Tale

Who, me? I mean that in a friendly way.

Hypocrite. What happened to encouraging him to express himself?

woMEN is a term used to establish the dominance of the phallocracy over the other gender of the species. See that since it includes men (and female includes male) it implies that men are the more dominant and that women are subservient, merely sub groups of men. Womyn helps establish their own identity.

Do you believe in magic? Do you believe in love?

I have little to say about this without becoming offensive. Though I am curious as if this is a response to her suffered abuse, if the abuse was simply percieved and not physical, or if she was like this before and physical abuse did nothing but further solidify it.

Y Viconia

I think the only real flaws with Charisma and Intelligence comes from either bad development or bad character creation. If a player wants to roleplay an incredibly stupid character, does this mean that he should be solving difficult puzzles? The problem comes when developers either force the character to be drastically penalized for low intelligence without reasonable alternatives or when the person creating the character uses intelligence as a dump stat without regard for whether or not he wants the character to be smart or stupid. I think this brings up another contention I have with the perspective taken by the article. Role-Player speaks of not being able to force people to roleplay their stats. Well, what about encouraging people to pick stats that they can more readily play? It almost seems to take perspective that you don't get to pick stats, which within limits you both can and cannot. Or that it's normal to not consider the meaning of the stats that you choose. If someone creates a character with an int score of 2, is it so wrong for a developer to at some point say "whoah, whoah, hold up buddy, this is the smart door. You go over there, that's the strong door." It doesn't necessarilly have to be doors, but it's equally applicable to a conversation. Is the problem that he thinks developers read too much personality into these two stat scores? Or is he in the group that just reads too little into them? I think what would drastically help this is if he actually cited where this problem was present. Name the games, name how this was a problem in that game.

There's a related show to Excel Saga called Puffi Puffi Purami or something like that. Only two episodes, but it features tons of Excel references and the director is in it, too.

Roy G. Biv!

$5 says Baby Arm was making a friendly jab.

The government isn't covering up anything. It's the Illuminati behind the cover ups. They're probably even run by aliens!

I didn't make any special case for Thief, just briefly highlighted what some people feel about Thief versus the traditional representations of gameplay surrounding rogues in cRPGs. That's the full extent of the statement. But feel free to be a git and take it out of context to suggest it's a nonsensical tautology, and that more will follow. I misunderstood the context. However, I still think the question is still nonsensical. It still seems to imply a comparison between Thief and RPG games, whether you are the one doing it or you are giving credit to the comparison made by others. In general, my main contention in this article is the introduction. It's little more than a rant with superfluous language with the majority of topics it addresses being, at best, tangential to the main topic of the article. Reading through it I find it no wonder that someone would miss the point as you so readily expect many to do. As the point is difficult to decipher between the lambasting of buzz phrases (even though you ironicly use them yourself in the main article), journalists, and fellow gamers. Largely though, I think I see the overall point of the article. However, the problem you seem to put forth is not one that I agree exists nor does it seem there is a case made for its existence. There is no argument put forth that this will somehow improve the genre in a fashion that its players find intrinsically desireable over the other conventions. In essence, your "solution" appears to be little more than just another option. I think you are arguing it from the wrong angle. You speak too much of shoulds, both on what you think should be done and as claims others make that you are contesting. When instead you should (lol) be speaking of the benefits as different rules, an expansion of the effects of past action upon present interaction, and mechanics that enable you to more adequately define behavior and personality. It's less confrontational and invites more people to be interested when it's not so obvious you're only speaking to D&D diehards. I think you make a very good point at one point, though. This is so good a point, you should get rid of your current introduction to the editorial RIGHT NOW and replace it with an introduction to this concept. This is the basis of your entire article. It's good. It takes you forever to get to it. Which means by the time someone reads it, they'll probably have become offended by the introductory ranting or otherwise not interested if they don't agree with you at the onset.

I think it sounds more like you have a lack of desire to actually roleplay. Roleplay and metagaming are commonly at odds. There is a constant tendency for many players to choose metagaming for one reason or another, when a player ends up doing so, the fault for the player not choosing roleplaying should not automatically be hoisted upon the system.

I don't understand the post quoted. Thief is above role-playing games when it comes to stealth mechanics? Can we get a flipping "no duh." Next he'll be pointing out that Half-Life is better at shooting mechanics. Computer roleplaying games aren't about stealth mechanics, they're supposedly about replicating PnP roleplaying mechanics, which the genre has diverged so drastically from you'd have to be an idiot to think it lacks variation and change. What it lacks, for many but not all CRPGs, is action, which is the more common draw of many other titles. His entire post is about why he believes intelligence and charisma should be eliminated from affecting dialogue. However, the elimination of these two is blatantly minor in the scheme of the perception, acceptance, overall mechanical systems, and variation of CRPGs.

My Control Panel - My Groups - Create a New Group

From what we can gather it's based on how many hours you've played the past week.

For those of you with Steam, the Steam Community Beta has started today. It's a community built around and integrated with Valve's Steam program. Just visit https://steamcommunity.com/ and log in with your Steam account information. For those of you worried about phishing, you can use http://community.steampowered.com/ a subdomain of Valve's official forums and it'll redirect you right back. Maybe someone can start up an Obsidian group. Also, post your Steam ID's! (the community page, not the unique steam ID number) To take full advantage of the Steam Community, go under settings in your Steam program, find beta participation, change and select Steam Community from the drop down. You'll restart, but it will integrate Steam Community into your Steam program as well as get the benefits of chatrooms and enhanced Friends. http://steamcommunity.com/id/Tale/

Bioware was around before Black Isle disbanded.

When the new expansion comes I may just re-up. Or, I'll instead just read about what goes on, which is what is more likely. Unless, of course, Warlocks are treated properly and given our very own full strength Illidan pet. It would only be appropriate.

I hear there's a different ending on replay.

I had similar experience with Fable. I wasn't expecting a more traditional RPG, but I was dissapointed with how shallow it seemed. I never really got over it, but my issues with it were never so bad that I couldn't play it. I did play all the way through the original campaign, but couldn't bother myself to play the lost levels portion.

Effciancy. I like all the engines(Source, Id Tech, UE3) and would have no problem working with any of them. What about Jupiter? huh huh?

I've played through maybe 4 times. I like to find new ways to slaughter whole groups of clone soldiers before they even notice I'm there. Horror games are difficult for me to play. FEAR is quite easy. In a horror game, I get very stressed out and the game does nothing to relieve that stress. I know I'm scared when I'm quicksaving everytime I cross a room. Condemned has me doing that occasionally.

I've played FEAR. Monolith is either my second favorite game developer after Valve or my first favorite tied with Valve. I loved FEAR as an action game. It was not scary until the final part of the game. For that game Monolith made a point, and they say so on the developer commentary with the collector's edition, to let you know about enemies ahead of time so that you can choose how you want to approach an encounter. That and the slo-mo (even if surprised you can turn on slo-mo to get the edge back) eliminated any element of scary in the game. So, I find it ironic the game is titled FEAR. As an example of all of this, prior to the very end of the game, the scariest enemy in the game were the invisible guys. However, you could hear their cloaking clearly, they'd break glass to get to you, and if you turned on slo-mo they were very easy to see. I usually ended up just meleeing them with my gun.