Magnum Opus

And that is the only crime of the Nameless One that has any bearing on the story, his "crime against nature" that led him to seek for a way to forestall death. That's why the crimes that led him to seek out Ravel have nothing to do with the story, and don't require explanation other than from a purely academic standpoint. He could have murdered millions in his first incarnation, but none of the elements of the story reflect the consequences of that crime. We don't see scores of relatives coming to avenge their loved ones; we do see Shadows coming after him, the victims of his "immortality" that was the consequence of his determination to avoid death. The only consequences that are dealt with in the game are those caused by his decision to have Ravel extend his life, to give himself time to atone. The point at which the pseudo-immortal Nameless One's story begins (ie. Planescape Torment's story) is when he decides that he's got to avoid the consequences of his former life. Everything that happens before that point, if detailed, would have just served as a distraction from the game at hand, background information that had no bearing on current events.

For me, the issue between "party-based" and "henchman" is purely semantic. It started with NWN. Before that, you had the BG Total Control system we're all so familiar with. Outside of a few carefully scripted conditions, the NPCs might as well have been created by the player regarding the amount of control we have over them. Then NWN came along with a very different system. They'd essentially do whatever they wanted, with some input from the player now and then. The devs and the NWN community needed a way to differentiate this style of NPC from the ones we all knew. They used the term "henchman." *shrugs* That's about it for me. When I'm looking at a game to see what kind of combat it has, I'm going to assign certain meanings to certain terms... terms that I might assign a different meaning to in different contexts. Yes, if in the game the henchmen are following me around so closely and we're all working toward the same ends, I'm going to consider them in my "party", no matter how foolishly they may be acting (whether it's intentional or the result of poor AI). If I'm reading a discussion on combat systems and NPCs and I hear the term 'henchman', I'm going to associate it with those suicidal clods I preferred to use as recurring XP farms instead of the BG-style of NPC. It's all about context.

I prefer to think of it as "liking a little variety in gameplay" instead of "easy to please". Fell Wood and Dragon's Eye were almost throwbacks to a style of gaming that was more prevalent in the early 90's cRPGs, I thought. It actually had a real maze, where you needed to remember directions if you wanted to "brute force" your way through the thing (or write it down if you wree too lazy to try and remember how you got to that point). Didn't have the option of opening up the automap back then because for the most part, they didn't exist; same thing for Fell Wood, where the map that you really needed didn't exist for that part of the game. You could look at the overhead map just fine, but it didn't tell you a damn thing in Fell Wood, so you needed to stop and think of some other way to get the information you needed. It added something new to the IE games, and after playing the BG series + expansions, IWD + expansions, and Torment, little challenges like that were a welcome addition to the game for me. Granted, in a game whose replayability is based solely on its combat, those types of "have to work your way through it" puzzles tend to become more an annoyance than a challenge in subsequent runs, but still... adds a bit of variety in terms of gameplay. Yup... I liked 'em too. Good puzzles. Shook things up a little bit in a genre where typically these days, the only challenge a game offers comes from 1) devising tactics in combat with more/bigger monsters, 2) making sure you've got the most powerful character build, and 3) item hunting. IWD2 certainly had flaws IMO, but I wouldn't list Fell Wood and Dragon's Eye among them.

Morrowind. Combat still blows as hard as it did in Daggerfall, but I think it's marginally tighter story-wise.... or at least it can be, if you actually follow the story. ** that's it for what I'm actually playing right now. I've got some other games installed on my Win98 partition, though I haven't touched them in a few weeks now. Diablo + Hellfire. Gold Box games (FR and Dragonlance ones... not the Buck Rogers ones or Neverwinter Nights) Eye of the Beholder series. Quest for Glory series. The Tierra VGA remakes of the first two King's Quest games (surprisingly few bugs associated with these, considering they're free). Darksun: Shattered Lands.

NWN for me. *sigh* I had such great expectations for that game, and then I loaded up the game... played for a bit, and after a few minutes, the game started slowing down... and then chugging... and then it crashed to the desktop. 'Ok, no biggie" I thought. "I'll just start it up again." Corrupted video display. Reboot. Downloaded some older drivers, since I was already using the current ones for my Radeon 8500 card... still no luck. Eventually, I found a combination of drivers and a version of the game that seemed to coexist all right, although at a pretty significant hit performance-wise (took a few day before I stumbled upon it, but all was well), so I settled in and delved into the greateness that was the NWN OC. Yak. All things considered, it wasn't the worst game I'd played, even if it was a flat, repetitive affair in both gameplay and graphics, but after anticipating the game for soooooo long... Yak. PoR2 might have gotten my vote in this category, but I'd followed the development of that game for a while, and after seeing the high turnover rate of 1) developers, 2) designers, and 3) rule sets, I couldn't for the life of me see how they were going to deliver on everything they were promising. I didn't really have high expectations for that one in the first place, so it was hardly a disappointment when I picked it up in the bargain bin. On the contrary, considering all the crap the game was receiving online, I went into the game automatically assuming that my Windows installation was in mortal peril. Not only did it not wipe out my OS, the game didn't even crash.

Of that list, I'd have to go with Torment, simply because it most fulfilled my primary requirement in a cRPG, which is to capture my imagination. It had me going "wow" any number of times... partly because of the unfolding knowledge of my Nameless one, partly because of what I was having my Nameless One do, and partly because of the craptacularly long-winded combat spell graphics. Needless to say, those first two "wow"s were good... the last one, not so much. It didn't have the replayability for me of, say, a BG2, but story-driven games aren't really all that replayable for me anyway. I'll go through those once, possibly reloading if it seems like there's a semi-interesting choice I've got to make, to see if things change later on because of it, but that's about all. Once the story's been explored, there's just not much fun in going through it again, largely because I find story-driven games tend to fall flat in other areas. BG2 gets my vote for replayability, because I like magic users as a class and that game has tons of spells, and lots of beasties upon which to use them. Torment, though... that was a satisfying game for me. If I was voting for my favourite game period, there'd have to be an Ultima in there somewhere or I wouldn't bother answering, but since the poll's relative to the options listed, I'll go with Torment. Probably Fallout after that, although BG or BG2 might sneak into second place depending on when you ask me (and for different reasons). *snort* And he says "nothing else much to post." HA! :D

I'll assume that your first statement there was meant to be "one ding per hour", instead of "one ding per level", but let me draw your attention to just a little bit more of my original statement: "Couple that with Bioware's "one Ding per hour of gameplay" design philosophy (or whatever the exact ratio turns out to be)...". That last little bit there, helpfully italicized for your convenience, implies a couple of things: 1. That I'm not, in fact, certain that the exact ratio of Dinging per hours of gameplay in your typical, recent Bioware game is 1:1, and so quibbling over the exact number wasn't the intent of that statement in the first place, and 2. That it doesn't really matter what the specific ratio is, because whatever it turns out to be, it's too fast for my taste. Furthermore, I wasn't talking about what other game developers are doing in their games, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. I was talking about Bioware because 1) They're the ones who are developing DA, 2) They're the ones whose Ding to Hours of Gameplay Ratio has changed (and from certain comments on the Bioboards, it seems to be a conscious, deliberate shift), and 3) They were the ones who gave me Baldur's Gate, another one of my favourite games that actually did get the Ding : Hours of Gameplay ratio right for me. I don't believe I asked them to change their preferred type of story. I don't even believe I mentioned that I hated Epic Stories. What I actually said was that I'd prefer it if they slowed down the rate of character advancement. As has been mentioned, Epic Story doesn't necessarily imply Epic Levels, but I said that it was my fear that for Bioware, at least, that had become the case, and that it was my hope that DA would change this somewhat, since they keep mentioning that DA is going to be something of a throwback to their Baldur's Gate 2 days, a game whose Ding : Hours of Gameplay ratio was somewhat more to my liking... not as much as BG1, but still better than NWN. Whether they do slow down the Dinging is entirely up to them. That aside, though, I haven't played a new Bioware game since I bought NWN. I don't plan on playing another one until possibly Dragon Age. They'll continue to put out the types of games that they want to make, and I'll continue to buy the types of games that I want to play. If the two happen to coincide, great, I know I'll get a technically superior (relatively speaking, anyway) PC cRPG at the very least. If they don't, I'm sure they're perfectly fine with the notion of not making my specific type of ideal game, just as I'm fine with the notion of spending my entertainment dollars on another company's game, or, failing that, on another medium of entertainment entirely. No loss for either of us. *shrugs* That's just the way it goes.

*nods* But to do that, in the combat-oriented games that Bioware's put out, that Super Evil Doom is a high level beastie (or group of beasties) that needs to be killed. Occasionally, you might be given another way of getting around the problem (I've heard that HotU's boss was possible to defeat without actually fighting him), but most of the time, winning involves killing, and the things to be killed are always high level baddies, suitable for doing those epically bad things that our hero's Epic Story is countering. Couple that with Bioware's "one Ding per hour of gameplay" design philosophy (or whatever the exact ratio turns out to be), Epic Story pretty much necessarily entails epic levels. Not necessarily "3rd edition DnD Epic Levels" mind you, but just getting into the upper echelons of the power structure for the system. Even vanilla BG2 let you get up close to level 20, and that was in the days of relatively slow level advancement. I'm just afraid that when we're talking about Bioware, anyway, "epic story" really does equate with "epic levels" these days, that's all. Incidentally, this is also something I hope that they can go back to with DA: slower level advancement. I like that occasional "Ding", certainly, but I also like getting to know just what my character is capable of, at any given level, before that next Ding changes his/her powers too much. There's a lot to be said for finding creative ways to use the character that you've got to defeat an enemy that you thought was probably beyond your power. BG1 was good for that.

That's the sort of thing I like to hear . Free to explore the country... *nods* Step in the right direction. "Our objectives is to make a great computer role playing game with a epic story..." This is the part that's still got me wondering though. "Epic story" usually implies high level stuff, rapid advancement, and a fairly tight plotline (to spread out those 15 - 20 levels you'll be getting over as long a time as you can), and unless you've got really extraordinary events happening, you're usually not going to get an established world with a high concentration of epic-level characters and creatures in a small geographical area -- assuming that the area where DA takes place has well-established societies that have been quietly minding their own business for decades beyond count, that is.... Now, knowing nothing about what the history of the DA world has been, and nothing about how the current events in the DA world might be unfolding, I suppose it's certainly possible that they could have a whole mess of high level stuff mixed in with low-level stuff in some bizarre fashion (I'm assuming characters in DA will start at a suitably n00bish level), all within a geographical area the size of what was presented of the Realm's in BG1, but the BG2 method of dropping me down from the world map into a relatively concentrated area of conflict/purpose does seem more likely. After BG1, I was vaguely disappointed with the way that was handled in BG2 -- I would have preferred it if, for example, the Windspear hills area was a set of four or five contiguous areas instead of just one floating off in the middle of nowhere, that involved a little bit of searching and exploration for the dungeon entrance. It would have lessened my feeling that I was spending too much time on the overhead world map, when I should have been in the areas with my character, doing things -- but all in all, BG2 turned out to be one of my all-time favourites, with the depth of the character development and the increased combat options making up for the reduced exploration. Maybe this one will offer a similar experience. Can't say I'd find it unwelcome if it did, but the game's still too far away to say anything with certainty. I'll just have to remain cautiously optimistic until the game gets closer. Thanks for the quote, too. I've been following (loosely) DA's development, so that was prety much the impression I had of their goals for it.

No opinion whatsoever. Haven't played it, no real intention of playing it. Star Wars irritates me to no end, for some completely irrational and largely uknown reason.

Thanks for clearing that up. Was one of those things that I'd read had been cleared up, but never actually saw what was done by whom. Even read that Feargus commented on the issue, but, typically, never saw that post, either. That's what I get for being an only occasional board monkey, I guess. Regardless, their shift away from that sort of world exploration is what's making me most leery of Dragon Age right now. Loved BG1 for that "complete" feeling, liked what there was of it in BG2, found it lacking in ToB, and was downright disappointed with it in NWN, so much so that it really affected my enjoyment of the game as a whole. Even so, though, I could still fill in the numerous blanks from what I knew of the Forgotten Realms from other sources. A brand new world with brand new creatures that I'm not allowed to explore aside from a few set paths or closed off areas is something that's likely to irritate me more than anything else. It just doesn't appeal to me. Could still be fun to play, but it's certainly not my first choice of game. I'm hoping they'll move back to a more BG1-ish world-design philosophy, since I've heard that they're still sticking with areas and loading screens, but I'd be surprised if it happened as well. That's not saying that I don't think a game can't overcome that with enough depth in other areas, but just that it's what I'm hoping for. Volourn: Can't recall where I've ever said that Bioware's only contribution to the BG series was the engine, or that they didn't deserve the lion's share of the credit for it, but I suppose it's not outside the realm of possibility that others have. You're certainly free to lump me in with those nameless entities, I guess, even if it's wildly inaccurate to do so. All I really know (well, knew, now) was that there are two logos in the intros to the games, and that Bio did the vast majority of the work. Precisely what the breakdown was between the two companies... just wasn't sure.

I'm looking (hesitantly, because their more recent offerings haven't done squat for me) forward to DA because from what I've read about it, Bioware has actually been putting a bit of time into building a world of DA. Kind of hard to avoid that kind of thing, I think, since it's a brand new world, but the way they dealt with the Forgotten Realms in the NWN OC has me wondering on that score a bit -- it was like they were relying on people knowing about Neverwinter and its history, and so didn't bother adding any detail to the place. The result was that the campaign was just plain flat. They've got a linguist working on languages for DA, though, so maybe they'll put a little bit of detail into fleshing out other aspects of the world as well. Maybe (faint hope here, but still there) they'll make the plot a little less strict and the world a little more continuous, so that I can explore the world that (I think) they're creating, to find out what's what and who's who. I'm also (hesitantly, since it will be familiar territory, and the whole henchman system isnt' one I like) looking forward to NWN2, because the talent at Obsidian has, IMO, better storytelling (detail-wise, I mean -- Bio's good for EPIC, but the details are what make of break a story for me)/world building capabilities than Bioware. When I look back at it, it was the one-dimensional aspect of NWN that really turned me off from it. I could have adjusted to the stupid henchmen running into combats I'd rather have them avoid. I could have even looked past the sameness of the chapters (fetch four items for Aribeth with one optional quest, then find 3 items for Aribeth with one optional quest, then fetch three items for Aarin with... ) if there'd been some actual depth to the world. Aside from 2 areas in the whole bloody game, though, there wasn't. Too often the areas were just there to provide something for the enemies to stand on, or (even worse, IMO) a puzzle, sometimes with remarkably little effort put into disguising the puzzle as something that might be part of the game world. Some of the folks now at Obsidian had a hand in making the Icewind Dales (hack and slash, sure, but with several of the best areas in any of the IE games), and Torment. I couldn't really care less about the toolset or the multiplayer aspects of the game, but if the NWN2 single player campaign has enough depth to it, they still might get me to fork over my money. Which one am I looking forward to more? Hard to say. DA's going to be interesting because it's new, but it's Bioware that's doing it. Good for a story-focused game, but not really so good at building the world to back it up (or if they are, they haven't shown it yet that I've seen. BG1 was good for that, BG2 somewhat less so, but again, those were in partnership with Black Isle, and I'm not sure who all had what influence on which parts). Solid technical company, but perhaps a little lacking in artistry if NWN is any indication. NWN2's going to have a better single player campaign (as mentioned, it'd be hard for the folks at Obsidian to do worse with it, even disregarding the talent they've got in that regard), but again... it's NWN2. Familiar territory, with the original being less than impressive. Better graphics (hopefully a less "clownish" style, in addition to the more technical improvements, and could someone please do something about the ambulatory toupees? Very hard to concentrate on a conversion when you're afraid your hair is going to run off to the nearest tavern for a quick pint...), but still with AI controlled henchmen. Tile-based, at least the way it was done in the first one, got too repetitive for my liking, as well. At this point, it's hard to say whether I'll buy either of them. Right now, though, I'm leaning ever so slightly toward DA, simply because of the "newness" of it all. That'll probably change a few times before either of them is released, though. Time will tell.

I'm more inclined to offer my condolences, personally . Being a moderator is bad enough, but a middle-type moderator's got to be the absolute worst. They tell you that you have the power, only... not really. Ha ha. *shakes head sadly* Poor guy... :D

Third millenium, dagnabbit!! *snorts, scratches self* Youngin's these days... back in my day, we knew when the millenium started... Really, though, there's all sorts of music available these days if you want to take the trouble to look for it. The barriers between "mainstream" and "alternative" sort of broke down in the 90's (in western culture, anyway), but even so there's still music that's on the fringes (whatever fringe you happen to be talking about). There's the manufactured pop-tart Britneys of the world that seem to infest the headlines and airwaves, sure, but there are people out there still making music of whatever style you can name. Might be hard to find, but it's out there.

Run an internet search on "Holly Jones" and see what pops up as well.

I think the Liberals would have a chance (however slim) at holding together in Parliament even if the Conservatives technically got more seats in this election. If the vote's as close as I think it's going to be, even if the Conservatives end up with a couple more seats than the Liberals, Martin could make a case for his remaining PM if he gets enough solid support from, for example, the NDP. IIRC, something like that happened in 1925 with McKenzie's (?) Liberals, didn't it? I think the Conservatives got something like 115 seats in that election, the liberals 105 (just making up numbers here, but I think they're close), and the Progressives 23 or so, but with the Progressive-Liberal alliance, McKenzie retained his tenure as PM, even though he didn't win even a minority government. Granted, the House sort of fell apart after that and I think there was another general election in '26, but still... there is a precedent. Now, I don't know how likely Martin is to try something like that, but I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility, either. In all honesty, that might be a good scenario for the country: the Conservatives winning the election, but Martin being asked to form the government with the support of another party. You get the Liberals out of office (technically) so that they can clean up their party's corruption, you still get Martin as PM who, let's face it, has a lot more managerial and political experience than Harper, and you don't have anyone with a majority that allows them to bull anything through the House that they darn well please. That's what Chretien was used to for all those years, and we can see the effects that that had on his party. The NDP have expressed a willingness to work with a minority government of any stripe, but I can't bring myself to believe that they'd be willing to same degree with the Conservatives as they'd be with the Liberals. I don't know much about the Bloc, though, not even when it comes to their stance on the issues and whether they'd be considered more Liberal than Conservative or vise versa. It just seems to me that if push came to shove, more parties would end up supporting Martin than Harper. Could be very interesting.

When I actually take a step back and look at the kinds of campaigns Harper and Martin have run, it makes me realize that it's their overall conduct which is making me lean toward the Liberals. Martin's accorded himself in more or less the way I'd expect the leader of my country to. He's got actual plans for the country, and he's refrained from doing nothing more than attacking his opponents. On the other hand, Harper hasn't really come out and said what his exact position is on a lot of things, and every speech he makes hinges on the fact that it's time for a change, time for something better, etc etc. ie. It hinges on someone else being at 24 Sussex Dr.. The whole campaign, he's been acting the way I'd want a Leader of the Opposition to act (minus the personal attacks), attacking and questioning the Leader's policies while not having to offer an alternative. Sure, he is the leader of the opposition right now, but he supposedly want to be PM, and right now I'm just not seeing him act that way, either with his general behaviour or his party's platform. *sighs* Looks like it'll be a Liberal vote from me to keep Harper out, rather than because I particularly want to see Martin stay. I guess I'm not quite cynical enough yet to believe that both of them are lying about the majority of their issues; if that were the case, if I knew that Harper would implement a vision that runs almost backwards from the blurry one he's offering right now, I'd probably vote for him. As it is, it's the Devil We Know for me.

Yup. I look at it as more an issue of "Well, sure, he may have avoided paying taxes on his company, but at least he didn't pull a Cheney-Halliburton". The lesser of two evils, IMO, "just" avoiding paying taxes and being extremely hypocritical about it, instead of using the government as an actual source of business. And I will admit that my opinion of McGuinty in particular will improve a heck of a lot if what he's trying to accomplish with this health "premium" actually works, and we do get a better system out of it. But when you see virtually every promise that came out of the guy's mouth before he got elected, being broken after he gets into office, it really doesn't do much for your confidence level of politicians in general. But I just took a look at the official websites for the PC Party and the Liberals, and you're absolutely right when you say that Harper just doesn't have a platform. Vague "goals", when you can call them that, each of which are prefaced by numerous statements of how the Liberals have failed. I honestly think that site spends more time slamming the Liberals then it does putting forth it's own agenda, and the language they use sounds like it's being directed at the "juvenile delinquent" crowd more often than not. Take a look at their Headlines section for an example of what I mean, and then glance at the Liberal site. Overall, I just get the sense that Martin has a clear goal, and that he's got some clear ideas about how to get there; whether they'll work or not is anyone's guess. Harper doesn't even have that, and comes across more as a guy saying and doing anything just to get elected. His campaign ads talk about his integrity, but damned if I can find a glimpse of it on that site. That assumes, of course, that the visions and policies presented by the websites are what's really going to be implemented by these people.... I have my doubts about that, too. It's that damned cynicism rearing it's ugly head again. As you said, though, the Conservative party doesn't present anything in the way of policies or concrete ideas, just catchphrases. I will, however, admit that I did like their stance on the armed forces: "Support for our Canadian Forces The Conservative Party will fight for our armed forces." Yes! Bring the troops home, round up all the Conservatives, and ship 'em off to Afghanistan! *nods* Tax dollars well spent. :D (sure, given my opinion of most politicians these days I could say the same for any major party, but the PCs actually said it. )

All things considered, I don't think that registering your company offshore to avoid paying certain taxes is all that big a deal, although that's a comment tainted by a view that's seen a gun registry explode from 2 million dollars to two billon, an ad scandal that cost us a few hundred million so that bereaucrats could shuffle the money back and forth between them and pay themselves handsomely to do so until it was all gone, and yes, even politics on the provincial level with Dalton McGuinty breaking virtually every single stance on which he ran his campaign. I am curious about how much the near-universal outrage at McGuinty's Liberals is going to be reflected on the Federal level, since Ontario's been a pretty reliable stronghold for the liberals in the last few elections, and if enough people forget that punishing the federal liberals != punishing the provincial party (ie. McGuinty), things could crumble for Martin quite quickly. The Freeps (local newspaper, although that's not it's official moniker ) has run quite a few editorials in the last few weeks that basically remind people not to let spite rule their vote, but those polls that the press keeps dragging out make me wonder just how many people are listening. What they ought to do is make voting more like a highschool test or exam. Your vote gets a certain weight based on your knowledge of just what it is that you're voting for, with the people who know nothing about anything having their votes count the least.

Once again, this election comes down to a choice between evils for me, not actually voting someone in so much as I'm voting to keep someone out. Or get someone out. Martin and the Liberals are corrupt, wasteful, etc etc, although I do think that Martin himself has gotten a bad rap from all this. Chretien dumped a whole truckload of crap on him. He might actually be sincere when he says he wants to clean up his party after the corruption and patronage of the Chretien decade. Who better than him to set things right? To me, Harper is like a little George Dubya, only without the same degree of religious zealotry (at least, not that I can see at the moment). Tax cuts, vast increases to military spending (I know we need to boost spending to the military in Canada -- Martin's promising the same, only not as much -- but I just can't see Harper's number adding up), same sex marriage issue, Supreme Court judges appointed on the basis of their agreement to defer to the government (a rather important issue, since the next PM is going to have to appoint 2 of them... I can easily see our Supreme Court becoming almost as partisan as the one in the States if Harper starts appointing judges on that basis)... nope. There's a lot that I don't like about Harper's platform... at least when he bothers to say anything specific about it at all, that is. When he hasn't been smearing everyone and everything in his way, he's been pretty vague on quite a few things. Gilles Duceppe... I don't live in Quebec. Layton... Maybe I just missed it, but I don't recall him actually saying much about his party's platform. With all of the talk about the child porn issue and Harper's tactless comments about that, it's entirely possbile that I just missed it. Regardless, I don't know enough about what he or the current incarnation of his party are really about to give them a vote. In general, though, the NDP are a bit too far to the left for me. Too much social spending, too many taxes, etc etc. The Christian Heritage Party... the Green party... Libertarians... the Communist Party of Canada... oh hell, maybe I'll just vote for the Marijuana Party and be done with it. Right now, though, it's looking like a Liberal vote for me. I guess. It's hard to tell when that last provincial election with Dalton McGuinty has completely shattered what little trust I had left in the promises of politicians.

*agrees with Opus* There are better ways to limit a character's development that aren't so blatant and artificial as to impose an arbitrary limit like a level or XP cap. The cap might be easier to implement, but it certainly detracts from the game when the XP distribution is so out-of-whack that you're bumping your head against it half way through the game. It's like your character just stops learning anything for no reason whatsoever. Not a good trait to have in a roleplaying game. Leveling up might be the way they're choosing to represent a character's development in CRPGs these days, but it seems to me that it's becoming the focus of games instead of just a concrete representation of an abstract notion that happens to be necessary for your character's progression through the game. Too many levels coming too fast, and the game starts to take on the feel of a character generator more than anything else. I went through NWN's OC a couple times, but it certainly wasn't for the plot or the roleplaying. Seeing what items they included in the game was interesting, what with me being a packrat, but mostly it was just me trying out different classes and seeing how they'd develop and what power they could acquire. Yup... the OC was a good character generator. Made you work hard enough to feel like your character had done something to earn the levels they'd received. As an epic CRPG it was seriously lacking, but it was a good character generator. IMO, BG1 had the rate of advancement just about right: 6 or 7 levels in a 100 hour game gave me plenty of time to figure out just what my characters could do. There were plenty of opportunites to get creative with my characters as well, trying out different tactics because I knew that wandering off for five minutes, killing something, leveling up, and then coming back to smite whatever might have been giving me trouble before simply wasn't an option. If you wanted to wander off in BG to get a little more power, odds were really good that something significant would happen to your chracter in the interim, plot-wise.

I wouldn't mind the avatars being a bit bigger either, but even if the new larger size turns out to be too big for my tastes (assuming there is a new, larger size, of course), I can always turn them off from my board settings. Bigger, but not too much bigger or you'll get too much dead board space and end up having to scroll forever just to read the next line of text that's more than likely drivel anyway. It's a fine line to walk... *nods soberly*

I'm in favour of having lots and lots of interesting items, certainly enough for item-hunting purposes and hoarding, but for having only a very few "uber-items". I'll admit to being an absolutely shameless packrat, especially after I've played a game a couple times, and I always like to have enough interesting and/or shiny things to fill out that hoard... and to have enough barrels or chests to serve as storage space for them, of course. In a convenient spot, too. It's all about location location location. Essentially, I don't want the equipment that the character finds to overwhelm the character that's using it. Having a few really powerful items is all to the good, but you ought to feel like you've won the lottery when you find them... or that you had to give up the proverbial pound of flesh to get it. If an item is truly powerful, make its use unique to a certain time or place or creature (preferably a rare or unique creature). The valuable items should be... well... valuable. And it certainly helps if I get to play dress-up with my characters, too. If there'd been more interesting sets of armour in the game, I would have dressed up a couple of the BG1 NPCs and put them in my treasure room as well, just to showcase my armour. As it was, though, the avatars didn't really look all that good, IMO; certainly good enough for everyday wear and tear, but not really good enough to line them up against a wall somewhere and put them on display. Yes... I like "stuff". Just don't let it render the actual character I've spent so much time developing meaningless.

Agreed. Background music should set the mood, and for me at least, pop music is associated with too many other things. Certain songs by certain artists just make me retch when I hear them, no matter where it is, and others evoke certain memories that, in all probablilty, will have absolutely nothing to do with the game. Pop music's got too much baggage for me. Besides, I'm also of the belief that backgournd music should stay in the background. Pop music's not really all that good at that.

IMO, this first test of the boards has been pretty successful. Had the initial influx of board junkies, the unmoderated and chaotic first weekend, and the moderated chatter that's been slowly dwindling as people realize that it's all been said before, and in many instances that it's been said to the same people. Out of all the potential consumers of this game, some 600 of them have actually signed up for the boards (being generous, I know). They don't need to toss anyone a bone to keep the people who are already here interested in what they're doing... and it's not like the numbers are all that significant, anyway, from an overall game sales perspective. If we were willing do constantly check the website of a company that hasn't actually produced anything yet, for whether the message boards were even up or not, why would they expect that we wouldn't come back (assuming people even stopped coming here, of course) when they had real information to share? The PR will come when the PR comes. Complaining about it won't make it happen any faster.