Oblivion question for MSFD

[Abernathy]

Well yes, and no. You learn more by your first success than continued failure - succeed once and you know what do do.
But it's not just about success/failure. You do get better at something by doing it - you get more precise, more efficient. Each time you do it could be classed as a success, just not as successful as later successes. If you see what I mean.

Yup - and what you're saying is not contradicting mine and Venom's viewpoint at all, just expanding on it logically.

It makes sense.

So in game terms, you get the final hike to a new level (or whatever) upon your first successful lockpick, for instance, having learned over time what works and what doesn't and the proof being your final success, no?

And yes, I do appreciate that said lock will become easier over time because it's now familiar territory. This stuff could work very well in a non-levelled RPG, methinks!

 

[VenomByte]

Arguably, but I think there is something to be learned from both success and failure, but rather the amount learnt depends on the margin by which you succeeded or failed.

If you play Tennis against Andre Agassi, you're not going to get a chance to learn a whole lot. You're barely going to get a chance to hit the ball, let alone score any points.

Likewise if you play against your 5 year old sister, she's not going to tax you.

Learning comes from the following things:

1) Discovering something that works, which you weren't aware of before (narrow success)
2) Refining that action (greater success margin, lower gain - to the point where success margin is so great the learning gained is virtually nil)

3) Discovering something which doesn't work at all(failure, but only relevant at low skill levels. You won't learn to drive if you consistently fail to steer on corners)
4) Discovering something that *almost* works (failure, but in a sense that you know you were close to success and therefore have an idea of what to try next time)

This is my interpretation, and feel free to disagree with it, but I believe that's the most accurate representation of learning.

Is accurate better? Well, I personally would prefer this. It would at least require you put some careful thought into how to build your skills, rather than grinding.

 

[Solik]

An over-simplified and restrictive starting point. It's fine to identify three main gameplay types, but they should not be used as hard restrictions later in the design.

That's an opinion, which you're entitled to, but it's certainly not a hard fact about game design.

Why? [x2]

Because that's the kind of game they wanted to make. Doesn't mean it's necessarily the kind of game you would make, or even the kind of game you'd want to play. [x2]

Again - forget Morrowind. Start from the ground up.

Every time I use this argument on the other side, the response is always "But it's a TES game, so it should keep the things other TES games added instead of removing stuff in favor of other things!" Pretty sure I've seen that used here, too. I think it's even in someone's sig. Anyway, I think that's what they did, but they made some of the same decisions they made in Morrowind because they liked parts of the system.

Skill inclusion should be based on its value to a possible gameplay experience.

Skills themselves can also be constructed based on the desired gameplay experience to fill the slot. That's probably how the axe/blunt combination occurred -- not because it makes any real sense, but because that satisfied what the skill needed to be to fit the game.

Saying "I want 7 fighter skills" isn't restrictive at all if you're capable of defining every effect you want each of those skills to have up-front. You can combine and split and partition at your leisure to make a balanced set of formula-modifying skills.

...Not necessarily.

There is hardly a single aspect of any game's design that is necessary. There are alternatives for just about everything. You are only proving that there are alternatives -- which is exactly what my argument was to begin with.

You seem to mistake my position. I'm not holding that Bethesda's method is the "best" way or the "only" way. Just that it's a valid way.

If this is necessary to support a wide array of skills, then it should be done.

Assuming, of course, that a wide array of skills is desirable. And that 21 is not considered to be a wide array, even though many hardcore RPGs have fewer.

I'm not requiring Bethesda to do things the same way I would. I'm requiring them to be open-minded and to have some sense.

I've never met anyone who requests that others be "open-minded" and "have some sense" and don't actually mean exactly "do things the same way I would." Maybe you're the first, but pardon me if I'm skeptical.

Utter bullshit.

Congrats, you're illiterate. Once again: I was referring to the game implementation, not reality. If you have evidence to the contrary, kindly provide it, as I'd love to read more about combat system details. Otherwise, feel free to shut the fuck up.

@ Solik, Excrement etc: They have dumbed down Oblivion, doesn't mean the game isn't going to be excellent, but repeating the same statement about the compass over and over again isn't going to make it be any less true. Todd Howard himself said there was more handholding in the game.

Go back and read where I said "If you define dumbing down like <this>, then yes it's dumbed down, but it's a meaningless label. If you define it like <this>, then no it isn't." You just defined it the first way. So congrats, we agree -- it's "dumbed-down" in a way that's entirely irrelevant and in no way affects the quality of the game.

Sounds weird to reward failure, I know, but in reality, that's how you learn, innit?

I actually like that idea, but it's a little bit hard to reward failing in combat when failing usually means you die :p

 

[galsiah]

I agree (EDIT: with Venombyte ), but the accuracy issue is secondary in my view to the need to encourage the player to take on challenging situations. Many players will want to use their skills in such a way that they learn quickly. Most players will also want to roleplay "naturally", and to take on difficult challenges.

If the above methods don't coincide, then the player either has to grind and be unhappy that he's not playing naturally, or play naturally and be unhappy that he's not learning as fast as he might be. To be happy with this situation the player either needs not to care that his character is learning slowly, or not to care about playing naturally. I.e. to roleplay without pragmatism (rather odd in my view), or to powergame purely.

All that is necessary to solve the problem is to make sure that interesting, challenging roleplaying situations are the situations where learning is fastest. The fact that this is realistic is an added bonus.

A good game should encourage the player to be entertained by giving the highest rewards in entertaining circumstances. This might be difficult to do in general, but for each situation where a skill is used it is quite easy - make learning occur much more quickly for challenging skill uses than for easy / impossible skill uses. The player no longer has to decide between learning quickly, or taking on interesting challenges, since he can do both at once - in fact he has to do both at once.

I much prefer the use-to-increase model to xp based models. If the difficulty of the skill use is taken into account, it could work quite well.

 

[VenomByte]

And perhaps, just perhaps, if the Oblivion CS will give us direct acces to targetted objects such as the enemy we are trying to hit, or the lock we are trying to pick, then it may well be possible to mod the system (at least partially, if not fully) in such a way as to implement those methods.

I can almost feel the script engine bugs waiting to ambush me...

 

[galsiah]

That's an opinion, which you're entitled to, but it's certainly not a hard fact about game design.

I'd say that it is. It's a hard fact about problem solving in general. Introducing unnecessary restrictions early is a bad move - if you're planning to stick to them rigidly. Organising your thoughts is fine, but if you put hard restrictions onto a problem which aren't part of the requirements for a solution, you probably won't find the best solution.

We'll do our best to make each skill as equivalent in usefulness as possible so that every single skill choice is vital.

Because that's the kind of game they wanted to make. Doesn't mean it's necessarily the kind of game you would make, or even the kind of game you'd want to play.

If that is the case, then they're foolish. Skills are different. Trying to make totally different things fit into the same symmetrical framework is a usually bad idea. It might sometimes be possible, but it is usually not. Forcing the design of a game system so that every skill is equally useful is very restrictive, closed minded and unrealistic.

Given that Bethesda have said they're creating world simulators, it makes little sense to have the rules of those worlds dictated by the need for every skill to be equivalent. Real worlds are not simple, symmetric systems. Skills are not all equivalent. This needs to be dealt with, not ignored.

Again - forget Morrowind. Start from the ground up.

Anyway, I think that's what they did, but they made some of the same decisions they made in Morrowind because they liked parts of the system.

Are you seriously suggesting that Oblivion's system was designed "from the ground up"? With an open mind? It's 95% a straight copy of Morrowind. If they used the same decisions, then they should not have - a lot of them weren't good decisions.

Skills themselves can also be constructed based on the desired gameplay experience to fill the slot. That's probably how the axe/blunt combination occurred -- not because it makes any real sense, but because that satisfied what the skill needed to be to fit the game.
Saying "I want 7 fighter skills" isn't restrictive at all if you're capable of defining every effect you want each of those skills to have up-front. You can combine and split and partition at your leisure to make a balanced set of formula-modifying skills.

If this were an abstract game you'd be right. It is not an abstract game. What you outline above is exactly what Bethesda seem to have done - start from an abstract, arbitrary system, then mutilate the game world until it fits that system.

If you're designing an abstract game, then that's fine. If you're designing a world simulator, then that is not fine. You do not have the freedom to combine and split any skills you choose, since most combinations wouldn't make any coherent sense in the game world. That's why you need to start from the gameplay and from the game world. If after you have the skills you want you end up with more "fighter skills" than "mage skills", deal with it - give them different weightings, create different categories, create relationships between skills, adapt the power balance of skills to compensate...

I'm not holding that Bethesda's method is the "best" way or the "only" way. Just that it's a valid way.

It's a valid way if it gets results - i.e. creates a system that doesn't suck. If Bethesda use an idiotic design process, but get great results, then I'll reassess my notion of "idiotic". If they use an idiotic design process and create a system which isn't any good, then I feel justified in thinking that it is an idiotic design process.

At the moment I can't see ho the majority of the system is any better than Morrowind's.

...that others be "open-minded" and "have some sense"....

By "open-minded" I mean:
Slavishly copying Morrowind's bad design == bad idea.
Considering new alternatives without putting in needless restrictions == good idea.

By "have some sense" I mean that they should think along the following lines:
If we have 25 square pegs and a plan to use 21 round holes to store them, perhaps our plan is stupid.

Rather than:
Our 25 square pegs will be so much more elegant after we force them into our wonderful 21 round holes. We'll need to throw some away, and to ram some into the same hole, but it's bound to be worth it. After all, what is our priority - good gameplay or design symmetry?

I'd make the same argument if it were fitting 17 square pegs into 21 holes. The number of skills is not the point here. The point is the idiocy of forcing the design / inclusion of gameplay elements by restricting them to an arbitrary system without a thought to changing that system.

...but the one thing I didn't like was that level up screen going; where you, the player, distributed those few points. I can't really explain why very well, but the sense of accomplishment at going up another level and deciding for yourself where to reward your character is very strong.

The loss of choice is an issue. I just don't think awarding 2 or 3 points to a few attributes is a really interesting choice.

The feeling of accomplishment of going up a level is nice, but I think it points to a deficiency in the game. What should feel more important to the player - a number on a stat sheet increasing, or the results of his actions in the game world? If going from level 7 to 8 has your focus, that is probably for two reasons:
First because you aren't that involved in the game world.
Second, because you are looking forward to gaining some ability...

Personally I think that character development choices should be tied in to the game world, not to an abstract scoring system [here GCD is the abstract scoring system - important, but rightly in the background]. I think that character development choices are best left as character choices, not player choices. It makes sense to me that becoming skilled in some spell school, and completing a few quests, might allow my mage character access to a secret area of the mages guild, getting access to an extra spell book containing powerful magic... It doesn't make sense to me for extra spells / powers to appear out of thin air.
Similarly, choosing how to allocate attribute points makes little sense to me. If you want to be stronger, use strength based skills. Once you've used them, your strength increase should be automatic (if strength increase is part of the game) not a player choice.

Awarding character abilities / spells... as a consequence of character decisions in the game world will keep the player focused on the game world. Combined with interesting and involving quests, this should hopefully prevent the player thinking of the game world as a means to increase his stats.
It's true that GCD doesn't do this, but neither does it prevent another mod from doing it. Special trainers could be scripted to offer a choice of abilities when you gain a "level", or at certain skill levels etc. The main difficulty in doing this in Morrowind is coming up with a variety of interesting abilties that couldn't easily be reproduced through spellmaking / enchanting. I have thought about it for a while, but it's difficult.

 

[Claw]

Arguably, but I think there is something to be learned from both success and failure, but rather the amount learnt depends on the margin by which you succeeded or failed.

Absolutely. I feel sort of deprived of the chance of pointing this out, now I don't have anything worthwhile to add.

 

[Solik]

Introducing unnecessary restrictions early is a bad move - if you're planning to stick to them rigidly.

You really have no idea if that's what happened. I strongly doubt it was that simple -- "we're going to have 21 skills period, so find a way to stuff them down." It was probably more like, "Unarmored won't work well with our new combat system, so let's just abandon it, we need to reduce the number of weapon skills so we can focus on making those good in combat," from one angle, and a desire to balance everything nicely from the other. They came together at 21, or at least close enough to it that there wasn't much real butchering going on. I really don't see any actual problems with the skill system that's been presented to us (that is, the set of 21 skills -- I do have problems with how you increase those skills, but it remains to be seen if that's been fixed any). There's still plenty of choices, all the skills fit well (though some disagree with axe/blunt) -- everything appears to work out. Again, maybe not the way you wanted it to work out, but that's just subjection.

Real worlds are not simple, symmetric systems. Skills are not all equivalent.

Absurd. Skills are abstractions of human ability (or of supernatural abilities), and they can be assorted, arranged, and used however the designer wants. You could opt to have fighting styles as skills instead of weapon types as skills, or have both, or have neither. You can arrange magic schools any way you feel like. You can make skills for each school, or a general spellcasting skill, or skills that control different aspects of spellcasting (power, duration, chance of success, etc). As such, it isn't that tall of an order to make all these abstract items roughly equivalent in usefulness. Acrobatics (jumping) not that useful? Add dodge moves for combat. A single spellcasting skill too powerful? Split it out. Or reduce its impact. Or... whatever you feel like doing.

If you're designing an abstract game, then that's fine. If you're designing a world simulator, then that is not fine.

I wouldn't say simulation is quite what Beth's goal is -- it's why they keep repeating that they're interested in the "epic." Their goal (seems to me) is free-form RPGs with action-based delivery and as believable a world as necessary. In other words, they're making games before reality simulators.

What should feel more important to the player - a number on a stat sheet increasing, or the results of his actions in the game world?

Um, that's up to the player. It's ridiculous to think that games where players focus on character-based accomplishment are inferior products. If you look around in the real world, you'll see plenty such motivation driving people to do all sorts of things -- figure skaters going for personal best scores and learning to do that difficult jump flawlessly, mountain climbers wanting to improve their skill so they can climb that bigger mountain, Eastern martial artists training hard not because they really need to defend themselves but because they want to push themselves to new heights. Both types of accomplishment are important, and good games should provide both, but gamers should be able to decide for themselves how they want to enjoy the product they've purchased.

I think that character development choices are best left as character choices, not player choices.

But those choices can be fun.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I think they went too far with reducing the weapon skills. Basically its blade or blunt now for melee weapons. It takes the interest out of all that variety of weapons that still are in the game, it removed two of the more unusual weapon types (staves and spears) and effectively eliminates weapons specialists as characters (as least as far as that the system supports it - of course you can still stick to a special weapon type, but thats not the same thing). It one of the main things I am unhappy about with regards to Oblivion.

 

[Solik]

On the other hand, I think Hand-to-hand will be more viable this time around.

 

[galsiah]

Introducing unnecessary restrictions early is a bad move - if you're planning to stick to them rigidly.

You really have no idea if that's what happened.

No I don't, but you said that an early restriction was bad "in my opinion". I was pointing out that early restrictions (stuck to rigidly) are bad in problem solving - that's a fact, not just my opinion. If they did this, it was a bad idea.

Maybe they didn't - I have no idea. You implied that they might have earlier.

I'm not too upset with the skill system itself - more the fact that they're sticking to a similar skill / attribute system. The design of one system is linked strongly to the other. For instance, having three skills for each attribute is almost certain a target based on their attribute increase system. They are designing the skill setup to fit with a bad skill/attribute system. This is not a good idea.

As such, it isn't that tall of an order to make all these abstract items roughly equivalent in usefulness.

It's not that tall an order to get a system of 21 balanced skills. That is not the point. The point is that the classification of individual skills should be based on gameplay and the gameworld. For instance, combining short and long blade was almost certainly done to fit with their system; removing spears - I'm not sure; removing unarmored - maybe; grouping axe and blunt weapon - almost certainly.

Having to tailor your 21 skills so that each provides the same advantage to the player is a big restriction. Will the same setup be the best from a gameplay perspective (or a good sense perspective)? Almost certainly not. They are adapting the skills to the system rather than the other way around, so the skills they end up with will almost certainly not be ideal in gameplay terms.
They'll fit well into their nice little symmetric system, but frankly who cares?

What should feel more important to the player - a number on a stat sheet increasing, or the results of his actions in the game world?

Um, that's up to the player. It's ridiculous to think that games where players focus on character-based accomplishment are inferior products.

First, I wouldn't say increasing numbers on a stat sheet is "character-based accomplishment".
Second, it is up to the designer to emphasize the more important and interesting aspects of the game. If success in Morrowind relied on pinpoint observation of the mini-map at all times, then that would feel most important to the player. He'd spend all his time looking at the mini-map and hardly see the main game world at all. He'd also feel a sense of accomplishment when learned to spot new aspects of the mini-map more quickly / accurately.

If someone designed such a game, what would be the problem with the design? Perhaps that a significant portion of the player's playing time is spent looking at a stupid little map and thinking about that map.
Why is spending a load of time looking at a stat sheet and thinking about some numbers any better? Players will concentrate on the aspects of the game emphasized by the designer. It is the designer's job to focus the player's attention where the player will find the most entertainment.

The place for stats in a game like Morrowind is in the background - just like the mini-map. Perhaps things would be different if Morrowind levelling provided interesting, meaningful player decisions - but it doesn't.

I think that character development choices are best left as character choices, not player choices.

But those choices can be fun.

Choices can be fun whether made in a player menu, or through character decisions. The difference is that the second variety occur in the game world (putting the player's focus where it should be), and can make sense.

Morrowind is a great game in terms of exploration of a large, rich environment. When I played, most of my attention was on stats and the skill / attribute system. Why was that? Because I found it interesting? No. It was because I usually play pragmatic characters, and automatically think strategically (I'm more of a strategy gamer than an RPG gamer).
The designers of Morrowind constructed an idiotic stat system that focused my attention on stats and levelling - because I want to do the best for my character. Did I enjoy this? Not really. That's why I spent ages making a system which would do what I wanted well, without requiring my attention. I spent ages modding stats, so that I could play without considering stats. The best part of Morrowind is the exploration of the game world. A good design would focus the player on that.

If there is any conscious focus on in game character progression, it should be on interesting choices. Morrowind had no interesting choices with regard to levelling, so any emphasis on this was wasted.

 

[Solik]

I agree with most of your points about Morrowind. I disagree on what you're extracting out and then generalizing from that.

Maybe they didn't - I have no idea. You implied that they might have earlier.

Sure, I'd bet they aimed for it. That's a lot different than saying "we're going to stash everything into these precise skill slots period." They came up with a design that fit, they tried it out to see if it worked, and seem happy enough with it that they went ahead with it. They've certainly had plenty of time to change it in this long development cycle if it didn't work out.

Designs should be flexible if something turns out to be a bad idea, but aiming for symmetric balance is not ignoble.

I'm not too upset with the skill system itself - more the fact that they're sticking to a similar skill / attribute system.

I understand you. Maybe the level cap has fixed the problem. I guess we'll see.

The point is that the classification of individual skills should be based on gameplay and the gameworld.

But that's the point -- the concept of 21 skills divided into 7/3 IS based on gameplay. It's a slightly different angle on it (more on interaction of the numbers and player choices at character creation rather than a character's in-game options), but it's still a gameplay decision.

First, I wouldn't say increasing numbers on a stat sheet is "character-based accomplishment".

Many gamers are quite capable of interpreting numeric abstractions, often without even breaking immersion.

The place for stats in a game like Morrowind is in the background

I disagree. While the world is certainly fun to explore and roam around in, it's a lot more fun because I'm exploring it with a character I'm crafting and developing. If that was all in the background in Morrowind, I wouldn't have played it for nearly as long as I did. What we have here is a simple difference in taste.

I say this again: your design philosophy is quite valid. It is not alone in its validity.

 

[galsiah]

The point is that the classification of individual skills should be based on gameplay and the gameworld.

But that's the point -- the concept of 21 skills divided into 7/3 IS based on gameplay. It's a slightly different angle on it (more on interaction of the numbers and player choices at character creation rather than a character's in-game options), but it's still a gameplay decision.

But that is based on gameplay implications of the system they're using - not on the gameplay they aim to produce with each skill. Sure, the interaction of skills with their system and the overall balance forms part of the gameplay in the end. It can't be a starting point though, since the system doesn't exist to start with (unless they're just copying Morrowind of course - and they'd never do that :D).

Many gamers are quite capable of interpreting numeric abstractions, often without even breaking immersion.

How is the Morrowind level up screen not immersion breaking? It pops up out of thin air and presents the player with a choice that cannot possibly be interpreted as a character choice. The player cannot be in character when he makes this decision.

The place for stats in a game like Morrowind is in the background

I disagree. While the world is certainly fun to explore and roam around in, it's a lot more fun because I'm exploring it with a character I'm crafting and developing.

You can still craft and develop a character without the stat system being a focus. Most of the crafting in Morrowind is done through character action - what skills you use / train. The attribute increase choices you make have no impact over the long term (other than a senseless order-dependent impact on health through endurance).

It is quite possible for character improvement to be a goal without the stats needing to be a conscious focus. Conscious focus and calculation are required for a character to do his best because the system doesn't make sense. If it did make sense the player could still have character development as a goal, but without having to jump through hoops.

I think a stat system should behave like a physics system: the player can use it to support gameplay. The player can focus on its effects. The player can have fun with it. However, all this should be possible on an intuitive level. The player should not have to solve dynamics equations in order to play with the physics. Similarly, the player should not have to solve equations to do the best he can in a stat system.
Operating on this intuitive level is only possible if the system makes sense intuitively. Physics makes intuitive sense to players, so they don't need to mess with equations. If the physics system changed so that it did not behave according to players' expectations, the only way to approach it would be to analyse the behaviour scientifically. The non-sense mechanics of the Morrowind stat system require this kind of scientific analysis. That's not why I play RPGs.

If that was all in the background in Morrowind, I wouldn't have played it for nearly as long as I did.

By "in the background" I don't mean that it should be given less importance. I mean that it shouldn't stick out like a sore thumb. Blending in well with the game world doesn't lessen the importance of a game system - it just makes it feel more natural.

I say this again: your design philosophy is quite valid. It is not alone in its validity.

When I see a well designed levelling / skill / attribute system from Bethesda, I might believe they are using a reasonable design philosophy. Until that time, I'll stick with my opinion that they're approaching things backwards.

 

[Antiphon]

Galsiah:

I very much appreciate that it appears you take what I think is the proper approach. When you think something can be better, you work within the limits with the tools we have to affect change in a positive manner. Also, you write posts here that are relatively free of the angst and language that I believe are counterproductive. In my brief time here you have earned my respect.

I think you will find Oblivion's skill progression is closer to Galsiah's Character Development than Morrowind's. They may have adopted only a small part, but it is a step in the right direction. I'm referring to the exponential (I know that's technically incorrect, but I don't know what else to call it.) growth of points needed to raise a skill or attribute.

You are absolutely correct, in my opinion, that the player should not be forced to observe and manipulate the mechanics of skill and attribute progression. I spent a considerable amount of time in Morrowind trying to adjust skill training to try and get the max attribute bonuses. It did not cause any concern at the time for I simply assumed that how it's done, but you've shown me there is a better way.

I look forward to any effort you may choose to make toward a GCD for Oblivion. I would be happy to help in any way I can.

 

[galsiah]

...you write posts here that are relatively free of the angst and language...

But often quite arrogant - I do try to fit in .

They may have adopted only a small part, but it is a step in the right direction. I'm referring to the exponential (I know that's technically incorrect, but I don't know what else to call it.) growth of points needed to raise a skill or attribute.

I agree that's a step forward - particularly since the constants governing the learning curve are CS editable. I still think hard limits are a bit silly, but it should be possible to make 100 almost unobtainable without much trouble. The relative difficulty of increasing major / specialised / minor skills is also editable, so with the right settings, fighters and mages should stay different for a long time (though it still annoys me that eventually they're heading for a master-of-everything situation).

Such a system does encourage the player to think about the mechanics though, and will penalize natural play. That is its biggest fault in Morrowind, I think, and it seems not to have changed for Oblivion (I hold out some hope that the details have changed to improve this, but not much hope).

As to the "exponential" growth, it could be accurately described as polynomial growth, or as a progressively steepening learning curve. Calling it exponential is misleading for everyone - they'll either get the wrong idea about the system, or the wrong idea about what exponential growth means. It's also just plain wrong.

I look forward to any effort you may choose to make toward a GCD for Oblivion. I would be happy to help in any way I can.

Perhaps I'll do something like GCD again (though I'm still hoping it won't really be necessary). If I don't, I'm sure someone will. It should certainly be easier this time around - it sounds as if the general skill / attribute code is more robust, so won't require a load of silly workarounds.

 

[Levski 1912]

Antiphon is the most self-righteous, pompous and condescending poster I've seen here. But I guess we're lucky, nay, we should be grateful to bask in the radiance of his magnificent intellect.

 

[Solik]

Antiphon is the most self-righteous, pompous and condescending poster I've seen here.

You have got to be kidding.

 

[Stella Brando]

I agree with Solik (actually Pete Hines). One would have to slaughter scores of likely contenders, ancient Roman-style, to secure that particular crown.

Antiphon is pretty similar to some of our own members, he's just coming from the other side. The ESF is similar to the Islamic Middle-East, while we are similar to the Secular West. We see the TESbots as a faceless legion of irrational, shrieking fanatics, unable to deal with the harshness of modern reality. They see us as a band of blasphemous, cynical, anarchic thugs, revelling in our pagan wickedness, and badly in need of a taste of Bethesda's (peace be upon them) righteous justice.

 

[Data4]

I agree with Solik (actually Pete Hines). One would have to slaughter scores of likely contenders, ancient Roman-style, to secure that particular crown.

Antiphon is pretty similar to some of our own members, he's just coming from the other side. The ESF is similar to the Islamic Middle-East, while we are similar to the Secular West. We see the TESbots as a faceless legion of irrational, shrieking fanatics, unable to deal with the harshness of modern reality. They see us as a band of blasphemous, cynical, anarchic thugs, revelling in our pagan wickedness, and badly in need of a taste of Bethesda's (peace be upon them) righteous justice.

That's beautiful, man. *tear*

-D4

 

[Stella Brando]

 

[Excrément]

You are fucking moron, aren't you? I'm talking about the free sense of adventure in a game that lets you explore without telling you exactly where something is. You know, being able to find stuff on your own?

My god you're an idiot.

-D4

Each time you disagree with someone, do you have to insult him?
When you have an argument with your wife, you insult her or maybe beat her? (does it give you this same superiority feeling I can smell in every posts you write?)
Is it because your parents raped you when you were a child?

Sincerely,

The idiot fucking moron.

 

[kris]

I am pretty sure there is no connection between children raping and bad language. And the differencies between how some behave on the net and outside it can be staggering.

 

[Data4]

You are fucking moron, aren't you? I'm talking about the free sense of adventure in a game that lets you explore without telling you exactly where something is. You know, being able to find stuff on your own?

My god you're an idiot.

-D4

Each time you disagree with someone, do you have to insult him?
When you have an argument with your wife, you insult her or maybe beat her? (does it give you this same superiority feeling I can smell in every posts you write?)
Is it because your parents raped you when you were a child?

Sincerely,

The idiot fucking moron.

Could be worse. I could be French.

-D4

 

[Excrément]

You should post at www.freerepublic.com there are some open-minded fascists over there. The discussions in this forum will please you, I am pretty sure.

Who said I am French? There is a difference between speaking French and being French.

 

[Seboss]

Could be worse. I could be French.
-D4

meh