Marcvs Caesar
-
Posts
45 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Marcvs Caesar
-
-
Hah.
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.
-
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.
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?
-
Islam should be banned, some religions have been banned for less and it is obvious the violence won't stop anytime soon.
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.
-
Based on your replies, would you guys say that Sweden has a succesful immigration policy from islamic countries? And how would you say that Sweden have succeeded and France has failed in this?
Finally, do you guys see the same level of threat of terrorism compared to France and what measures have Sweden taken to lessen/avoid this?
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.
-
Islam should be banned, some religions have been banned for less and it is obvious the violence won't stop anytime soon.
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.
Those guys were pretty harsh on DA:I--it's listed 47th. Lots of Bioware haters, I guess.
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".
-
2
-
-
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.
-
So you boys are telling me that if there was a hidden camera in your house that was filming surreptitiously everything you did, including intimacy with a partner, you would consider this the same type of invasion of your privacy as someone reading your emails ?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.
-
2
-
-
Nostalgia has a tendency to enhance and glorify older experiences, which may create the illusion that things are getting worse. However, many of the older RPGs were also boring experiences with stupid repetitive mechanics, lousy stories, pitiful character interactions, and, of course, limited graphics and sounds. It's just that we were willing to put up with them back then because all we had were less capable computing systems and the experience was all so much newer.
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 backbone of RPG is STORY
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?
-
I'm an atheist so... devout Christians, Muslims, Jews would probably think I am Satan xD but I do believe the world would do better if it was a global, human, settlement. Instead of separating us like differently colored cattle and teaching some of the cattle from one color that the other color of cattle is somehow worse in some way *shrug* it's stupid, whatever, can't the world become Terra and we all can call ourselves Terran already???
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.
Demonic, no thanks.
Muslims in Stockholm have gotten to your head yet?
What about Christians? Jews, Christians, Muslims... they're all the same.
Also, that was hilarious for some reason.
-
There's no such thing as a 'platonic romance'. The term is an oxymoron. It's like saying: "This water is dry".
I was thinking of "romance" more as an in-game mechanic.
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!
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:
I've only romanced two (or three) fictitional characters in my whole gaming life: Viconia Deviir from Baldur's Gate II and Morrigan from Dragon Age Origins (along with Fall-from-grace from Planescape: Torment if you can even consider that a romance). And personally I do consider, without a doubt, that it contributed more to making my role-playing experience more memorable.
However there are more important aspects in a role-playing game other than such a minor mechanic like romance. Although enjoyable, the lack of it won't take away from the game in the slightest, besides I doubt I'll find characters I like enough to romance any time soon (if not never) such as the ones I mentioned.
-
So for you battlemages mean every other magic users that use any other spells than heal (although one could argue that heal is buff) and summoning in combat?
Roleplaying aspect of PoE is not tied on its class system, but instead it gives player freedom to explore lots of different type characters regardless of what their class is. This characterization is mainly done via conversations and general decisions how player decides to solve quests. This gives player ability play lots if different roles. Main purpose behind class mechanics is to determine how any particular character works in the combat. There was talk and some promises about non-combat spells during kickstarter campaign, but at least yet we have seen little of those, but from how things are done in backer beta I would guess that non-combat spell usage and spells are tied to conversations and event screens, as we see Ciphers be able to use their mind controlling capability at least one conversation, which is not open to any other class, so I would guess that we probably see similar things more in full game at least in some extent. 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.
Leadership roles in PoE mean characters that focus on buffing your own party and debuffing enemies, main classes that are meant to fulfill this role are Priest, Paladin and Chanter, but wizards has ability to work in such roles, but they aren't necessary as effective. Other main roles in PoE's combat are Damage Dealers (Rogues, Rangers, Ciphers), whose main point is to be able to do lots of single target damage, wizards can also play in this role but not necessary as effective as those that are meant to specialize in it. Then there is front liners (Fighters, Monks and Barbarians), which are meant to be able to take punishment and give it back and also tie enemies in combat so that you other characters have easier time to deal with them or enemy's ranged characters, which is role that wizards can also play like I mentioned in my previous post. And final major role group is crowd controllers which is role that wizard is mainly meant together with druid, although wizards are also meant to be versatile so that they can work in any other major combat role at least in some capacity.
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.
-
D&D Wizard's are usually very powerful in CRPG, but D&D Sorcerers are in my opinion most superior class especially in AD&D, as they have access to all wizard spells, meaning that they aren't never ill prepared to any situation or limited on spells that you have found in the game.
Wizards don't have summoning spells in PoE because Obsidian feels that they don't fit in their role in the game or more accurately they don't want wizard's to step on roles that they have planed for other classes to make them more attractive choice. This is also reason why priest don't have summoning spell like they have in D&D.
For lore reason's wizard's don't have access to summoning spell because they focus so much to control their soul energy by focusing it rough their grimoires which they have fulled with schemas that they have found out to control how soul power manifests via research and testing. This approach let them have more control over what they can do with soul energy, but it also blocks them some things that other's can do with that don't have so controlled approach towards it.
Priest get their control over soul energy from faith and dedication towards their god(s), even though soul energy comes from themselves, things that they can do with it are limited by their faith and things that they think their god(s) will and will not approve.
Druids and Chanters have more naturalistic approach towards their control over their soul energy. Druids create connection with web of living souls, which gives them limited ability to control things and essences of things in nature and Chanters use stories and legends to control soul energy from soul fragments and lost souls around them, which gives them ability to get them do things for them, like animating corpses or manifesting as spirits.
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"?
-
Darth Sion had shades of that if you played a female character in KotOR II.
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!
-
All Romance means in the context of RPG is where you have dialogue options and interaction with party members that leads to a non-platonic relationship, and normally a sexual relationship is the outcome
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!
-
D&D Wizard's are usually very powerful in CRPG, but D&D Sorcerers are in my opinion most superior class especially in AD&D, as they have access to all wizard spells, meaning that they aren't never ill prepared to any situation or limited on spells that you have found in the game.
Wizards don't have summoning spells in PoE because Obsidian feels that they don't fit in their role in the game or more accurately they don't want wizard's to step on roles that they have planed for other classes to make them more attractive choice. This is also reason why priest don't have summoning spell like they have in D&D.
For lore reason's wizard's don't have access to summoning spell because they focus so much to control their soul energy by focusing it rough their grimoires which they have fulled with schemas that they have found out to control how soul power manifests via research and testing. This approach let them have more control over what they can do with soul energy, but it also blocks them some things that other's can do with that don't have so controlled approach towards it.
Priest get their control over soul energy from faith and dedication towards their god(s), even though soul energy comes from themselves, things that they can do with it are limited by their faith and things that they think their god(s) will and will not approve.
Druids and Chanters have more naturalistic approach towards their control over their soul energy. Druids create connection with web of living souls, which gives them limited ability to control things and essences of things in nature and Chanters use stories and legends to control soul energy from soul fragments and lost souls around them, which gives them ability to get them do things for them, like animating corpses or manifesting as spirits.
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.
-
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?
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?
-
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?
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?
I Quit
in Way Off-Topic
Posted · Edited by 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.