated. maybe this is some kinda misplaced patriotism that makes you fight so hard to defend. *shrug* lord knows we ain't claiming that the average guy at the range could pull off such a shot. what we is saying is that these wacky distance shots that the sniper is unable to reproduce under far less demanding conditions, is hardly indicative of some kinda high achievement among snipers. am not comparing to average guy at the range. if is a one in 1,000 shot for a sniper it is probably a 1 in 100,000 shot for freddie windershins from chelsea. again, if Tiger Woods sinks a hole in one on a par 4 we ooh and ahh like the rest of you... but we do not point to that single shot as being representative of his skill as a golfer. even for Tiger such a thing is a 1 in a thousand shot. HA! Good Fun!

i already addressed the actual issue. *giggle* uh, sure. ... gotta deja vu of your spork nonsense. "if the players screw up with their roll, bad for them, if they're screwed up because a weak enemy had a critical or they screw up the super-powerful-boss because he rolled 1 on his save throw, well, guess I'll just change that little number... innocent.gif" yeah, that is the typical dm/gm response... and is kinda like a crpg reload. most of us has allowed such similar second chances. doubt it = bad dm. game engines is rarely so gracious, but possibility o' infinite reloads negates the need for a helping hand. HA! Good Fun!

the three-in-a-row is not analogous for the reasons discussed above... come back on three different days is what would be difficult 'cause of having to account for different wind, temp, etc. if shot 1 hits, or is near enough to hit that your spotter can help, then immediately subsequent long range shots becomes far easier... but at the distances being described, the likelihood of shot 1 being anywhere in the neighborhood o' the target is so damned unlikely. at such distances it is not uncommon for a highly skilled sniper to miss targets by many meters... which makes it almost impossible for the sniper or spoter to correct subsequent shots. HA! Good Fun!

um, yeah. but you're still not addressing the actual issue. is you trying to be ironic? *chuckle* "However you made your character, it should be a viable way to finish the game. That's one of my core beliefs." regardless, the notion that aforementioned statement is compatible with timmy's legacy is laughable... regardless of the quotes you cannot find. "A DM who allows reloads = a bad DM." true, but rare is the DM who ain't never fudged a roll (or two) to keeps a party alive... particularly at low levels. those insta-kill criticals in d&d is tending to lead to some serious player frustration. am using d&d as an example 'cause you utilized the "DM" descriptor, but many other systems suffer from similar numeric inequities that cry out for DM intervention. HA! Good Fun!

*sigh* ban slogans is not the legal mechanic... please, try again. furthermore, the fact that you do not care whether or not Germany's ban is effective or not is indeed telling. you is convinced by the token show? as for your examples of Lincoln and the ww2 Japanese internment... so? lord knows that we ain't gonna suggest that the Courts is always as just as we might wish, but your examples undercut your own argument... again. if you assume Judicial, Executive and Legislative impropriety, then what is the point o' banning neo-nazi activity? after all, those corrupt institutions may simply ignore the ban, no? maybe you not learn anything from our Chinese Constitution example? nevertheless, we can name dozens o' alternatives to your examples... in fact, we has already pointed you in the direction o' a number o' such cases above. throw in Brown v. Board, Marburry v. Madison, Miranda v. Arizona, Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, not to mention the literally HUNDREDS of additional cases in which the Court has declared acts of Congress or the Exec unconstitutional. cracking open that history book not help if you only read selected chapters... and maybe you should try reading a few more history books... makes you sound a bit like Tom Cruise ranting about modern psychiatry. HA! Good Fun!

oh, am thinking that the appeal is easy enough to understand. the random chance aspect is if not integral, then at least common in most old skool pnp rpgs. possibility o' failure genuine adds to tension... success is made all the more sweet by having the chance o' failure present. 'course having such randomness in a crpg with insta-reload pretty much negates all the positive aspects o' pnp chance. nevertheless, for those purists who insist on a Proper rpg analogue, a fraudulent element o' chance is necessary to complete the rpg experience. *shrug* am personally unmoved by those who would grovel before the altar o' tradition, but there is no denying that a sense o' propriety and the fulfillment o' expectations does enhance the gaming enjoyment of some players. "no, i'm referring to a quote. a quote from one of the original developers which i can't locate for the life of me right now." figures. referring to a quote... but not the material you actual quoted. HA! Good Fun!

Sometimes they do. There was this show here a few months back where they showed the most famous sniper shots made during the modern era and tried to recreate them. Most of them successfully recreated them. That Canadian dude failed, but in his defense it was a hell of a shot eve if it was chance. that were our point though. the super Long range shots is near impossible to replicate. we specifically only mentioned the long range stuff as we has seen snipers make some shots we would typical believe were impossible if not for fact that we had done the Doubting Thomas routine and pretty much probed God's wounds for our self. the physics is really against the sniper trying to make successful kills at the distances described. still, you is right that it were a hell of a shot... just as we is amazed by a hole-in-one on a par 4. HA! Good Fun!

"good to see a new Fallout game following Cain's original Fallout ideology." you must be speaking of a different Cain than the one who worked on fallout. the original fallout had a number o' relative useless skills and some overwhelming useful skills. balance and usefulness o' skills, perks and traits were Not part o' the original fallout that we played. with meta knowledge you could indeed complete fo with any build, but am doubting that is how you or obsidian intends. nevertheless, if obsidian has finally put the spectre o' timmy's crap fo balancing to rest and actual made all skills, traits and perks relative useful, then we have 0 complaints on this matter... regardless of the fact that they is clearly spitting on the cain legacy by doing so. HA! Good Fun!

Fascism would work in Belgium. In Belgium, governments (yes, we have plenty of those) happily ignore decisions by the Constitutional Court (not to mention, European Commission) and hold illegal elections... then waste several months bickering & go on to form more rickety governments that are doomed to fail again. fascism would work in many places. is a shame too. the enumeration o' fundamental rights has never been a bar on governmental excess. the Chinese Constitution, as an example, actually affords its citizens a far greater range o' fundamental rights than does the U.S. Constitution. is not really the document that is important. HA! Good Fun!

The FACT is that it doesn't matter how much your "legal system" is "able to effectively protect the fundamental rights o' various groups o' people," it does not matter when fascists take charge. Fascism is about the destruction of traditional post-enlightenment governments from within and has proven highly effective at it. The very idea that a political system can "effectively protect the fundamental rights" of its citizenry when the leadership no longer wants to is absurd. more nonsense. more rhetoric. you gots some silly notion that fascism is inherent different and requires different rules to prevent? why? besides which, there is a considerable number o' examples o' fundamental rights being protected in the U.S. in spite of opposition of the Leaders of government. where the heck did you go to school that you ain't aware that the Judiciary has opposed Congress and the Executive on numerous occasions? every time the Court strikes down a law or executive order as unconstitutional it is acting in opposition of the leaders of government. somebody needs a reintroduction to their high school civics lessons.... is too many such examples to list individually. yeah, there is some noteworthy examples o' the Executive functionally ignoring the Court, but such examples is noteworthy 'cause o' their rarity. again, tell us the legal mechanic utilized in Germany to prohibit nazi participation. once you learn the mechanic, many o' your mistakes and preconceptions will evaporate. btw, we can direct you to numerous sources that indicate a rise in the popularity o' neo-nazi groups w/i modern Germany. HA! Good Fun!

am not even close to overstepping. the internet is not the best source for such info, but no doubt you may find sources that relate to snipers attempting to replicate these long range shots with targets rather than people. is not pretty. am gonna extend the golf analogy. let us again take the hole-in-one example. does you really think that hole-in-one shots is a valid measure o' golfer skill? it is indeed true that pro golfers is far more likely to makes a successful hole-in-one shot than a tyro, but do you think that, if tracked, tiger woods, jack nicklaus, and arnold palmer would have mostest holes-in-one? of course the extreme range sniper shot is even more extreme... is more akin to the hole-in-one on a par 4. again, am betting that pro golfers far more likely to successfully makes a hole-in-one on a par 4 than their amateur counterparts, but does you honestly thinks that such shots is indicative of the golfer's skill. *shrug* is not about lack o' respect... is about having seen folks (military snipers) attempt to recreate these shots. you is waaaaayy overestimating sniper skills. HA! Good Fun!

Let me check, hmm, okay, hold on. Nazism was banned in Germany in 1945... it's now 2010 and The Left, KDP, etc. still legally operate... so at least 65 years. Uh, yeah they would have. The principles of the state cannot be made untouchable or immortal any more than the state itself can be made so. Germany didn't ban the Nazi Party because everybody believed that would be "wrong." When the Nazis came to power, of course, they started banning all the other parties. Do you think that if genuine fascists came to power in the USA they wouldn't do the same? now you is just spouting rhetoric. check your favorite wacky websites where you usually get your messed up stats... no doubt you see that neo-nazism has hardly been eradicated in post war germany. furthermore, you never bothered to consider the legal mechanic used to prohibit nazism in Germany. why don't you check and get back to us on that... maybe you learn something. your quote directed at Gromnir is... huh? no doubt you thinks you got a point. doesn't address the fact that Nazi Germany systematically denied political opponents and various unsavory groups o' their fundamental rights... including commies btw. if the German legal system had been able to effectively protect the fundamental rights o' various groups o' people, then the greatest atrocities o' the third reich woulda' been avoided, and it is possible that there woulda' been no 3rd Reich at all. HA! Good Fun!

1) krez is dumber than we thought if he thinks Gromnir is "proud" of the U.S. prison population. 2) pelican bay does not house folks being incarcerated for simple drug offenses. 3) what makes you think that the folks at Halden is not housing persons for drug-related offenses... poor reading comprehension we s'pose. HA! Good Fun!

that is the point. given the distance we are talking about, slight change in windage can result in being off-target by many (Many) meters. the likelihood of your spotter being able to actually identify where your first shot hit is similar to finding the proverbial needle in a haystack... unless you happens to get very lucky and your first shot actually lands in the immediate vicinity of the target. ... have these snipers go out to some mountain range or hills with similar conditions to afghanistan... have 'em simply practice hitting a target under similar conditions. you is gonna see these guys waste a great deal of ammo hitting shrubbery and rocks, and the worst part is that the spotters won't even be able to identify the rocks and shrubbery that was hit. these distances is way beyond what anybody trains, 'cause even the best sniper in the world is probably gonna be missing virtual every time... and missing by more than enough to make second and third shot adjustments. HA! Good Fun!

so? HA! Good Fun! So I thought you said chance had to come in. if 80% of these targets were at say 300 yards, a good sniper is not going to need luck to hit them. in regards to skill, we were only discussing the monster distances. the extreme distances is the ones where luck clearly supersedes skill as the most important factor in achieving success. we never suggested that high number of kills were based on luck. sorry raithe, but you got wrong. ever seen how snipers work? is almost always in teams of two: 1 spotter and 1 sniper. if your first shot is lucky enough to hit where your spotter may identify (even if you missed target) you can make adjustments to second or third shot. where you see genuine skill is if same sniper can do on tuesday and friday... or next week. HA! Good Fun!