NightRevan

Questions of something being to much for children for adults to be fans of or that such are embarrassing (both being slightly odd given how gaming as adults had been viewed until fairly recently and sometimes still is given the forum, or that fairy tales were intended as much for adults as children in their origin) combined with mentions of CS Lewis put me on mind of his answer to such concerns: '“Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.' To many adults can be to serious and self-conscious for their own good in my opinion. (That said I didn't think to highly of Force Awakened, nor to excited about this, but we'll see.

I think you are getting to hung up on needing the game to have to provide the role you wish to play explicitly in terms of classes, but that isn't necessary as many have pointed out in this thread there have always been classless RPG systems in which you work out and decide who your character is rather than picking a class (which often comes with it's own oddities such as restrictions that don't often make logical sense, why can't a mage wear armour for example, particularly if he isn't energetically fighting in the front lines as good armour was designed to distribute it's weight well and shouldn't actually require that much strength to wear, or in real skill per say, appart perhaps stamina to fight and run for extended periods time in it which the mage won't be doing on the whole, so unless it's something to do with metal itself - which is my headcannon when I play say BG games, it doesn't make sense accept from a gameplay standpoint). In the end both class and classless systems both have their oddities and have things that cause logical problems when you think about them, so you just have to accept those issues and work through them. As relates to Elder Scrolls, on one had you are correct that a specific class or group of warriors has never been called paladins, they aren't part of the lore and you can't join an order ir proclaim yourself to any in the world a paladin and have it mean anything inworld. But then so what, you can't call yourself a specifically say a nightblade in many other worlds for them to kniw what you mean, as it's a tern used in the Elders Scrolls world, or an arcane archer or shadowdancer whuch only exist in D&D lore, or arcane warrior outside Dragon Age etc. Some terms exist in some fantasy worlds but not in others, and if you are pkaying in that world you can use another term but of course it will only exist for you the player by necessity (in a P&P RPG a DM/GM might of course tweak tge world accomodate your desired role's profession and develop lore on it, but that can't happen with pre-programmed games, only posdibly mods can help you there). That said if you stop being si fixated on needing a class label there is nothing stopping you playing a character whose profesdion/vocation is like the role you have in mind and even see that reflected in another world's history or lore, you can play a nightblade like class in D&D games, or a paladin class character in Elder Scrolls etc. In Elder Scrolls it would roughly fall into knight class, or designing a custom class around this, I think since Daggerfall this tempkate was a warrior class with focus on sone healing ability (and being the healer template would be clerical or priestly since you coukd have them devoted to a temple or order). There are also knight orders devoted to each of the (well eight in Daggerfall) nine divines, that you coukd join in Daggerfall, though that was a choice not necessarily bond to your class provided it was a melee class to some extent, but you can have that role, or join a temple and become a protector for them. Thst would be your character's calling, their higher purpose, is oart of their character and a role. In Morrowind you could join the tempkes if I remember (or something similar) and you have the knights of the nine in Oblivion. Obviously you don't have the facility to join a knights order (but outside imperials woukd that make sense native to Skyrim) or the temples or the vigilance of Stendarr (which I agree is a shame, though the live another life mod really helps a bit here in allowing you to start of as a member of the Vigilance of Stendarr) but there is nothing stopping you conceiving that your character belonged to one of these orders which were destroyed or disrupted by the Thalmor war and whatever else lead your character to fleeing into Skyrim in the first place, and that woukd be your characters role which is how you play them, which is role-playing a character. You don't need a class to tell you how to role-play your character, nor does having one mean you are. But I'm also slightly confused, in this thread I thought you wished to discuss and find out what defines spellsword, battlemage classes (particularly in relation to Elder Scrolls) and the Arcane Warrior specialization in Dragon Age. But now you seem to want to get onto class vs classless systems with a view that class is necessary to role-play (I think to narrow a focus here and would enjoy yourself more taking a step back and not letting your sense of RP be bond to just a name on a character sheet). So which are you after, what is your goal in this discussion, what answers are you seeking? That clarity might make the thread's purpose more clear and less frusrtrating

Well in the first two Elder Scroll games, Arena and Daggerfall, spellswords were conceived of as a warrior/fighter mage or eldritch knight idea, one who combines martial prowess with arcane might, being adapt and using spell and weapon together. The battlemage was seem as a mage specializing in battle and focuses on destruction magic and is the opposite of say the healer class in the first Elder Scrolls games, whose focus is restoration magic is is defensive in focus, the battlenage is intended as a mage who focuses on using magic in combat to destroy their opponents. They do also have knowledge in the use of melee weapons to various degrees (long and short blade were two of the battlemage class's primary skills I think besides destruction magic) to help when enemies engages close up and they are low or out of spell points, magicka as it would be known. The spellsword could wear leather or chain armour but couldn't use plate armour (of which most the higher tier materials are made steel to daedric), can use any weapon and most shields apart from tower shields (I think from what I've experienced this remains consistent for the class across both games). In the first game this had even impact as only plate armour was strong enough to carry enchantments (so only melee only classes could use enchanted armour). The battlemage could only use leather armour and couldn't use kite or tower shields. I think they could use any weapons. So in the first two games there was significant overlap but they are distinct. Daggerfall also introduced the ability to create your own custom class which was quite extensive in setting skill priorities and special advantages and disadvantages etc. In relation to later games it would suggest that relatively light armoured characters combining melee and magic in combat would in an Elder Scrolls setting be a spellsword whereas a mage was very light armour (padded or the often inaccurate leather armour) focusing on battle magic and destruction in fights only going to a melee weapon as a necessary resort back-up would be a battlemage. But then how the classes have been has shifted from game to game. In Daggerfall you couldn't join say the mage guild I think if you didn't have at least one primary skill in a school of magic (and possible one minor) and the degree of your ability in both at least one primary magic skill and one minor magic skill together (the minor having a lower requirement) together with your reputation with the guild determined how high you could rise. A similar thing happened in relation to the Fighter's Guild and other groups such as knight orders, temples dark brotherhood and thieves guild etc to varying degrees. But the concepts came out differently in later games with Skyrim acknowledging what was already in practice the case in Oblivion. That you could potentially join any factions irrespective of the characters ability. This could be seen as a negative if you wish but not necessarily. It was a response to the fact that some players more causal to RPGs or just not having time to invest in long hours in replays in what would already be a long and open-ended game, to be able to play and explore all the content of a game they paid for without using cheats. This could be seen as dumbing down but it's worth noting these are single-player games and nothing forces players to do this, you aren't forced into taking the berserker barbarian who doesn't know almost any magic except from a little healing and might be suspicious of it to join the mage's guild he is obviously unsuitable for nor become it's Archmage when that is ridiculous, or have a staff-wielding robed mage joining and heading the Fighter's Guild/Companions. It's up to players choice how they play the game and the extent they role play and how they see that role-playing working out in their game. And it doesn't have any impact on anyone else's game, it leaves the degree and nature if roleplaying up to you (that said I'd dearly love to get the stats back again, though I did like Skyrim's perks idea on the whole).

The biggest lesson I learned from playing PS:T is to never neglect the Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma type stats in an RPG. KOTOR II is a great example of a game where they matter. But that is also a potential problem, where you need to make sure your character has good intelligence, wisdom or charisma stats or to have to game influence system through degrees of metagaming (particularly via a influence guide) in order to understand the story. Some things of course shoukd be unavailable to characters not that intelligent or wise extra and some should get themselves into issues that intelligent, wise character might not, and how you relate to character should have impact desirably (though I don't think influence/apporval system achieve this end but rather tend to encourage gaming tge system ratger than RPing. But none should lead to game or story not making sense unless you make sure to play influence game and that your character always needs required stats since then you are no longer RPing but necessarily metagaming throughout which would be deficiency to me. I don't think KOTOR II fails entirely in this territory as I remember the overall thing well enough when I first played it so many years ago. But I do remember a nunber of things not making sense untill I also used the aid of an influence guide in subsequent playthroughs and made sure fo focus on wisdom or intelligence needing to metagame more an RP less. Now that might not be true of many others I don't know (can only speak of my own experience) but it was true of me and was a bit if a negative towards the game that I ztill enjoyed allot despite that and it's incompleteness (though in tge end despite being close KOTOR just wins out for me between them). PS:T I always had a fairly wise and intelligent character in mind so I can't talk to what it's like playing throygh the narrative with a less intelligent and/or impulsive and at times foolish character and how that effects overall understanding the unfolding story (hopefully it creates a unique experience rather because was an excellent RP experience and narrative to play through).

Huh, what, are you talking about Bastila, or some early development stuff? Early development stuff. I mean, who should to be protagonist. ,I think it was Ulic Qel-Droma who was being either thought of as the protagonist or a version of him, and Bastila was supposed to be Vima Noomi Sunrider's daughter. At least I think I read something like that years ago,

Well can't fault them for not thinking big , though it hasn't got a hope in Hades of succeeding I find myself wishing it would do the impossible. I'd pop down south and visit it. If you're gonna try something impossible you might as well aim for the stars I say, my hat off to their bonkers scheme

I see DA:O as similar to say the alien movies, the Darkspawn are like the xenomorphs in being the antagonist, a implacable force of parasitic and alien horror, that can't be talked, reasoned with or fully understood, they aren't relatable but pure horrific and destructive threat (particularly with the alien being a rape metaphor adding to it's horror). Wheras the villains are Loghain, Howe and co in DA:O and the Company in the person of the android Ash and Burke in Alien and Aliens respectively, they are the relatable villian for main characters to contend and engage with, who have understable motives while the xenimorphs and also Darkspawn are the overall antagonist who are the overall threat that provides the context and drive for the situation the characters find themselves in and react to.

Then they could all be elves, or dwarves etc and so forth. I pick human because in appearance humans predominate (by far), but either way they function as a single species not many, they don't have different inherent natures in areas or approaches to things (they function, live, socialize, have families, houses and craft and think and have the same beliefs and traditions) as the predominate humans in game. They have no to little discernible ancestral differences with the humans. There is nothing which marks them out as a seperate species, they functionally aren't, there is just pkayer race species with tge sub-class in the orlans. And with even a single race/species I woukd hope there woukd be diversity in beliefs and worldviews but with the aopereance if different species it becomes more noticeable. Everyone has and shares the same essential worldview (with just shades of variation within that). While different abilities is nice that can be achieved with a single race/species from different lands (for example Elder Scrolls ganes different types of human or different types if elves have quite different bonus abilities). It doesn't require other species, just different areas and cultures in fantasy world, which again leaves me feeling the races are just purely cosmetic there for the player creator, and because they are in tge IE games but not even having the admittedly at times superficial reality and substance they even had there. They are just like masks thown on a few humans in the game to keep the masquerade going but have no reality (even superficial) in the world that there really is largely one player species with sub-species in the orlans. It just seems so pointless and a waste when if you wanted just cultures of a single species you coukd focused on that and made that more in depth, diverse and interesting, or developed interesting races, as it is I just see the races as meaningless with no substances who are there for the creator creator. What you describe is cultural assimilation (people who live generations together will eventually merge their cultures to one new culture), but if you actually read PoE's lore you will find that every race has different ancentsty (actually multiple different ancestries as races in different regions don't actually share that much same ancestry). And there are quite lot of things that points that races come from different species, like for example fact that they can't reproduce with other races, and if you look you will see that this fact has impact in how societies in Eora work. Also different cultures have different beliefs and in different cultures different races are the predominant race.Freepalantine of Dyrwood area where most of the game happens is predominantly populated by humans and second elves, because it is mainly populated by settlers from Aedyran Empire, which is mainly nation of meadow folk and wood elves. Second area where player gets in the game is Eir Glanfath territory where wood elves are predominat population seconded by wild orlans and thrided by heart orlans. Vallian Republics would be south from Free Palentine, but PC path never goes there, but it would be society where predominant race is ocean folk seconded by mountain dwarves. The Great Kingdom of Rauatai for example is described to be quite different of any of societies that you find in Dyrwood area, and their predominant race is coastal aumaua. And every single one of previously mentioned cultures have different dynamic between races (although only cultures in Dyrwood area are fleshed out fully, where other cultures have only general description how they work). It's been a day or two and I have a few points to respond to it seems. My problem is I don't actually see any indication of this impact, as you say the races are truly in a key way different species, they can't breed together, something that should help keep even in the most degree of assimilation of different species (not just people from different lands, whole other species, which come I assume distinct and different origins and different foundation histories, with actual species' distinctions which should create different fundamental mindsets, possibly biology and mental frameworks, social perceptions etc, very different belief and worldview structures) still be apparent in the different families and groups. Distinct aspects of each species ideas should have survived and flourished within the cultural assimilation (and would all species go with this down the centuries, would there be tensions, there are tensions just within one species, ours, from all sorts or quarters, from different cultures, worldviews, etc, once you through the kind of difference that a different species with a whole potential different and non-human mindset and outlook could bring, that becomes far more exaggerated and more interesting, but that isn't here). There should be some hints within the larger cultures of aspects belonging to each race both distinct and as part of the larger cultures but I don't see it, nothing the variations with the nature of each species effecting the societies as a whole, and no hint of different life, social and family dynamics or unique cultural patterns pertaining to a particularly race operating with different races within the larger society (even though as you say they can't interbreed, a biological distinction that keeps races distinct and limits family and kin groups to operating largely within each race despite the larger nations. That to me should have an aspect and impact on the world you could encounter, say even in a small scale, in a dwarven or elven family, something unique to their outlook, a unique mindset belonging that species and their life dynamics as opposed to another race. But they don't, there isn't anything I'm coming across, they think, function and operate just like the wider human population, they don't think differently, they don't function differently, there is nothing distinctive about them as species, they are humans essentially, just like everyone else. Even the differences in lifespans and not interbreeding which should cause distinctions in a living dynamic cultures doesn't have any actually feel of impact or reality in the setting for me. They have no substance in reality, they are just cosmetic here, replace each elf, dwarf etc with a human and nothing changes, at all. Make it one species, one race,and nothing changes at all. They are not functionally a different species, they are functionally human, and to me that being the case way not make them so, or bring what they have done a little with non-player races to bear into the player races and with either option expand on that rather than the path they did go done. While you do point out (which I have fully agreed with so far I think) that you have distinct cultures nothing in that relates to different species or seems to speak to them, they just different cultures with some slight adaptions in the cosmetic variations in those areas. Nothing of them is founded in or based on a species with a distinctly different mindset, nature or race specific ideas and the effect that has on relations to other races, it simple a variation of what could just be a human culture which despite those variations still shares the same mindset, overall worldview and culture as anyone else. The different beliefs suggested is something said by a few here but I'm afraid I don't get this point, perhaps as some suggest I am not subtle enough, well fair enough perhaps this game is just for such subtle of mind. But there is no real difference in worldview I'm seeing, people choose different gods perhaps, or seek to understand the world without following them but all pretty much accept and have within Eora history accepted not only that a pantheon of specific gods exist, as a series of distinct beings alongside other beings in reality, they are all agree on the same ones (even if they debate they real nature and some are not following any specific ones) little question not just one gods existence but on one believes a different understanding of reality. All believe in the same concept of souls, that there are souls, that souls or reincarnated, that all races share the same fate, and all share the same good, hold a view of overall values and the direction and intentionality of the direction of their lives that is identical. An Eothas worshiper shares the same worldview and Margan worshiper, they simple choose to value different aspects and values in that shared worldview of the other worshipers and choice the god who exemplifies this, they both agree an all the big questions, give the same answers to what reality is, what is wrong, what is needed to fix it, where they are going. They all share the same essential mindset and view of what reality is, the maintain no different is they social structures, how they lives function or what they value etc and so on. Much as for example in Greek antiquity you have people venerating specific gods within the larger pantheon, and having home gods in their houses, and while this sketch is simplified and does no real justice the complexity that operated there, all shared the same worldview, the same theological, philosophical and metaphysical view on the world and on reality, all thought as echoed in Homer death as a thing to be feared, to become a gibbering once person, that shadowy Hades they had to look forward to (before some began to advocate other concepts, but this still remained the major popular view for a long time). They shared the same values, the same basic reference points and so on. So the same is here to me, and nothing in this situations speaks or show distinctions that come from particular and unique species, what is distinct of an Adyran elf from and Adyran human, what is unique to their family structures, life, belief and mindset, what do they add that is unique and non-human. And what would change if they became human instead? To me not much I'm afraid. I also don't really either approach this world as an analogy for our own, for one thing, it really doesn't have anything like the massive differences in worldviews we have, and how those interact, adapt, discourse, conflict and live with and within a larger world. So I'm afraid I don't see the exact similarities there either. I'm not sure if I have managed to address each point, and I probably haven't responded that well or as well as I would have liked, as I'm slightly rushed . I do understand that most of you here seem to see a difference, and I glad you can, but while reading your responses they haven't really to me changed my perception that races are really not even truly superficial but are just cosmetic and largely the player creator. This will probably be my post since I feel I'm beginning to go around in circles, and I'm the only one here arguing from my end and trying to respond to everyone in one post is a bit frustrating. Perhaps that is an indication it is largely just me, but that is how I see the setting. Perhaps I am not subtle , but I'm glad that everyone else does see some distinction that just eludes me, but the above remains my personal conviction and view on this world as it stands. Perhaps future games will give the depth I hope for.

Then they could all be elves, or dwarves etc and so forth. I pick human because in appearance humans predominate (by far), but either way they function as a single species not many, they don't have different inherent natures in areas or approaches to things (they function, live, socialize, have families, houses and craft and think and have the same beliefs and traditions) as the predominate humans in game. They have no to little discernible ancestral differences with the humans. There is nothing which marks them out as a seperate species, they functionally aren't, there is just pkayer race species with tge sub-class in the orlans. And with even a single race/species I woukd hope there woukd be diversity in beliefs and worldviews but with the aopereance if different species it becomes more noticeable. Everyone has and shares the same essential worldview (with just shades of variation within that). While different abilities is nice that can be achieved with a single race/species from different lands (for example Elder Scrolls ganes different types of human or different types if elves have quite different bonus abilities). It doesn't require other species, just different areas and cultures in fantasy world, which again leaves me feeling the races are just purely cosmetic there for the player creator, and because they are in tge IE games but not even having the admittedly at times superficial reality and substance they even had there. They are just like masks thown on a few humans in the game to keep the masquerade going but have no reality (even superficial) in the world that there really is largely one player species with sub-species in the orlans. It just seems so pointless and a waste when if you wanted just cultures of a single species you coukd focused on that and made that more in depth, diverse and interesting, or developed interesting races, as it is I just see the races as meaningless with no substances who are there for the creator creator.

I think that's pretty much the point. Obsidian wanted to make a game in which the main fantasy races intermingled and created societies together, while adding in a few twists (the fact that they can't breed with each other, for example), the half-orcs equivalent weren't barbarians but a civilization of builders, etc. Orlans are much closer to Deep Gnomes in my opinion, with their art of warfare and somewhat xenophobic approach to life being born from generations of abuse from the bigger species.Which unfortunately has me thinking again what is the point of the player (the non-player a much better in this regard) races at all apart from character creator? They are non-existent past the surface, they are all human essentially without anything hinting at the lives of different species or of a mass culture formed off them. The cultures are essentially human outside (to an extent) orlans with nothing distinguishing elf, dwarf etc from humans around them at any level. I guess I don't see the point, why are they there at all when they really aren't if you see what I mean, since the cultures are essentially human why not just be all human then having some of the human cultures looking non-human but it being purely cosmetic and meaningless, non-existent beyond the surface, they are functionally human, in every way like the humans around them besides appearance. It seems just a waste and pointless. If that is the idea, just make them different human cultures, which they are essentially anyway.

The thing isn't that the races aren't a typical fantasy version of say an elf or dwarf, they could have done something completely different with them, or not had elves and dwarves etc and created could completely different and new races. The problem I get is there are no races, nothing distinct about the races or that distinguishes them at any level besides the visual one, a whole unique species and nothing unique or different. One of the advantages of a fantasy or sci-fi setting if you decide to include fantasy or alien races is you can be creative and bring whole new societies in which have distinctly different and exotic and non-human features you can get into (even if that is extension of human ideas ultimately it still creates vibrant and unique differences in world). Even the smallest touches make you feel you are among a non-human race which is unique and has unique aspects and features. That seems lacking here, as player1 says these are all human cultures in which some people seem inexplicably to occasionally look non-human but otherwise are just the same as all the other humans around them. There hasn't been anything beyond the surface unique to them at all I've come across, the races are superfluous and seem pointless and non-existent, having no reality outside the player creator. It feels like they should be just human cultures which I wouldn't mind (such as the Avadon games, Game of Thrones setting or others) and would be interesting but the races seem token and thrown is as something purely cosmetic. And this contrasts with some non-player races in the game such as ogres, xurips or valthack(? unsure if that us right spelling) the spider humanoids who did seem distinct and in some ways non-human aspects to their culture (or at least were exotic and distinct from the human cultures around them). The main ones just seem human cultures who also all share the same worldview and beliefs as each other essentially. I guess I would have desired more diversity and more of what they did with non-player races brought into the player races, or just gone the all human culture route.

That really isn't what I'm driving at, it's not that races in Dyrwood feel solidarity together against Aedyr and those in that empire, it us there is no distinctions at all beyond the surface, of what essentially different species, no hints of the major events that brought parts of different species together and happily formed these homogeneous whokes much somehow obliterated any apparent distinctions of what would logically be vastly different cultures and beliefs, languages etc, no hint of these distinctions at all. There are no actual layers I've seen much of, there really aren't races in it, they could all ve human and almost nothing would change in the setting apart from the orlans, there us nothing race specific at all. Aloth, Kana and Sagani could all human and it wouldn't change anything about them at all, ut just feels like races literally exist outside the cosmetic level, there is no depth or sense of reality to their presence in this world at all. It feels to just there to give the player race options but otherwise everyone is mostly really human in effect, the races seem largely pointess and illusionary.

I somewhat agree so far from my play through (though I haven't completed the game yet and haven't been to Twin Elms area yet) but it feels more the only distinctions comes from the areas they come from (say Adyer or Dyrwood etc) with it feeling irrelevant if they are humans, elves or dwarves, they seem to have the same culture, worldview and beliefs (and the total uniformity in worldview and belief options feels a bit odd with no variations I've encountered, no one has a different metaphysical concept of what soul means just the 'ghost in the machine concept, no other gods or afterlife beliefs etc, though given the concept driving that is understandable but creates a lack of diversity and concepts in the setting) . And I haven't felt anything or gone anywhere that seemed to show a elven, dwarven cultures or bow god-likes are in different races, with Sagani as much as I like her being defined from being a hunter-gatherer who could changed to human and it wouldn't effect anything. Perhaps it does avoid the races risking falling into typical territory but it doesn't really feel like their are different races in the game just human cultures with some looking like elves, dwarves auatuma etc for cosmetic effect (with orlans as you say feeling a bit more to their background but it doesn't feel enough). Maybe it gets better but as yet I have to agree, I don't feel the diversity of races yet (or anything distinct to the races, the could be all humans of that region and it wouldn't change anything from what I'm encountering at the moment).

Ah good news for the young would-be assassin population of Defiance Bay everywhere, though the undertakers business will slow done a little . But more seriously interesting information, after so many times it gets a little annoying when you just want to get from a to b.

I saved him and the Doemenel's didn't take it well (luckly I had already done the quest to sort out attacks on the Salty Marsh involving them) as that what my character would do. I've lost count of the amount of assassins I've killed with notes of the Doemenel's price on our heads including the women's fiancée. It's just become a thing now as I go through Defiance Bay 'oh, another group of would-be assassins to steam-roll' like annoying flies. The choice has it's own fun, but yeah you won't be working with the Doemenels without a workaround. Suffice to say, my PC isn't on the Doemenel's Christmas list

I attacked the guards from the bottom of the stairs which provoked everyone else around the throne to attack. Wasn't sure if Raedric himself was amongst the attackers till the end and he was one of the last there. I could guess a scripted event would happen that would end with my party badly positioned and semi-surrounded with my weaker members exposed when combat started, so I choose to initiate attack before that could happen and took them by surprise, with everyone positioned and ready. Wasn't to bad with that in place, just focused on locking down and killing the archmage and the priests and occupying and then killing the paladins and Raedric (as it turned out). I just hate when games have scripted events/cut scenes which take charge and have your character and party walk into an obvious trap or compromised position and you start in the fight from a bad position even when that outcome was obvious going in and yet there is nothing you do about it, the cut-scene forces take over and your characters get hit with the idiot ray (the ambush by Zevran and the Antivan Crows in DA:O always sticking out in my mind as a good example of this annoying phenomenon). At least here I was able to get around that and circumvent it which is a definite plus .

Because pick-your-favorite romances in Western RPGs have all been bad and didn't add anything interesting to the game. I'm probably going to regret jumping back in here, as I feel every discussion I've had in internet forums on this topic has the been the same discussion repeated ad nauseum to the point where you can predict what everyone is going to say from all sides in a neverending groundhog day. I remember kicking myself mentally a little for getting into thus thread last time, but I would say from the very fact of this neverending debate that this is the very point in dispute, since a not unsizable group believe that such romantic arcs have added something to rping, companion and companion interaction, PC and story possibilities and is something they have enjoyed in the mix with other features. And of course there are a sizable number who don't, but as the point in dispute it isn't agreed that all are bad. And with that hopefully I'll escape this debate at last and remember to just get on and enjoy what I enjoy and let people get back to enjoying what they enjoy .

As a few have suggested above a game is being developed with your desire in mind, Sword Coast Legends, with a full online DM setting that looks interesting (though I'm hoping the single player content will be good as I never find groups to enjoy a proper campaign with, and for all it's restrictions I don't have the self-conscious in RPing when other people are involved (trading in one kind of freedom for another I guess). Some companions look interesting, and it seems exactly what you are looking for, so you might as well take a look rather than pushing to much for PoE to be adapted for NWN multiplayer (there are things I would have preferred to be in PoE and sone things I'm not to hot about in the setting but I don't think it's likely to change and I wouldn't want the developers to change things because they felt they had ti or were pressured by some segment of the fan/customer base to do so, it isn't entirely the game I was hoping for but that's my fault for not looking deeper into things about the game, but I'm still enjoying it for what it is and think it's a really good game and don't regret buying it). After all, even if future PoE had multi-player it would unlikely be as extensive as you would wish, but such development and resources would have vary effects on single-player so neither group of fans would be completely happy with the outcome. Anyway here is a link to the Sword Coast Legends webpage: https://swordcoast.com/aboutswordcoast.com/about.

Um, I have had one or two games that had issues which were result of corrupted and improperly installed files which those of which were steam games were solved in the manner Marky describes (Skyrim being one). They still ran, but this can be a cause of problems, which doesn't involve the game not running. If you haven't experienced it I'm glad but it's not that uncommon either. And while it's possible Dalhara here is just determined to keep pressing the wrong mouse button and just adamantly refusing to press any other, consistently on and on, even after been suggested it's an issue. However given the posters clear desire to be able play the game and quite open willingness to try more strong measures the idea that they would refuse to stop pressing the wrong mouse key after it has been suggested when such a thing would both cause an obvious 'ahh, that's what I'm doing wrong, how could I be so daft' (and would be something that would have been attempted or thought of earlier) and something easy to try (then allot of other suggestions) giving their apparent open willingness to try all solutions seems very improbable and to strain credulity for me. So I do think something is corrupted in the files or improperly installed as the more likely and probably of those two hypotheses. So I prefer to trust the person's account rather then go to they are just playing wrong and refuse to admit it, particularly when their behaviour and attitude and what they describe all seem to make that kind of daft stubbornness you suggest highly improbable to me. As such I prefer to trust them.

Well I can't speak to the other issues but when I first got the game I had something similar happen to my save games, having established to characters while figuring which one to focus on in my first playthrough and got to Gilded Vale and was going through the Eothosian temple dungeon when they just disappeared and was frustrating, I created new characters and re-played it while making sure to copy my saves elsewhere. Then one day those saves were gone and the old ones restored, follows eventually but all saves finally showing. Since 1.03 patch it hasn't happened again so I'm sorry if that is still happening for you. It was frustrating for me. I'm sorry you've got to the point of having to delete a game you otherwise would love to play, and just wanted to let you know that you aren't the only one to experience at least some of those issues you listed so it's likely you are not alone on other issues. I certainly don't think it's just because you are doing something wrong, not after this time, so I hope you don't end up thinking that. Sometimes rare and odd glitches do happen on a particular PC and setup. The only thing I can think now if you still wish to persevere is a complete uninstall and delete followed by a clean re-download and install and re-downloading the latest patch in case anything in the first ones got corrupted.

It is not like they released a new game, however. It's just modernizing it a bit, the amount of work is incomparable to creating a game like BG2 from a scratch. I'm sure both BG2EE and IWDEE were profitable compared to the amount of work they needed. Considering that they had to rewrite the engine from scratch (and a good chunk of the original code (like the Icewind Dale Expansion scripting) was lost and had to be redone), there's probably a lot more work put into it than you might think. Not as much as PoE or the other games on this list, but still. I did heard that Beamdog considered them a success (especially taking the mobile sales into account). Indeed as you say they consider the EE games a success, and that they felt they did quite well in the tablet/mobile area (which sales steam doesn't take account of, besides PC versions sold directly from Beamdog or GOG etc).

I do agree with you regarding the dialogues. Personally I like voice acting if it is good and doesn't interfere too much with the dialogue (or rather the writing thereof), whether it is fully voiced like DA:O or only partially like PoE or Baldur's Gate. On the other hand Bioware's specialty are hero-saves-the-nation/world/planet/galaxy games, they have always been like that, and they moved towards a more cinematic display of these stories even before they were acquired by EA. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Bio has created a bunch of hits and a bunch of misses in terms of plot quality, but they almost always were told really well and set in excellently crafted settings. Sometimes the telling of the barest thread of a storyline is so great that you almost don't notice it. Like Mass Effect 2, which is essentially DA:O in space (just without the gathering the army part, that was rehashed in the third one). I remember one of the Bio docs (before they left) at the launch of DA:O he constrasted the use of the unvoiced silent protaganist with full dialogue in DA:O with the voiced character and dialogue wheel of the Mass Effect games as facilitating 1st person role-playing and 3rd person role-playing respectively. The system in Mass Effect with voiced character, the wheel etc (or other versions only giving you a sense of what the protagonist would say such as Witcher 2 - haven't played Witcher 3 yet as my current PC can't handle it) works well with a more or less established character created by the game developers such as Shepherd (male or female is largely irrelevant outside some different romance possibilities, it is still the same character) or Geralt which the player then plays and guides as opposed to a role in which the player creates their own character to fill a role and acts the role directly in a 1st person manner, one which a silent protagonist with unvoiced dialogue suits better. It depends on what the game is going for though I usually prefer 1st person role-playing and so the silent PC with full dialogue options.

I will say there are a few others that can fall into these lines, Morrigan in DA:O excluding a DLC change later (which though rushed, incomplete and not great did keep that choice and outcome ambiguous for both the Warden in question and Morrigan, they end together but go into an unknown and dangerous situation with potential tragedy surrounding the ending , but the DLC was rushed and half-finished, when things started to go bad for the DA franchise) fits this theme in all base game endings. You won't end up with her, and behind and within the potential romance is the reason she joined you in the first place, and the conflict of her duty and aims to rescue the draconic old god power and her feelings for the Warden. No matter what she stays loyal to that commitment and depending how you play it out that ulterior motive can be a kind of betrayal even your character might understand. And if you refuse the dark ritual she leaves and if you accept she only stays till end of the battle, either way the relationship is sacrificed to mysterious and ambiguous motives (which while it can save the Warden, Alistair or Loghain will have unknown consequences for everyone potentially and might lead to something as bad as the Blight or might not, you just don't know) and consequences, and the relationship is over and she leaves you to pursue that agenda and raise the child (either way) alone and unknown to the Warden. So it's a romance overshadowed by the ulterior purpose she had and was using you for despite the fact it might help you live, ends with ambiguity and tragedy even with the most 'positive' ending, painful for both involved since Morrigan didn't expect to love you, didn't want it and wasn't prepared for it. And if you reject the dark ritual she leaves, the Warden can then die and she is recorded seen alone in the wilderness pursuing her mysterious goals raising the child of the Warden by herself. So that romance never ends 'well' and has conflicts with other duties and motives woven into it and lovers divided by different loyalties and agendas and which can end in tragedy, but none have a happy ending as such. In KOTOR if you were male and romanced Bastila she can be the final reason or push that can pull the PC back under the influence of the dark side (which then involves murdering Mission or forcing Zelbar her longtime friend to do it for you due to manipulating his Wookie life debt and Force persuasion at Bastila's encouragement) or in staying loyal to the Jedi if you can't persuade her back (or just don't believe she can be or are to hurt or angry with her) you end up having to kill the woman your PC loves to win the battle and save the Republic, which is particularly poignant given it was her connection to to the PC which opened and made her vulnerable to the dark side and the fate that befell her in the first place. And from what I remember from NWN Hordes of the Underdark with both Nathyrra or Aribeth *edit or Valen forgot about him * (and the other companions) it is possible at the end for them to be seduced and dominated by the Arch-Devil Mephistopheles and you'll have to kill them (and more mundanely you can end up with them just not feeling that way about you and thinking of you as a friend). And then there is Viconia from BG2, in choosing you (definitely if it's your PC is good or a least leaning mote that way) she pays the price for that visibility and making her rejection of Lolth so noticeable by being murdered and the Bhaalspawn and their son end up in a hopeless war of vengeance against Lolth in the epilogue. And that always has a tragic ending at least for good aligned PCs where Viconia shifts her alignment from neutral evil to true neutral as a result of her character development and growth as a result of the romance.

I'm reminded of a quote from JRR Tolkien from his poem Sir Orfeo in 'of all the things that men pay head, tis of love they sing indeed'

I agree about the companions seeming to lack depth, and I feel for me this is due to limited companion interaction, there is little means I've come across to find emotional depth and relationship (positive or negative) friendship, emnity or just professional indifference, and not to much that makes them stick out or memorable as say characters in BG series, PS:T, DA:O or KOTOR 1 and 2, NWN Hordes of the Underdark or NWN 2 Mask of the Betrayer. Those games have something in presenting characters, and (with BG series 2 onwards or NPC project mod for BG1) more indepth companion interaction with tge ability to establish and develop the sense of your PC's relationship with their companions that feels lacking in PoE, where there seems to little of thus for me. In terms of budget I am thinking at the moment that Spiderwebs Avadon games offer more indepth character interaction and the ability to establish relationship dynamics between the PC and their companions, with a sense of who the companions were, what drives them, their relationship with the PC, motives, loyalties and agendas (and they were even lower budget titles then PoE). With the companiobs of PoE I see hints of interesting characters that occasionally come into the light but it's hard getting to them or getting a feel for them, with extended discussions when they do happen feeling as others have said, like lore dumps not interacting with actual characters and not offering many chances to establish and build relationships and relational dynamics. I don't really have a sense yet of what they are to my PC or my PC to them, and am still struggling to figure out why some companions are following my PC though hell and highwater into the most dangerous situations why there doesn't seem to be a sense of strong friendship, and it doesn't seem to serve what I can about their characters and motives. There are reason no doubt but it isn't coming across due to the limited interaction I think, at least not for me, perhaps others have a different experience. I understand this is a first game and they had allot to focus on but improving character presentation, interaction and relational events and dialogue and dynamics with more PR opportunities and develop there I would desire, with nore range of relational dynamics that is more varied and diverse, friendships, mentor relationship (thinking of Kreia in KOTOR 2), rivalries and for me to have romances as part of companion arcs and RP opportunities, though that I think is more s distant wish from what I gather from the developers stance. Also more meaningful stronghold that doesn't feel tacked on but is more part of the narrative, has more impact to you suddenly owning a keep and lands with more reactivity (Crossroad Keep from NWN2 and Amirinthine Keep from DA:O Awakenings come to mind, with the BG2 doing some elements here better for me). Either that or cut the stronghold concept out altogether as I find I'm largely ignoring it atm. Those are things I will look out for in future releases as I guess they are part of what I prioritize in RPG games (I'm not a power-gamer and am not big on figuring out all the ins and outs of an RPG system to optimize my group but am more RP focused I guess, but then I never play above hard abd usually on normal because if that).