Marcvs Caesar

I've thought about quitting video games for some time now for those same reasons, but then I read the news about the kickstarter funded games so now I'm going to wait and see what happens.

Cowards. I lived in the UK for a while and the stories I heard about "offending" is ridiculous, it's interesting though that most of them involved Muslims. The west often defends "democracy" and "freedom of speech" but they're all hypocrites.

Oh please, not the Greek/Roman heritage thing again. That's among the worst bull**** you ever get to hear. Secondly, the Islamic culture builds as much - or as little - on the Greco-Roman as ours does, at least in all ways that matter. And in any case the Greeks (Classical Greece - through the Mycenaeans) owe as much/little to previous/other Mediterranean civilizations as we do to them. Read Plato's Republic, the writings/thoughts of Aristotle or any of those old works yourself and draw your conclusions. Nothing much to be salvaged there - nothing which wouldn't have been gained otherwise, nothing which has truly guided Western civilization in a positive way during our golden age. Disclaimer here: Euclid was a pretty solid guy and is probably worth reading still today for secondary school students. Certainly the Romans/Greeks represent high civilization during their glory days, but it's a gross misunderstanding to claim that they were culturally distinct in a unique and superior way to other comparable cultures. I haven't seen any "modern and successful" Muslims clinging to old beliefs. None. I was thinking more on the terms of ideology and values, the greek and roman civilizations inspired many thinkers particularly after the early modern period. I think our modern western civilization exists in no small part thanks to our greco-roman heritage. How familiar are you with the history of classical antiquity?

It will secularize, and then disappear, just like Christianity. I doubt I will still be alive to see it by then, if it happens. Throughout history the agressive religions have been the successful ones, and there's no religious doctrine more agressive than Islam that's for sure. The meaningless slaughter will continue until something is done. 99% of everyone who is killed by Muslim radicals are Muslims themselves. The West as a whole has suffered negligible (I'd almost say none at all) damage to to Islamic terrorism - ridiculously little compared to how much we read about it in the news. Islamic radicalism is essentially the Muslim world punching itself in the face. There are no Muslim countries capable of taking a fight to any of the major world powers. Christianity has historically been a more aggressive religion than Islam for the last 1000 years, but Christianity eventually secularized, giving birth to our civilization. Islam was pretty much the height of civilization from the 800s to the 1300s (discounting China). That is when Islam meant freedom for other religions and modern (at the time) values. The liberal and secular centre of the world. The only thing that's an advantage for Islam is their relatively high birth rate in civilized countries. This is in part due to the culture of immigrants and in part due to their low social standing. It will be interesting to see how it looks in 30 years. It will have lowered, the question is how much. If Islam is able to resist assimilation better than the birthrate lowers, we might see a future Islamic (but secular) Europe. Meanwhile, much of Western culture is focused on short-sighted egoism and not building families. That is not the hallmark of a culture that is fit to survive. At least in Sweden the assimilation rate is very high. The Kurds and other people who are "technically Muslim" are about as religious as I am, that is, none at all. You're exaggerating, the damage done to the western nations might be relatively very low (still higher than what I consider acceptable) but it is certainly not negligible. Yes, I was aware of that. But it was largely due to the development of science, increase in education and, something that isn't often considered, our Hellenistic (ancient Greek, Roman) heritage that largely contributed to it. Even though the muslims living in developed countries have access to decent education... well at least in Europe and Japan, many, if not most, still cling to their archaic beliefs. Don't even joke about that, living under Islamism or in an islamic society, even if secularized, would be one of the worst things that could happen to me. Their dogma goes against everything I like about human civilization.

I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to law, government policies, etc. But I've always wondered why there's so much immigration into EU from non-EU countries. Shouldn't the free movement of people be only available to the countries that signed the Schengen agreement? I would love to have a borderless, country-less world but until we do Europe should be more strict in its immigration laws.

It will secularize, and then disappear, just like Christianity. I doubt I will still be alive to see it by then, if it happens. Throughout history the agressive religions have been the successful ones, and there's no religious doctrine more agressive than Islam that's for sure. The meaningless slaughter will continue until something is done.

Islam should be banned, some religions have been banned for less and it is obvious the violence won't stop anytime soon.

Why did people like D:OS? That game was boring, definitely overrated. What you mean the annoying quasi-MMO made by EAware? It's hard to understand how RPG players can say they liked that game.

One of the things I liked the most about D&D is the complex magic system. You actually had to think, and therefore role-play, when preparing your spellbook because you had a huge selection of different types of spells for every situation. Magic was decently simulated. In PoE wizards are uninteresting, they seem to exist just because the IE games had them and the class was built just to fit a combat role. The developers are focusing way too much on "balance" and too little on "role-playing".

Well, I'm starting to think this game is just not for me. PoE was supposed to be the spiritual successor to the IE games but the more information I find about the game the more apparent it is that PoE has little in common with BG or PST. I'm incredibly disappointed... I will still try to play the game on release but my expectations are very low at the moment.

What's the problem with someone seeing you being intimate with a partner? Will that harm you somehow? Information gathered from, for example, your emails however can be used against you in one form or another.

I only have one thing to say about Dragon Age Inquisition, actually two. First of all, my experience in a nutshell. And second, this game is just what Dragon Age II would have been like if EAware had spent the same amount of time and resources on it, basically it's Dragon Age II 2.0. TL;DR: The game is filth.

Then how do you explain my case? I only started playing games like the Baldur's Gate series, Planescape: Torment and TES: Morrowind around 3 to 4 years ago yet I consider them the best games I've played so far. Those games have inherent quality, a quality that supersedes the ever evolving aspects like graphics. "Nostalgia" is nothing but an excuse. The narrative, in any shape or form, is a very important element in a role-playing game but it's not the "backbone", it's not what makes the genre unique. The core of a role-playing game is in the name of the genre itself: Role-playing. Playing a role is achieved through simulation, and how well a game can simulate something in turn contributes to the role-playing. The whole genre can be represented by a single question: What if I was...? And how well the answer to that question is simulated in turn contributes to the quality of a role-playing game.

I just wanted to ask if Pillars of Eternity has the incredibly useful customizable party formation mechanic like in The Temple of Elemental Evil game: Can anyone tell me if this mechanic is present in PoE? And if not is there any intention of adding it to the game in the future?

With the recent rise of nationalism in the world, particularly in Europe, that seems to be unlikely to happen in the near future... if ever.

Honestly, the more variety and complexity there is in each class the better. Combat in this game does not interest me in the slightest at the moment. What about Christians? Jews, Christians, Muslims... they're all the same. Also, that was hilarious for some reason.

I was thinking of "romance" more as an in-game mechanic. 1. See, neither of these examples is platonic. 2. Once someone acts "cold" towards you or "loves" you, you've exited platonic and entered into the deeper emotions of things. As for those ideas themselves being placed in an RPG, it can certainly be done, but, like just about all video game romances, they will come off as half-assed unless they're the main plot of the game itself. And if you make a friggin ROMANCE be an RPG's main plot...ugh. No thanks. That's what Harlequin novels and daytime soap operas are for. 1. I never said they were. 2. Fascinating, I wasn't aware/ sarcasm. I see you never heard the terms "tsundere" and "yandere", I was hoping someone would notice but oh well. Anyway, it was a joke. I've already posted my opinion on this topic:

Several spells don't fall into that category: Summoning spells, illusion spells, some divination spells, etc. "I would guess that they have gone towards this route because they don't want make player choose between characters' combat and non-combat capability during level upping" So they removed the role-playing from the character progression system? Great... Though I've seen the simplicity that is the skill system already. Five broad categories with no room for personalization. Thank you for the detailed explanation, seriously.

Finally a proper answer to my question. It's unfortunate though. AD&D classes were complex and versatile but in PoE it seems to be the opposite, they're more simplistic and focused and therefore not very open to personalization. Like someone mentioned before, Wizards seem to be the archetype of a Battlemage. I would argue that you could say that Battlemage is also only archetype in most AD&D CRPGs that you can play as you can only decide which combat role you specialize them in, because they had little to nothing spells and abilities outside combat, although they were able to effectively fulfill more roles than what PoEs wizards can, but this is deliberate design choice from Obsidian, because they didn't want wizards be similar default party member choice like it was in those games (you could play them without wizard, but that usually made things harder especially in later parts of the games). Archetypes that wizards have in PoE depend on how you specify them. But their main role in game's combat is to be versatile crowd controllers. They can play role of Glass Cannon by focusing on long range spells and doing lots of AoE damage and disabling opponents or by focusing making themselves able take hits in front line by using self boost spells and using cone and other short ranged spells to dismantle charging enemies they can take role of arcane warriors. And of course you can mix this two extremity to something else with addition of their single target spells, which gives them change to work in damage dealing and leadership roles (although they usually can't do as good job as classes that are meant to specialize on those roles). From role-playing perspective main difference between classes in PoE is what role they play in combat, although there is some difference between classes in conversations and how NPCs react towards them. So there is versatility in PoE's wizards but it will never rise on similar level than what you get in AD&D and wizards probably will not be able to compensate other class roles same way as they do in AD&D, as Obsidian don't want PoE's wizards be similar superior beings that they are in AD&D in latter levels. But there is much more choice to personalize your characters in PoE than what there are in AD&D, even though roles that classes can play in combat maybe more restricted, this is because of talents that you can pick for your characters. A Battlemage is a magic user who focuses on spells that are useful in close combat, spells that deal damage, buff self/allies and debuff enemies. I don't particularly care about tactical roles, I'm more interested in actual roles. The classes in PoE were built for combat only it seems. What about role-playing? Did the developers forget about that? Was the whole game built on the idea of balance between the classes in relation to combat? Do you know what my favourite spell in all the history of AD&D computer games was? Contact Other Plane. It had no use in combat yet why did I like it? It had role-playing value. Wait. What do you mean by "leadership roles"?

Interesting, I never played as a female character so I wasn't aware of that. Perhaps Obsidian will a make something similar in the future. A love interest, who's most likely Aumaua, loves the payer so much that he/she wants to eat you. Imagine the love interest's intentions mistaken by the player for sexual innuendo, only to bite you in the ass later... literally. You must do this Obsidian! As a self-appointed democratically appointed representative for the community, I, and therefore we, demand this!

A platonic romance wouldn't be so bad either. One in which the love interest acts cold towards you or wants to kill you out of pure love would also be quite interesting. Imagine the possibilities!

Finally a proper answer to my question. It's unfortunate though. AD&D classes were complex and versatile but in PoE it seems to be the opposite, they're more simplistic and focused and therefore not very open to personalization. Like someone mentioned before, Wizards seem to be the archetype of a Battlemage.

Then you dont do the quest. Or you pretend yuor character has some side motive for doing the quest and is really upset that he has to do it, but does it anyway. One of the options of roleplaying in this situation is that if the character does not want to do the quest, he just goes back to menial jobs instead of adventuring, Which means you quit the game and play another character or just do something else and leave the computer. If the game does not give you enough options t realize the roleplaying of your character well, the game is at fault, not you or your characters you made up. My point was that you will be punished for role-playing in a situation like that when it shouldn't be the case. Realistically speaking you improve your skills through practice not by finishing a quest line. Gaining experience by using your skills makes sense, gaining experience because you "finished a questline" does not make any sense. Attempting to apply realism to this process never really makes sense. The idea that "gaining experience by using your skills makes sense" leads to The Elder Scrolls type XP systems where people stand in one place and swing their sword at the air 1,000 times to max out their sword skills. The XP system is an arbitration of your characters' progress. The idea that using skills or killing should give you XP isn't any more realistic than the quest XP system because the XP you gain from killing a goblin with a sword can be applied to making you better at using a bow or summoning spells when you level up, and along the same line the XP gained from unlocking a door can be used to make you better at using a sword. So, how is it realistic that killing goblins with swords makes you better at summoning spells or unlocking doors makes you better at killing goblins with swords? If people want to "stand in one place and swing their sword at the air 1,000 times to max out their sword skills" that's their problem, those of us that understand how RPGs work however probably wouldn't do that. I consider Skyrim's skill system to be the best one I've seen so far. Imperfect? Yes, especially the perk system, but aside from that it is the best I've seen so far. I just pointed out the problem, I wasn't defending the gaining of experience from combat. Gaining experience from just one way, particularly only from finishing questlines, is flawed. Why not make it like BG2 and do both combat and quest experience?

Then you dont do the quest. Or you pretend yuor character has some side motive for doing the quest and is really upset that he has to do it, but does it anyway. One of the options of roleplaying in this situation is that if the character does not want to do the quest, he just goes back to menial jobs instead of adventuring, Which means you quit the game and play another character or just do something else and leave the computer. If the game does not give you enough options t realize the roleplaying of your character well, the game is at fault, not you or your characters you made up. My point was that you will be punished for role-playing in a situation like that when it shouldn't be the case. Realistically speaking you improve your skills through practice not by finishing a quest line. Gaining experience by using your skills makes sense, gaining experience because you "finished a questline" does not make any sense.

What if all the options in a quest go against your role-playing style and therefore you have to reject said quest? You won't get experience if you reject a quest right?