McMayhem

From a personal standpoint, I muted voice pretty much from the start. I could never get used to hearing the voices and then having to go back and read the exposition. It's weird to hear a character say something first, and then read that they were tapping the floor impatiently with their foot while saying it after the fact. For some reason, this didn't bother me much in PS:T, which was wrought with exposition in-between the dialogue lines. I have no idea why it bothers me in PoE when it didn't there, but alas, I don't feel less entertained by the story or dialogue in spite of it. Honestly, as the poster above me said, I would much much rather you guys go nuts with your creativity than to feel stifled into a corner by a voice acting budget. The SAG/AFTRA people are horrendous in how they charge for contracts. They're perfectly fine having a tiered contract system for independent films by budget category, but video games all have the same flat rate. The contract cost for a <$150,000 budget indie game is the same as Blizzard. Mandatory 4 hour minimum wage pay, plus benefits, plus paying into the union's pension. Great system, those unions. Really help the little guy out, don't they?

Since never. OP: You can't miss something that was never there. They clearly advertised this game as homage to the cRPGs of old. Cast # has always been part of that system rather than mana. I used to hate it too, because I had come from games like Ultima Underworld and Might & Magic where mana was very much a thing. I also used to hate THAC0 scores and Armor Class before I understood how they worked. Once you figure things out, it isn't that much of a hindrance. It's actually quite fun to have to make strategic what spells might be important on your next journey. It's part of the genre. Criticizing it is a bit like criticizing an RTS for not being first person.

If they explain their stretch goals, and you keep giving them money... yea.

It doesn't so much have to do with Unity or the efforts in creating the tools to mod the game. The big issue comes with the licenses for plugins that they use in the game. Back in the days of NWN1, Bioware pretty much did everything themselves (except for some codec plugins) so they didn't have to worry about the licensing issues. Now, however, developers who use external plugins like WWISE or FMOD have to buy a per-game license that extends only to their team. In order to allow the community access to these tools, they would have to buy another license that would allow them to do that, which would cost a lot of money. Instead, they chose a similar option to Kotor2 and just left the files as accessible as possible. Still, a modding forum at the very least would be nice. It really isn't that difficult to do and there has already been a number of community members who support such an idea.

Let's not forget the current status of consumers today. Look back at all the "Holy crap, I have to actually read?!?" posts from a while back and you will see that most of today's gamers can barely keep their concentration focused for one act, let alone a full game.

Hahahahahaha ! Comedy ! If Pillars of Eternity is so big to you, I wonder what is your favorite RPG ? Some post-2006 trash? Ahahahh You are by far the weakest troll in these forums. At least make some kind of effort. I wince every time I see you cry "Anal rape!" in the countless threads you start. For someone who hates the game so much, you spend an inordinate amount of time riding it hard. Yes, that was a euphemism.

How weird. I was literally just prescribed Vyvanse this morning to replace my Focalin. Oh, this thread is stupid, but gosh! What are the chances?

Does this matter? Do transgender people somehow magically have more valuable opinions than other people? I get where you're coming from, but this logic is ridiculous. It creates an environment where some people are listened to and others are not, AKA the exact sort of discrimination you claim to be fighting. Secondly, it also makes this very ignorant assumption that transgender people are somehow universally unified in their opinions on matters and are not unique human beings with unique perspectives and stances on things. Furthermore I can introduce you to a transgender person who couldn't give two ****s about this whole issue. He plays lobbies on TF2Center, a well known community for the game TF2. This might also surprise you, but he doesn't proceed to cry or go ballistic if people call him "he" or "she" or "magic pony" either. You don't think there is any relevance to a joke targeting a particular minority group and asking people from that minority if they find it offensive\hurtful Do you think the best people to decide if certain jokes\comments are offensive are white, heterosexual males ? And no that doesn't mean that other people can't comment but surly the actual minority group targeted has more credibility ? The second line of this is a blatant strawman and is exactly the kind of hysterical bull**** I'm talking about. There's no reason for this. I'll tell you what Bruce, I'll let you solve that mystery on your own since the answer to that question is apparently so difficult to figure out yourself. My point was that if we were to do things your way and only value transgender opinion, guess what would happen? A lot of valid opinions would be completely weeded out solely because the people who had them weren't allowed to voice those opinions. Meanwhile, the transgender community would likely be split on the issue just as much as the community as a whole is, because no group is unified in it's beliefs or opinions. Lastly, it creates a problem where theoretically a minority group could use it's complete and total power of opinion on a subject matter to get all sorts of things done. Not to imply that would realistically happen, but to highlight how flawed this manner of thinking is. If for example a state is electing a senator, one is transgender and the other is not, and the transgender community of that state is claiming the opponent is transphobic and no one is allowed to comment on the matter except for the transgender community, well then guess who has all the tools they need to become senator; hell **** that, they can run for president. A theoretical of course, but that doesn't make it any less flawed. Personally though, again I'm more interested in the needlessly inflammatory statements and accusations that are being insisted upon. There's no reason to make statements like "men are the oppressors," nor is there any reason to even ask if I think only white men should comment on things. And yet you do it. Tell me Bruce, are you an adult or are you a gossip queen in middle school? I'd just like to say that you've handled yourself very well throughout all the inflammatory comments hurled in your direction. That being said, I would suggest that you stay away from this thread for the time being. You've essentially been marked by some of these people as an easy outlet for their aggression. You see, they aren't actually mad at you, they are mad at someone else, either the one who started the limerick or the one who made a fuss about it, and you just happen to be conveniently located right here. So they use you as a proxy to say all the things they want to say to the respective parties. Because of this fact, no amount of logic (and you have done an exceedingly good job of using it) you use will be effective. I'd assume most of them are just reading the first few sentences or so of your replies and then creating a new emotional storm based on that, and that's if you're lucky. Either way, you're opinions are perfectly valid, and I think you do bring a fresh perspective to this argument. And for the others out there that need validation, this statement is coming from a flagrant homo, that's me for those keeping score. So yes, my opinion is valid even under your ridiculous frame of pseudo-logic.

I'm wondering the same cause wtf all I wanted to do was make a simple statement and nothing more and I feel like people are trying to assign me to a side or something based on that alone. THAAAANK YOU This happens to me all the time and it is infuriating. That being said. Welcome to the lovely social discourse that is internet discussions

This is a 100% genuine and non-snarky question, as I really am interested in this: OP - Would you say that a mature game with a swear/gore filter option included would make you more likely to purchase said game? I know a few people who feel this way and I'm interested to see if it's a more common notion than I thought.

I don't quite see how citing completely different people with completely different writing styles furthers this discussion. They're mere examples that show it can happen, which I never said it couldn't. I never even said "Obsidian agrees with the philosophy of Caesar's Legion because they wrote it." I expressed surprise at how quickly they went against a philosophy they've actively opted to explore at least thrice in a row now, and one that Avellone has openly expressed admiration and approval for. (Ulysses) I never even said "they've opted to do this, so that's how they think." I said "they've opted to explore this, so I kinda expected a bit more reflection on the topic before making a decision." I gotta say I just feel like I'm being strawman'ed really hard right now and like my claims got exaggerated to lengths they were never even close to. :U You very well may be. These discussions so often deteriorate into that kind of nastiness. As to your surprise, I think a lot of people (mainly here on the forums) lack an understanding of just how political business politics can be. It's very possible that Avellone didn't have a chance to weigh in on the decision, or that he was against it but just let it happen. He's not constantly pulling all the strings where decision making is concerned.

If I've understood this correctly, you seem to have this confused. Death of the author is advocacy to disassociate the author from the creation, which I'm doing the opposite of. I understand and appreciate where you're coming from. Although, I would disagree that painting certain characters in a neutral light would suggest that MCA has personal ties to those moral standards. He usually depicts his worlds in such a way that defies the concept of concrete morality. IE: You are pure evil! I am pure good! He humanizes his characters even when they are the perceived "villains." That's why his games tend to have more of a focus on "reputation" than "morality." The word morality is often misused in RPGs to define what people think of you. In the end, that's all it really is. That being said, it would be hypocritical for me to interject what I believe MCA's beliefs are on this matter. However, from the conversations I've had with him, he's always come off as a well rounded, polite individual.

Can you conspiracy theorists please recede to your respective bomb shelters? It just looks really bad when you claim that the SJWs whine too much, and then proceed to create countless threads about a single, minuscule event that really didn't have any effect on the overall game. This takes kicking a dead horse to a new level. You've used your necromancy powers to resurrect the dead horse, just so you can beat it again. Is there really anything else to discuss? Are there any additional points of view that need to be raised? Or are you merely taking advantage of the fact that Obsidian won't auto-close threads that condemn them for hating freedom? : /

The question mark. Are you unsure?

Anita Sarkeesian is mostly full of crap. I don’t see how anyone can debate that fact. Can the game industry as a whole do a better job of female representation? Sure, in some areas there can be better representation. Should we hold developers hostage to ensure that goal is reached? Absolutely not. The thing about this debate that irks the hell out of me from the feminist perspective is that the word equality is used when the actual notion they seem to be reaching for is superiority. Women should be able to serve in combat, hold high positions in jobs, and be given the same respect in public discourse as men. But violence against women is NEVER okay. Violence against men? Eh… That isn’t equality at all. Wanting to have all the positive aspects but none of the negative ones is superiority, not equality. This kind of logical fissure is seen by most of us on both sides of this argument. However, the left-wing hate machine has such a tight vice over this issue, that a true discussion just can’t be had at the moment. When it comes to game development, my philosophy is this: If a change to a character would better suit the story, do it. If a change is desired to appease a group or avoid confrontation, don’t do it. The second you start moderating creativity, creativity dies. In some ways, I think the desired representation by these groups sponsor a philosophy that is much more prejudice than the one they are trying to fight against. Take the damsel in distress example. According to the feminist perspective, it is unacceptable for any woman character to be in any way weak or fragile. This imposes a notion that all women must be strong, and any women who do not fall into that category are somehow less valuable than the others. There is a particular scene in “Crash” that really pisses me off. Tony Danza’s character is a director and one of the characters in his movie is black. Danza’s character want’s the character to speak with a hood-like slang. He is demonized for this and is portrayed as the evil white man seeking to devalue black people as a whole. This again puts up the premise that black people who do use this diction are wrong to do so, less than human. These perspectives are lost however, amidst the colossal sh*tstorm that is the political and social discussion at the moment. Until we are willing to give voice to everyone and not just the minorities, nothing will be achieved.