Amentep

The land of paranoid people who believe that people who ask for their location on the internet are stalkers who want to find them and have their way with them without at least buying them dinner first.

No. But I'm not sure your point. Are you saying it's just as likely for you to pull off the long range shot as the sniper? The article comments that the wind was pretty much a non-factor as it was a calm day. I dunno, I'm pretty impressed that he could hit 3 targets at that range No I'm saying that skill and luck combine. Wals seemed to be indicating that skill was the only factor in determining success rate. And what Grom seems to be saying is that while its more likely for the skilled guy to hit the shot than the unskilled guy, there's luck, chance, unpredictable elements that can't be accounted for in such success.

I think his argument is that any top class shooter - including those who've already made such amazing shots - would only be able to make those shots as a product of skill, environmental conditions at the time of the shot and blind luck. To use Grom's metaphor, a PGA tour champion will make a hole in one with greater odds than a casual weekend golfer, but give them both enough time and the right conditions both will be able to hit a hole in one - eventually. Give them the wrong conditions and neither will ever. This doesn't negate the skill level to be a champion PGAer, but it recognizes that some feats are as much luck (and situation) as they are ability. You mention the national lottery, so is a person who wins the national lottery better at winning lotteries than the people who didn't? Or was there luck at play?

But Howard WAS a Master of Quack-Fu.

There isn't, as I recall, any guarantee of Free Speech in private places, only against the government (as opposed to private parties) preventing you exercising Free Speech. As Obsidian owns these forums and requires us to register to have posting privileges, the argument can be made that this message board is a private place and just like you can't go to a nearby Mall and practice your Free Speech rights or into an individual's home and practice your Free Speech rights, you can't come here and expect the same. Ergo we all post at the discretion of the admin and mods, no Free Speech necessary.

That's a fair point about the Maker; and it is a big unprovable area in the Chantry's beliefs. But - from the perspective of the Chantry's beliefs - we never see anything about the Maker to cast doubt on their version of things. Yes we can construct possible explanations of the Chantry's story but in terms of what Dragon Age gives us, the Chantry story is mostly (if not entirely) borne out. I guess I'd have liked more doubt (and more options to express my doubt).

The Chantry organized an Exalted March against the Dales (the second homeland destruction; the first was at the hands of the Tevinter Imperium, IIRC) named after the Exalted March against the Tevinter by Andraste. Again it may just be me, but I wish there was more in the game to cast doubt on what they have to say. Yeah Wynne isn't evil-crazy (and Morrigan may or may not be totally evil) but it just seems to me the game doesn't do enough to establish more doubt (beyond basic lip service; sure people SAY the Chantry's story is old and steeped in legends, but if we see little hint its wrong...)

I've never taken Oghren to the sacred urn - what does he say? I guess part of my problem is playing a Dalish elf early on I got a lot of opportunities to dis the Chantry but as time went on it seemed like I could only praise the Maker. That combined with the following: The Urn of Sacred Ashes exist - implies the Chantry is right. The entire Gauntlet implies the Chantry is right. That the Mages turn to blood magic and demons run rampant through the tower - implies the Chantry is right about magic. That the Arl's son becomes bonded with a demon and kills a bunch of people - implies the Chantry is right about magic. There's no option (that I could find) to destroy that Dwarven Chantry dude's faith in the Chantry. The Dragon-Gods of Tevinter being the focus of the blight - implies the Chantry is right (or that the Chantry created the blight). Combine that with their less than noble deeds...I dunno I just kept waiting for something in the game to cast a big doubt on what the Chantry says and it just doesn't. Even for all the "Well the Chantry says but it might be legend" stuff, most of it seems to be borne out by the game.

Or take Wynne along and control her and in adition to fire resistance potions taken by the entier party, make sure she does the following: heal, heal, heal, drink lyrium potion, heal, heal heal, heal, etc. I played through Dragon Age again and I think I finally put my finger on what bugged me on my previous go through the game. Not that I disliked the game; I enjoyed it and have beat it thrice now. But something about the story bugged me as I played, and I think I finally got it. The Chantry is right. Now I'm not against religion per se, but the Chantry apparently thinks nothing of subjegating others (exhalted march against the elves, for example). This wouldn't be so bad if the Chantry was shown to be fallable, but they're right about everything - while a lot of play is given to the idea that the Chantry only has one view of what caused the blight, everything else in the game seems to back the Chantry's version up. Everything seems to back the Chantry's view of the master maker. Which in turn seems to tacitly justify what they did to the elves. And I think that's why I kept feeling uneasy during the game - subconsiously I was waiting for the Chantry to be shown to not be 100% right in their claims...but nothing in the game seems to show that they aren't right. Or maybe I'm crazy.

Heartbreak + (Sausage

I don't know - while I don't keep track of it myself (had to look up the information) - I don't suppose its that weirder than aviation buffs who keep track of air kills in WWI or WWII. I suppose its a bit morbid, but I guess its somewhat understandable in our fascination with man vs man or man vs nature (I know people who talk about famous explorers and their exploits - even those that got them and their entire group killed - with affection due to the man vs nature aspect of the attempt they were making).

That's a pretty impressive looking store! Glad the thief got caught.

Lyudmila Pavlichenko had 309 confirmed kills EDIT: and I see I was beat to it (that's what I get for being distracted by reading the fate of Tanya Baramzina)

"The Merchant's Friend" Goddess of coin and wealth (Portfolio: money, trade, wealth). Enemies are Mask and the demon Graz'zt

lord of flies

Am I the only person who reads "the young lady who canvassed me" and envision some lady throwing a giant cloth over Wals?

Ask about Sex in Alpha Protocol

I saw it at the store over the weekend and now a small part of me regrets not having seen this thread before going there.

The Pterosaur is looking at me.

Not too surprisingly, the story has been pulled down (presumably because it was as fake as a $72,000 bill).

Sorry. Consider me chagrined and silenced on the point of the topic drift. Back to Fallout: New Vegas discussion! I personally have no problem with the red shield display as part of the abstraction of combat information and interaction.

Now that I can see; I think that has been a contraction in scope and depth in video games. I'm not sure if this is because of games being more popular (and thus supposedly "dumbed down" for the LCD player) or if its because of the weight of things that are expected (3D graphics, spoken dialogue, etc) compromises how much time can be spent bringing the story into a less narrow focus. While I enjoyed Dragon Age I did feel a bit like "this is it?" when I played it. I expected something much bigger in scope than what I got. Now I tend to mitigate my experience; I enjoyed what I got but what I got wasn't what I expected. I also wonder how much the slow merger of genres has effected things as well; does a modern RPG being realtime action has to also appeal to an action gamer as much as an RPGer in this day and age?

I'm agreeing with you to a certain extent. To sort of round off my thought, let me put it this way - a lot of the "depth" you mention is just making the games to reflect the pnp roots that they were building upon. Certainly the scope of Baldur's Gate or Fallout had already been done two decades prior in a variety of pnp sessions - possibly using GURPS, Tunnels and Trolls or Dungeons and Dragons as their system. So I don't see "being more like a pnp game than previous cRPGs" as being terribly innovative. Increased scope and depth are good, but again its building on the things that have already happened and seems to me to be a natural progression for cRPGs whose existence really stem from those pnp games. EDIT: About the games sucking or not - well hindsight is always 20-20. Its very easy to point to the past and say 'these games were great'. But give us ten years and we might see a lot of gems that right now we don't have proper perspective on. Or we may all agree it was a crappy period for games. That happens occasionally.

what games before these had the same cRPG depth? in game mechanics, quests, c&c, the way the systems affected the characters (saying the S.P.E.C.I.A.L., Traits, and Skills systems weren't original and innovative in the cRPG genre is...a bit silly, imo)? I was under the impression (perhaps wrongly) that the SPECIAL system wasn't the first system of its type - didn't Daggerfall use a skill based system the year before Fallout did? Wasn't Fallout supposed to use GURPS (and SPECIAL then does similar things to the GURPS system)? Didn't Wasteland (which Fallout started out as a sequel to) adopt the system from Tunnels and Trolls/Mercenaries, Spies and Private Eyes? Look I'm not saying the games aren't good, or aren't worthy of being considered top of the line. Something doesn't need to create a new wheel to do that. But to me and from everything I've seen and read, Fallout and Baldur's Gate were logical steps building on everything that came before them. Not a "new concept" game but more a culmination of all the good stuff that came before them.

Alpha Protocol: More Sex than Mass Effect, more interrogations than Fallout 3