algroth

I think people sometimes forget that we have one underneath all those clothes. WHAT?!

Been trying to digitalize my grandfather's films and pictures, and "restore" them as best I can. Here's a few tests I've made on some of his slides (first without colour correction, second with)...

Nah, much more Neutral Evil, opportunistic and cruel when necessary. I never really could relate to Tanar'ri. Opportunistic sounds like a very Tanar'ri thing. I can relate to some extent with the Tanar'ri myself, more than Baatezu, or at least did in previous D&D editions (before they made all Tanar'ri be feral incarnations of violence and so on). My personal take on them was that they often appealed to the passionate, emotional and instinctive desires in mortals, and tried to have these commit atrocities by essentially breaking down and giving in to the worse side of their base nature, whereas the Baatezu were a lot more about the systemic evil, oppression through the structures of power and law and so on, where mortals would be forced into evil through authority, the classic "I was only following orders" sort, and where the trick was especially to bind mortals into a system (by means of a contract for example) that would force them into doing something unforgivable. Both are very interesting though, and I hate how future D&D editions really ruined this dichotomy. But anyhow, I digress, carry on. I would consider myself as lawful neutral. As scientist I like rules and order. So I never play chaotic evil chars. Killing and plundering just for the sake of it does not make any sense to me ( OK, the sense is that it does not make sense. That is another reason why I dislike Wael in PoE ). I think that if you want to achieve something you have do some planning and act systematically. I can imagine playing a lawful evil char. Somebody who thinks mostly about his own benefit, but who is very good in the use of contracts and laws and uses such things to gain an advantage over others. Extreme example: The king has given a reward for finding somebody, but the text does not tell clearly if he wants him dead or alive. My group has found and sourrounded the wanted person. I say: " If you surrender, I promise that I will not kill you." The person puts down his weapons. I say to my companion: "You kill him because I have promised not to do it. Let us keep his belongings and bring his head to the king. A head is easier to transport than a full body and a dead prisoner does not try to escape. This saves us the trouble of guarding and feeding him." Edit: For a good ending, the prisoner should have insisted that I promise: " If you surrender, I promise that my group will bring you to the king alive and well and you may also keep your belongings." The person is an idiot if he stands before several armed man and think he can stay alive when only one of them promises that this one will not kill him. Well, I don't think "chaotic evil" necessarily implies or limits itself to senseless killing and plundering, and that is precisely my disagreement with the post-Blood War D&D editions. I have played a couple of chaotic evil characters before in some roleplays and what I did personally was to instigate parties to one another by means of appealing to their passions or their greed or so on. I made *other* people kill and plunder by manipulating them into doing so, while I raked in the benefits of the situation. As a DM I once had a paladin character deal rather extensively with a glabrezu, and rather than have him be a bloodthirsty beast I interpreted him as wanting to manipulate the paladin into a hineous, rage-induced deed, precisely because I interpreted the demon as believing that at their basest all mortals were evil and wanted to prove as much with one who's a standard-bearer for lawfulness and good and piety and so on. From a personal perspective I obviously don't believe humans are inherently evil, but I do believe humans are inherently irrational creatures and that we have to accept that not everything is regimented by strict rules. The "truth" such as we are able to access it isn't a single unchanging, utterly material thing, and to me every individual is inherently syncretic and that syncretism does lead to clashing beliefs and arguments, jarring and nonsensical ideological hybrids and so on all within the very same person. I also usually think myself an anarchist and value the individual's power over that of the state or system's, but I don't think that necessarily means I promote chaos as there is order, albeit non-centralized, horizontal order, to be found within an anarchist model. Generally I reckon my views are more akin to neutral good though I take my actions are probably more lawful/true neutral instead.

I tend to play more fantasy RPGs than I do sci-fi ones myself but don't mind either way. I reckon that what with both Deadfire and the Cainarsky project currently in development, perhaps we'll not see a new crowdfunding campaign until after Deadfire and its DLCs are released, and the team is free to work on a new project. That, and if they decide to crowdfund a new series I reckon that like Deadfire they'll likely want to add some tangible proof of concept to the pitch and so it'd come a few months into development and so on. I also recall a rumour or idea flying about a year or so back regarding Obsidian wanting to acquire the rights for Dune. If I recall correctly Feargus mentioned something about it in the Deadfire Fig campaign closer stream, but more as an "I'd like to do this" than "we're *doing* this". Nothing new since however, so I reckon a rumour or fancy is all it was in the end. Still, that would also be nice to see.

Agreed. If I want computer nudity I watch Porn on my phone. Do tell us more.

Nah, much more Neutral Evil, opportunistic and cruel when necessary. I never really could relate to Tanar'ri. Opportunistic sounds like a very Tanar'ri thing. I can relate to some extent with the Tanar'ri myself, more than Baatezu, or at least did in previous D&D editions (before they made all Tanar'ri be feral incarnations of violence and so on). My personal take on them was that they often appealed to the passionate, emotional and instinctive desires in mortals, and tried to have these commit atrocities by essentially breaking down and giving in to the worse side of their base nature, whereas the Baatezu were a lot more about the systemic evil, oppression through the structures of power and law and so on, where mortals would be forced into evil through authority, the classic "I was only following orders" sort, and where the trick was especially to bind mortals into a system (by means of a contract for example) that would force them into doing something unforgivable. Both are very interesting though, and I hate how future D&D editions really ruined this dichotomy. But anyhow, I digress, carry on.

I suspect that, like the first game, morality will be less clearly defined with each character and will really be about what you do and how you resolve the characters' arcs that will mark them in some light or other. Being a pirate, Serafen for example could be regarded as an "evil" character but perhaps the way in which you approach piracy and direct his actions may make him more ruthless or more of a vigilante if all you do is target other pirate ships and satisfy Serafen's desires for plunder in that manner.

It's not really a question of whether nudity enhances or benefits the game, I think it's simply an extension of what is being shown or told - for example, we'll be able to explore a bathhouse in Neketaka, so it makes sense that in it we might see naked people. I don't think nudity is there as a "feature" or anything remotely similar so as to discuss it in terms of a "beneft" or "detriment" it may present.

He's achieved the, reasonably, impressive feat of being the second person on my ignore list. Yeah, I think that's a wise thing to do.

Edit: Meh, I'm not getting into this. As I said on the other thread.

My favorite out of which you mention was Planecape Torment and that is probably only because it dared to push boundries in what was allowed on gaming whether it was about death or love, (shock value) making it unique among any rpg sub-genre. The others were generally pale in comparison if I were being honest. None of the games had terribly great writing, despite nostalgic fans crediting BG2 and PST having some if the greatest stories of all time.Given what I've seen you credit as "great writing" in the past, I'll take this as high praise.So, as I thought, resort to petty insults because there's no argument. By the way, can you tell me what I've credited as good writing and how I'm wrong I would discuss the matter in further detail if I thought it was worth the discussion, i.e. if I thought you were seriously defending the argument and not whoring for attention by means of posting deliberately incendiary and contrarian arguments (which are likewise rife of false assumptions, incorrect terminology, blanket statements and so on), and then acting like you're the victim of a spiteful board when called upon these. Your shtick runs very thin very fast, Sonic. But for the sake of offering a half-measure to your question, here's a pretty good video on the writing of Planescape: Torment:

I don't mind that, that's what opinions are for. And I don't think it's really a binary option at all, a sort of either/or where we won't see eye to eye no matter what. As far as I'm concerned the approach to the first game worked really well for that game, and for that setting, or at least for parts of it. I wouldn't mind a change in approach to the battle music for one, or even for the rest of the music to best reflect on a colonist setting opposite to a classic European one as it was in the first game. To that effect I think there are some really interesting artists like Toru Takemitsu, Steve Roach, Geinoh Yamashirogumi and so on who have worked a fair bit with blending styles such as taiko and gamelan with modern classical, ambient and so on and they could be interesting sources from which to get ideas for Pillars' soundtrack, even if I also feel that their particular tone and aesthetic isn't a complete match with the game's own (on the subject of Steve Roach and Geinoh Yamashirogumi I do feel both of them are some manner of root for the score to Mask of the Betrayer, and whilst it worked really well in that specific context you can see how such music would be very at odds with the feel Pillars is going for). I would like the game to follow a similar aesthetic principle as the first when it comes to music, but I don't mind change either and can see how it would better serve the setting and certain parts of the music that I felt really suffered in the first game (again, see the combat music for example). I only oppose to using The Witcher 3 as some gold standard to which Pillars should aim for, as I think it neither aligns itself with what the aesthetic intentions behind Pillars are, nor do I find it particularly good or worth discussing in such light. But again, opinions.

Maybe they do. Far as I'm concerned, the Witcher 3 soundtrack feels the same as any other, regardless of "inspiration" (which can mean very little when it comes to defining the end product).

Darren Korb and Ashley Barret is so ahead of the curve when it comes to rpg ost that I don't even think of their material as video game soundtrack but as actual artist soundtrack. There's nothing in the industry that's on that level, maybe that's because rpg's are mainly orcestra and Supergiant's stuff is written, composed and sang all by the artists themselves. Darren Korb is only "ahead of the curve" in whatever fantasy 2004 he still inhabits where post-rock is still the bee's knees. By the time Transistor came out his approach was so old-hat and ham-fisted it had me merely sighing in exasperation at its own pretentions of artistry, driven further by the August Rush syndrome running throughout the game where this complete personality void of a singer warbles across these generic, hook-less post-rock tracks and we the players are supposed to accept that as proof of her "genius". Ugh. His work on Bastion is better, but yeah, "ahead of the curve" he ain't. I don't even know what "actual artist soundtrack" is meant to mean.

My favorite out of which you mention was Planecape Torment and that is probably only because it dared to push boundries in what was allowed on gaming whether it was about death or love, (shock value) making it unique among any rpg sub-genre. The others were generally pale in comparison if I were being honest. None of the games had terribly great writing, despite nostalgic fans crediting BG2 and PST having some if the greatest stories of all time. Given what I've seen you credit as "great writing" in the past, I'll take this as high praise.

Yes, I have them. They don't fall within your blanket statement, however.

Judging by his avatar, he probably just wants to play a barbarian as properly intended.

No? Some are good, some are bad. Just like any feature in a game can be good or bad. But most of it comes down to subjective opinions. So I'm sure you haven't enjoyed any, but a lot of other gamers have in fact enjoyed a lot of different romances in different games (not just in RPG:s). I for one, is looking forward to the different relationships in Deadfire. It will be interesting to see Obsidian's take on it. They have a lot of new writers so I think/hope Carrie, Kate, etc. will raise the bar in this case. I've played many rpg's over the years, none of which had well wtitten or meaningful romances. However, I've played other genres of games which romamces were treated respectively and avtually had some point and a real affect on the story. Planescape: Torment? Mask of the Betrayer? Viconia's in Baldur's Gate II?

Much as I love Trane and Gillespie (and jazz in general) I don't think I could play that music through my playthrough - I just find it a tad jarring with the mood and tone of the actual game. There used to be a time when I did play through most of my games with the soundtrack muted and playing my own music in the back but in the last decade or so I've mostly reverted to listening to the game's score whilst playing it instead, as it usually leads to more of a cohesive experience. But it's certainly worth having the option to mute the score if one so happens to prefer different music.

See, I was playing both The Witcher 3 and Pillars simultaneously last month, and I can't count the number of times I praised Pillars' soundtrack over The Witcher 3's myself. Far as I'm concerned, battle music aside Pillars' soundtrack has a very subtle and almost chamber-like feel to it, it is evocative in a very muted and effortless manner, it feels like the real thing, whereas to my ears The Witcher 3 is thoroughly obvious and hamfisted in its attempts to evoke a tense or epic or nostalgic atmosphere, like the music will thoroughly dictate what the tone of a region or scene will be. To me The Witcher 3 feels amorphous and wishiwashy in the same way so many other soundtracks today do, enamoured by the idea of drones and ambients but never having quite the balls or the grit to be like the better examples of the style, by ways of the likes of Natural Snow Buildings or various neo-folk acts for example. It's not terrible, but it's painfully standard AAA videogame soundtrack fare. In Pillars' case I can actually recall most of the melodies and motifs quite clearly in mind, and thanks to their more relaxed and subtle approach the atmosphere they help to evoke is a lot more nuanced and interesting. Personally I will say that I'd also much rather see more of the feel of the Defiance Bay and wilderness area tracks throughout the game, over the brasher, louder and far less interesting battle music or, for that matter, the sub-Lord of the Rings style they went with the Caed Nua theme. Precisely my concerns, given the latest trailer, is that they'll go for a more obviously epic style this time around and thus undermine what made the better half of the first game's soundtrack work so well.

Exactly. It was very nondescript and generic twaddle. Here's hoping it's not indicative of the game's soundtrack. Edit: So apparently it's not. Whew. Here's the song used on the trailer and where it comes from:

Sonic: So why do people play in hardest difficulty? Is it a pride thing? The forum: It's because a greater challenge is more fun. Sonic: Oh okay, so it's a pride thing. The forum: ...

Not enough rape though. In all seriousness, however, what little I've heard of the songs have made me want to gouge my eardrums. Really awful tripe.

> Her appearance is maybe the worst. Wow, so ugly. Are you for real. She's as cute as a button. That's a fan edit. This is the actual Ydwin portrait: You think I don't know that? That is the entire point I'm trying to make to this guy... I literally linked to that fan edit in my response to him but clearly he didn't get it. No worries, I've seen you link the above pic a few times before so I wasn't entirely sure if you were confused about it or not. Thought I should clarify just in case.

You use Dragon Age: Origins as an example which is the only post-KOTOR BioWare I've played... And this isn't my experience at all. I found that the romances in that game only really involved playing to their ego, giving gifts, and if you were the right sex and had enough influence the characters would immediately start to react in a more romantic fashion towards you, with little buildup or owt leading to such a relationship. That is a stark contrast with the likes of Viconia for example, who has several ways in which you can screw up your romance with her and who really only falls for you if she deems you "worthy" of that relationship - there is a conflict of interests at play, she doesn't just want a yes man to compliment her every word, she seems to go out of her way to figure out *if* you are a good match for her before she even attempts to "romance" you, and all this makes her a far more compelling and fully realized romantic interest than any in Dragon Age: Origins. Anyhow, just my experience with the "BioWare romance" topic. I'm not however blind to the fact that the other romances are pretty poor indeed. And to paraphrase Noah Caldwell-Gervais on the matter, say what you will about modern BioWare games and "romances" but the alternative to them used to be three varied female characters for male characters, "hunky hunky Anomen" for anyone else.