aVENGER

Perhaps, but there are far fewer limits to Ressurection while True Resurrection has almost no limits at all, though it's not implemented in NWN2. IMO, Girias_Solo has a valid point there, it was a contrived story-dependent death.

German review site tests European PS3 backward compatibility: only 1 out of 12 popular games worked! Games that currently don't work: God of War MGS 2: Sons of Liberty MGS 3: Snake Eater Shadow of the Colossus Guitar Hero 2 Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones Okami GTA: Liberty City Stories Final Fantasy X-2 Ratchet & Clank 3 Lumines Plus Games that currently work: Eragon This is pretty disappointing IMO. And while I'm certain that future firmware updates will ensure greater compatibility, to have some of the most popular PS2 titles unplayable at launch is quite unsettling.

When Baldur's Gate 2 came out back in 2000 I skipped two weeks of University lectures and exams and played it 8-12 hours each day (with breaks). Nowdays, I mostly game during the weekends, usually in 2-4 hour sessions.

Click here to read more. What the hell? It costs more (as usual) and actually does less than the US version? With PS3 games being region-free, I really don't see why anyone should buy the EU version instead of importing the US one.

Wow, that sounds pretty sweet. Out of curiosity, would you guys consider implementing similar features once again if you were to design an in-house engine from scratch? Actually, it doesn't. I'd certainly welcome if some of that flexibility would be implemented in the NWN2 Toolset. Right now, it's unnecessarily difficult to create unique (non-preset) magical item properties as well as custom potions and spells. For example, I wanted to create a standard D&D Antitoxin and then realized that I also needed to create an entirely new spell in order to accomplish that. Allowing users to manually enter the percentile probability chances and the DCs of certain effects like Sleep, Stun and Poison would also help a lot. BTW, I realize that those issues are not directly Obsidian's fault since they're probably code leftovers from the underlying Aurora ruleset, but it would be great if you guys could tweak that thing a bit further.

Hmm, this little bit of info has really got me thinking. Were you guys, per chance, planning a working implementation of flying, swimming and mounted combat way back then? If so, than kudos to you. I hope you manage to accomplish similar things with a few NWN2 expansions and in time, use them for TBH, should its design require such features of course.

IIRC, the companion (joinable NPC) dialogues were written exclusively by Chris Avellone while most of the other lines (PC dialogue, item descriptions, some cutscenes) were done by different writers.

Are you referring to patch 1.18? I'm asking because I too have postponed getting G3 until the final patch is released, even though I've heard it's quite playable with 1.12.

IIRC, the main issues about FO:T, among hardcore fans, were that: a) it wasn't FO3 b) it disregarded Fallout canon in many aspects (i.e. furry Deathclaws, fossil fuel powered vehicles, BOS portrayed as a bunch of extremists...etc.) despite taking place in the same setting. Save for that, a lot of people thought that FO:T was a fun game in its own right (and genre).

FYI, a series of articles concerning Fallout fandom is being posted on NMA. So far, two parts have been published and several more should follow. Part 1 - A brief history of Fallout fandom Part 2 - About the bitterness of Fallout fans

Heh, this thread kind of reminds me of a site which lists some of the most popular (console) RPG cliches. A few examples: Click here to read more.

Click Here to read more. Disclaimer: this is actually a fictional, satirical interview although it was apparently based on several real interviews which Mass Effect project director Casey Hudson has given in the past few months. A lot of his quotes are taken directly from the real interviews though some of them have been twisted to the EXTREME! :D

Damn, it's shame for a good site go down due to technical issues, though I've seen similar things happen before. During the last six months of NWN2's development I checked in almost daily for the latest developer post scoop. IMO, that was one of best features of the site. :cool: Anyway, best of luck for your future projects mate.

I'm not 100% sure, as it's been a while, but I think BIS developers wanted to implement some of the aspects of JA2's combat into their Fallout 3 (Project Van Buren) back in the day. Things like interrupting an opponent's turn and having various combat stances (i.e. falling prone and crouching).

Not really. If someone decides not to buy Bethesda's FO3 based on something he/she reads on the site, say a comparison between FO1's turn-based combat and FO3's (hypothetical) real-time combat, an accomplishment has been made. Why? Because if Bethesda makes a FO3 which doesn't appeal to some people who liked the past two games, and they refuse to buy it because of certain features that were altered, the resulting lack of sales would signal the developers that they lost a portion of their customers due to such design decisions. That's what I'm advocating here. See above.^

Well, they have some good reviews and I visited the newspage semi-regularly for the past year or so. Then again, it could be that I've simply fallen under the control of The Hivemind from lurking so much. If you stare long enough into an abyss... :ph34r:

My point was, the site is not supposed to be a simple "DON'T BUY BETH'S FO3! IT SUXXORS!!!1111" thing. I'm hoping that it will be a reliable source of information which can help people to decide whether or not they want to buy that game. The way you've been phrasing it before, it seemed like the site was going to focus solely on convincing people outright not to buy FO3, instead of merely showing them why they may not want to do so. That's what I wanted to clear up. Lower sales of (a potentially unsatisfactory) FO3 could make the developers think about what they were doing wrong with the game. You asked if I had other reasons for supporting this action as well, so I voiced one of my personal motives. The fanbase may be polarized on the matter, yet I have hope that the more moderate fractions will be in charge of the site. From what I've read so far, it seems more than likely.

And yet again you are twisting my words. I said "It's only natural to judge each game on its own merits, but in case of direct sequels a comparison with the previous game(s) is often unavoidable, simply because a large portion of the fanbase comes from buyers of the past game(s). Whether that comparison has any impact on the final score is, of course, up to the reviewer in question." Read. Comprehend. Understand. Notice the difference? Thank you I will, because the exact words were "It may not, but even if the site convinces just one person to decide for and by himself/herself not to buy the game an accomplishment has been made.". Again, there's a difference. That pretty much sums it up, yes. However, I'll also support it because I don't feel that Bethesda can/will make a worthy FO3. And before you ask, I define its worth purely by my own personal standards which may not differ that much from he majority of the NMA/DAC/Codex fans. However, while *I* may be biased on that particular account (mistrusting Bethesda based on their reputation and previous works) I was advocating that the actual site should not be. Still, the site should objectively point out all the relevant facts (when they become available) that may potentially turn-off a fan of the previous games from purchasing FO3 (i.e. drastic gameplay changes). Perhaps, but then again I'm not going to be the one in charge of putting up articles on that site either so your argument looses some weight. Anyway, yes I've already said many times that I doubt Bethesda can and will make a worthy FO3 but I also said that I'd love to be proven wrong but that such a thing is unlikely to happen.

Now that I've double checked it, the exact quote regarding turn-based combat was that they are "looking at many options." It's possible that I may have mixed it up with the "we don't do this well" sentence in that overwhelming fanatical zeal which you seem to constantly attribute to me. However, considering that all of the past ES games were real-time and that RT combat is "what they do well" you can easily draw your own conclusions.

For example the concept and of creating an informative site itself and the potential value of the information that such a site could provide. The whole "skipping the PR crap" in favor of truth thing. And? As I've stated before if Bethesda creates a worthy FO3 I'd be happy to advocate putting its greatness on display on the site. However, as it seems to me right now, chances are much larger that we'll be getting Oblivion with Guns (read "we don't do isometric/turn-based well"). You seem to interpret a lot from those few sentences. Just like before when you've accused me of indirectly calling mkreku a liar. You should really work more on that reading comprehension of yours and try to assume a bit less. BTW, as I've already stated before, in my opinnion the actual goal should be to inform people and let them decide for themselves. It's a start. How many times do I have to repeat that more info should be published as soon as it becomes available? Heck, I even suggested that the site should focus on publishing the fans' favorite aspects of the past games for comparison until then. also, note that I'm just a supporter of the cause, not the initiator/creator.webmaster/whatever of the future site as you and some others seem to think. Therefore, I don't have all the answers, and all I can do is suggest a course of action which I deem to be best. Consider that for a bit before blindly slinging accusations at me again.

We were arguing about the (lack of) usefulness/goal of the new anti-hype site, right? (see initial quote below) I think I've offered enough credible evidence in various previous posts that such a site can and will be useful to any potential buyers of Fallout 3 who wish to get informed about the game. I never claimed that I've proven that such a site can effectively lower a specific review score, I've merely hinted that this might be the case under certain conditions. I should make a point that I can't (and won't) speak in the name of the entire Fallout community, not even the for bit that frequents the major fansites like DAC, NMA and RPGCodex. In fact, I only joined up at the Codex yesterday and that was because I wanted to show my support for this action. I can only express my own opinion on the matter, as I've repeatedly stated before. Personally, I hope that the site will be an informative, non-hostile place which can provide valuable insight into the aspects of Bethesda's upcoming FO3 and how it compares to the past games. I've clearly stated this on my first post in this thread as well on my first post ever on the RPGCodex forums. Feel free to check both. Right now, we have some vague quotes from Bethesda spokesmen and their past games to compare. In time, as the flow of information increases, the new site will grow as well. Right now, it be set up to offer a review of the likable features of the past Fallout games, for example, to which the features of Bethesda's FO3 can be compared later on.

Interesting article, though I always thought Barbarians were one of the more balanced classes in 3.5 D&D. BTW, the PHB II offers an interesting way to further tweak the class by opting to use Berserker Strength instead of Rage.

You should work on your reading comprehension. If Bethesda makes an unsatisfactory product, and the site exposed some of its aspects (i.e. some things that vastly differ from the past games) and if that fact estranges some people and convinces them not to buy the game is that really wrong? You tell me. Heh, if Bethesda makes a worthy FO3 I'll happily eat my words and personally apologize to them. However, the chances of that happening are slimmer than a snowball's chance in hell ATM.

Thou honors us with such praise, fair maiden. The glorious and ever vigilant Knights of the Codex