.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
aVENGER
-
Posts
386 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by aVENGER
-
-
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.
- God of War
-
I always say this to my teams, and they hate it when I say this, but
-
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.
-
PlayStation 3 in Europe will play fewer old games
"The backwards compatibility is not going to be as good as the U.S. and Japan models," a Sony spokesman said. PlayStation 3 (PS3) was first launched in Japan and North America in November and the model that will be introduced in Europe will be designed differently. Software will take over some of the functionality that was originally taken care of by dedicated chips, which means far fewer PlayStation 2 (PS2) games can be played on a European PS3 compared with the Japanese and American PS3 models which play 98 percent of old games.
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.
-
Not all of those, but we were working on implementing flying (which was really hovering, but could be done across chasms), jumping, and climbing.
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?
The big things we were working on for rules were data management and encapsulating effects in larger effect trees. Sounds pretty boring, I know, but it would have allowed for really a lot of flexibility for spells and abilities.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. -
Our game logic was constructed very carefully to allow for virtually anything that D&D rules allow.
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. -
Dialogue writing is a hit and miss affair. Some characters certainly hit, as I've suggested. But the PC's dialogue, on the other hand, is a train-wreck.
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.
-
But I am eagerly awaiting the last patch for it so I can finally play it!
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.
-
I would have to disagree with one point. This die hard fan happens to think Tactics is alright. I know it's not a sequel to the first two games. It happens to take place in that game world, nothing more.
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.
In gaming terms, Fallout is a lifetime ago. So it's not that surprising that when people think Fallout they try and look for something to judge in the here and now. But that view is not without problems. People who never played Fallout but claim it is a boring, tedious game purely on hearsay can quickly be called out for judging something without having ever tried it. But the Fallout fanbase has cultivated an angry, embittered reputation, which is also based on hearsay, but harder to unmask.Is this "fair"? This article will take a look at that and several other things, it will try to see what this bitterness is all about, if it is really there, what effect the fanbase has had on the franchise and will have in the future. We will mostly leave open the question of what kind of Fallout Bethesda is making, instead looking at the result their choices will have.
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:
RPG characters are young. Very young. The average age seems to be 15, unless the character is a decorated and battle-hardened soldier, in which case he might even be as old as 18. Such teenagers often have skills with multiple weapons and magic, years of experience, and never ever worry about their parents telling them to come home from adventuring before bedtime. By contrast, characters more than twenty-two years old will cheerfully refer to themselves as washed-up old fogies and be eager to make room for the younger generation.Let's not mince words: you're a thief. You can walk into just about anybody's house like the door wasn't even locked. You just barge right in and start looking for stuff. Anything you can find that's not nailed down is yours to keep. You will often walk into perfect strangers' houses, lift their precious artifacts, and then chat with them like you were old neighbors as you head back out with their family heirlooms under your arm. Unfortunately, this never works in stores.Your group is the only bunch of people trying to save the world. All other would-be heroes will either join your party or else turn out to be cowards and/or con men.Click here to read more.
-
What we're doing with Mass Effect is trying to make it about going to an extreme where you accomplish the objective by being brutal at all costs except the objective. Or maybe you take the other approach where you're just as brutal and just as extreme but you're finding a compromise and taking some other value into account? Basically, as long as you are brutal and extreme we don't care whether you are good or evil and neither should you.
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 may be in minority here, but I'd rather see Fallout using a sort of JA2 ruleset.
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).
-
Apparently, you are contradicting yourself
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.
You want to impose yout view of what you think the game should be on the developers themselves, by having their product fail. This is fanaticism, in the worst possible way. Yay.See above.^
-
Why did you do that, man? They eat puppies over there!
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: -
You forgot something. You're hoping to convince people to not buy the game, because you state straight up that you'll consider it an accomplishment if you convince someone to not buy it. Plain and simple.
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.
Why do you care if someone else buys Fallout 3?Lower sales of (a potentially unsatisfactory) FO3 could make the developers think about what they were doing wrong with the game.
Wait a minute. I thought it was all for public service to ensure that people don't get ripped off?You asked if I had other reasons for supporting this action as well, so I voiced one of my personal motives.
You honestly expect a whole group of "true Fallout fans" that have been outspoken against Bethesda's involvement with Fallout 3 since they purchased the IP to give a truly objective representation of the game?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.
-
Mkreku stated straight up that it's not an influence. You stated he was wrong because "it's only natural" to make the comparisons.
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?
Your goal (as you've stated previously) is to convince people not to buy Fallout 3 (unless it's "worthy"). You've straight up stated that it would be an accomplishment to convince just ONE person to do so. Which means you're not just trying to promote the "truth," but rather to get people to not buy the game. But hey, keep attacking my reading comprehension.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.
Are you telling me that you're going to support this cause purely because you don't want uninformed consumers to buy games thinking that it's going to be just like Fallout 1 and 2, and that there isn't some other reason?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).
Consider not stating that you feel the site to be a success if it convinces people to NOT buy Fallout 3. Consider not stating that you, based on the "we don't do isometric/turn-based well," think Fallout 3 will be a poor game, even though that's all we know about it. It makes your biases transparent, and as I'm sure you've learned in life, your biases affect everything you do. You are clearly against the idea of Bethesda making Fallout 3 (based upon your comments about how not doing this would be akin to letting Bethesda ruin the franchise). When you state straight up that you'd consider it to be an accomplishment if it convinces a single person to not buy Fallout 3, it makes your goal rather transparentPerhaps, 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.
-
Also, point out to me the exact quote where they say, "We do not do turn-based well.".
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.
-
Such as?
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.
I've read the RPGCodex link you provided. It's from that thread alone that my skepticism to the idea being in any way positive or constructive has grown. It's also where you have stated your support to spread the truth to people, and to show people "what they can really expect from Bethesda's upcoming Fallout 3." Sounds like you're already prepping to being anal-retentive criticisms for the sake of criticism. It's all about showing the people "the truth."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're making fallicious assumptions that people that enjoyed the original Fallout games won't possibly enjoy Fallout 3, and your goal is to convince them to not buy the game.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.
And people such as yourself are already chastising the game, and creating websites with the specific goal to convince people to not buy the game.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.
-
Rather than straight up stating that I should "work on my reading comprehension," explain yourself.
We were arguing about the (lack of) usefulness/goal of the new anti-hype site, right? (see initial quote below)
It's been stated repeatedly that the goal of this doesn't really accomplish anything. It's not going to get you the Fallout that you want, and the impact on anything will be insignificant (if there's impact at all). Futhermore, there's no reason to believe that the sites are going to be sources of unbiased, objective truth. The site is being created in protest of where people think Fallout 3 is going to go. It's entire idea was spawned out of bitterness.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.
Your intentions are not altrustic. Don't pretend that they are. Like many games, if the product is poor, it's poor. Not even the MOO franchise could save MOO3 from being a poor selling game. You are specifically picking less than definitive words such as "unsatisfactory" and "worthy" because those words are completely subjective. What is an unsatisfactory game? One that doesn't hold up to what YOU want Fallout 3 to be? Even if the game itself is actually a GOOD game?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.
This whole campaign is going to be one motivated by confirmation bias, where people will be overscrutinizing aspects of the game, simply in an effort to undermine Fallout 3.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.
It's already happening now, when we know virtually nothing about the game.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.
-
No it hasn't.
You should work on your reading comprehension.
Your goal is specifically to convince people to NOT buy the game.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.
See, you've already made up your mind. Bethesda has ruined the third installation of a great franchise. But I'm sure that the criticisms will be fair and unbiased.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.
-
I'm touched to know you are all looking out for my welfare in saving me from the horrible Betehsda PR machine. Such altruism is rare indeed
Thou honors us with such praise, fair maiden. The glorious and ever vigilant Knights of the Codex
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.
If you stare long enough into an abyss... :ph34r:
Favorite NWN2 companion
in Computer and Console
Posted
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.