Amentep

That actually is user error Tep, I had the same problem. When patching manually, you have to put the update in a certain file folder then hit the update button. It would then find that file in the folder and apply the patch. Hmmm, I thought I did that. I read a rather long instruction on how to do it, and was pretty sure I had it in the folder it was supposed to go. :/ What folder was it supposed to go to?

You must best one of the other mods in hand to hand combat. Great, now I've got that techno Mortal Kombat song stuck in my head... >_

wait, it has to do with other 'circumstantial/situational things'? oh, i take it all back then. seriously, how hard is it to connect to the internet these days? between unlimited broadband, wireless, and 3G portable modems, it seems hard to imagine 'circumstantial/situational things' that would prevent someone from downloading a simple patch. the only people i can think of who would have trouble connecting are people living in remote cabins in the woods and folk working at NORAD who aren't allowed to access the internet from inside the US Defence Department firewall... You're offering to move me to some place where I can get connected to broadband, pay for the place to stay, and pay for my internet as well? Wow, can you buy me a new computer while you're at it? You're the greatest! Seriously though, I can - like anyone else - travel to a local library and use a computer there to download a patch, but as I mentioned, NWN2 will not patch (for me at least) from a file as it keeps searching for an internet connection. I won't rule out user error on that one, though, but as it isn't a major deal...

And if you're playing the character while assisted by mechanisms that effectively allow you to "be" the character, then you *are* the character, being exposed to these problems. There's no way around it, since the character perceives the gameworld through your interactions and vice-versa. Interesting question; but from the perspective of the character (as opposed to your perspective being the character) would a character really seem to be invulnerable to them from their perspective? Or would it just seem they were lucky or fated to live? This question goes to one though of where the game ends and the "reality" the game creates begins. Is what we see what the character really experiences (do they really take 50pts of damage out of a pool of 200) or is it a mechanism for us to relate to what happens but via a "game" we play (the character doesn't have hit points, and manages to finish the fight without a wounded arm that will take months to heal)? So, foreknowledge excludes invincible NPCs to be a hand holding example, despite the fact they are, in fact, guiding the players' hand in terms of narrative direction and structure? Ok, if you say so. Well story, narrative direction and structure itself could be seen as a form of hand holding, I'd think. But games by their nature are such that they require some framework within to exist, so I think some degree of hand holding is inevitable, even if its simply the limits of the game world. So it seems to me the question as to what is hand holding is going to be subjective to the player and whether they feel certain design choices put them on "rails" or not.

I kinda like License to Kill personally. Although I think the kind of stripping down of the movie Bond mystique LTK tried has worked better with Craig. To me, the current work with Bond makes him a bit more like my impression of him from the novels. Which for the film series is indeed novel.

While I can't say I really appreciate his films, they're not the worst films I've ever seen. Its also interesting how each one has a different major problem from the last. Of the three I've seen, I'd say Alone in the Dark was the weakest. Lack of Day-Night continuity that rivaled Plan 9 from Outer Space combined with some unconvincing acting, some ridiculous set pieces, aand clumsy editing and storytelling but without much "fun". House of the Dead is a lot of fun until they get to the 200 mile walk/gunfight between the edge of the woods and the shack (which is at best, 10 feet away; what did they do, walk in a spiral around the shack for 20 minutes?) at which point it just gets completely ridiculous. Bloodrayne is just kind of silly most of the time, with the occasional giggle-worthy scene.

Moderation is I think one of those things that are fun/unfun based on your own reactions to what's going on. Or at least that was my experience.

Don't lie please. I have over 100+ PC games, and none has ever EVER required any patching out of the box. Except Obsidian games. NWN2 and MotB are Obsidian games. Why do you lie? Eh, I never said I didn't have problems, but nothing I felt was "awful"

The computer I play on isn't connected to the internet either. Has nothing to do with caves and a lot to do with other circumstantial/situational things. And I'll also say that in my experience, NWN2 doesn't patch if you aren't connected to the internet (downloading the patch, porting it over via a zip drive has never worked for me). Luckily playing not patched hasn't been a major problem so far with NWN2 or MotB.

Was there a lot of difference in the weapons in fallout2? I only remember ever using a handful of the options. Man maybe I need to replay FO1 and FO2, my memory of them is hazy.

Yeah, but I guess though while playing the game I never really thought about it. I mean there's a wooden structure (an old house that had a barn across the street) that I've watched slowly fall apart under its own weight over the last 20 years as its on my way to work (well the barn was torn down to make a subdivision, the old house is still there, partially collapsed). Looked like they were made in the 40s. But that's the thing, its terribly bad conditions for wood locally (very moist, loads of termites). The Wasteland seems dry and arid, and no giant irradiated termites (so far). So maybe that's how wood can last that long. Still doesn't seem like it should protect you from minigun fire though. Actually its too bad you can't sneak into some of those building where the raiders are situated, set explosives on the support columns, leave and explode them, collapsing the buildings on the raiders.

Wouldn't that depend on the wood? I mean well preserved wood could still be usable after a length of time and be as good as new wood. Besides, maybe all the old wood houses/shacks were made of petrified wood...

Global Mods have to be willing to tattoo all the continents and oceans around the midsection of their body

Well I remember them, but other than talking to Sulik and being vaguely amused by his bone in our first chat and that Marcus talked with Worf's voice, I don't terribly remember much about the others. Wait, was Myron the guy who was kidnapped and held prisoner?

Hmmm, I haven't got enough levels to get the extra AP perk (I would have if I hadn't restarted 4 times).

Well I know there are more joinables in FO2 than FO1, but...I still don't remember them having a real personality or anything. Heck I don't even remembering getting extra quests for having them.

Really? I confess I don't remember (and its been a few years since I played the game) interesting interactions with any of the joinable NPCs in either Fallout game. Add that to the fact that they were either prone to running into my line of fire, or blatantly just shooting me in combat...well I can't say I've ever viewed the Fallout series as strong in party members (and this from someone who tried to take as many party members as I could have - including the forced spouse - through the entire game).

Do what I do and only use VATS. Dont' even waste your ammo shooting in regular mode. Oh, and you gain XP faster the harder your mode, so what is most likely happening is that easier is harder because you ought to be a higher level during your encounters. Nah, it really is that I don't tend to think through the encounters. Like "try to pay attention when setting up for a fight outdoors that you don't have a car behind you kinda thing". I'm a bit too rash. I'm also prone to thinking I can take one three supermutants at once, which isn't true if at least two aren't equipped with nailboards. I do favor VATS in combat, but even with a high agility I tend to run out of AP fast on it. Maybe I'll inch it up to normal and see what happens though.

Man...now I want radsalmon in my game.

Given how often I've died playing it on the easier settings, I imagine if I turned up the difficulty to its highest settings on Fallout 3 I'd be Shooty McShotinthefacevictim. I can't strategize in action games to save my life.

sales is one of the few readily available objective measures we got. is not a measure o' quality, 'cause quality is inherent subjective, but sales IS an objective measure... of sales. *shrug* btw, folks who scoff at sales numbers is being foolish. developers make and sell games to make money... and unlike cheese (HA!) or cars or other stuff, you can't survive in pc publish/development by making a specialized product with a limited clientele. makes a more quality game is possible? sure, but unlikes other products, pc games has a relative fixed price. given the fact that all games is pretty much sold at same price, sales is a pretty damn important indicator in guaging success... as 'posed to quality. HA! Good Fun! I generally agree with your point, but high sales doesn't determine "why" something sold. Its a solid number, but the interpretation of why the number exists is subjective. But the fact it sold is objective, yes. What I was trying to get at, though, is for example that Game X might sell a lot of units, but beyond saying it sells a lot of units, and therefore is a good selling game, you can't really argue much about the numbers without moving into the realm of the subjective ("Game X sold well because...") That said, you make a good point in that sales are numbers that developers are creating games for and the gauge they use for success, so the subjective interpretation of why the game sold well is a moot point in some respects (although probably a question the developer will try to determine so as to recreate the success).

Hey, don't diss those movies. That's the kind of inspiration Michael Bay drew from, you know. Something has got to explode and burn during a movie. He just took it one step further and made entire movies about things burning and exploding all the time. I love 50s and 60s horror movies, even when the giant old mansion starts burning down for unclear reasons!

Sales - while often treated as being an objective evaluation of a product - is ultimately a subjective evaluation (an perhaps not of the product, but of the advertising/marketing of the product). That said, if something sells and continues to sell, there must be some inherent value in that thing; perhaps not aesthetic quality, but the ability of the product to fit a need of some type. As to FO3 being a continuation of the Fallout series, an interesting point to consider is that Dracula (1931) and Dracula (1958) are both Dracula films, both hugely successful in their time, but not terribly related otherwise. I have no problem with seeing Fallout 3 as both Fallout and not really likened to that which came before in the previous games (which in turn wasn't terribly similar in some respects to its inspiration, Wasteland).

You might as well as why a house/building/castle had to burn down at the end of almost all the 50s and 60s Horror movies.

I just got some funny looks laughing out loud at this.