Rostere

I'm very interested in linguistics, and I've been studying lexicographical and phonetic Markov models for language (as some project in Numerical Analysis). I definitely second this. I think Obsidian should create very ambitious languages for their new setting, even if the languages are just used for naming places. I'm sure you and I and other fans would be very glad to help.

I think it's very important that there are very tough, optional challenges. Of course, nothing should be hard-coded unbeatable but I'm all for adding challenges that a typical character might never be able to beat.

I don't really see how anything of this applies to what has been written in this thread. Just for my curiosity: did you think Arcanum was "grimdark" as well (whatever that means)?

I've been looking forever for a serious tights simulator...

I'd prefer if you get the feeling that the greater part of society has Middle Age opinions on women's rights, but the protagonist being a hardened adventurer or mercenary makes most people think twice before blurting out their prejudices...

You're basically describing Arcanum. And yes, I agree 100%.

This.

I wonder a lot about how deities will work in PE - since we know there will be "real" deities, will they also have real power over the world? Or will their power over the world be limited to what their followers can do? With what little has been released so far I think the deities will wrap in with souls and be the focus of the game. As for content, I'm interested in anything that makes it a believable world. I would imagine they would have to go a little light on the misogyny just to avoid making a female adventurer's entire game revolve around it. That would get old quick. I agree somewhat. I think making too many obstacles for female characters would really be sad. However, I'd like to see gender inequality being there, but not as a part of the story, just there as a backdrop to reinforce the setting. Also, I think it should be possible (very optionally) for female characters to really stick it to the worst misogynists. Most important of all, I'd like to societies with different perspectives on gender equality.

I wonder a lot about how deities will work in PE - since we know there will be "real" deities, will they also have real power over the world? Or will their power over the world be limited to what their followers can do?

Well, I guess I kind of merged that and intolerance into one... EDIT: Happy now?

Well, they don't have to shove a book in your face and force you to read it all. Taking Arcanum as an example again, the manual had lots of text, but most of the stuff I talk about was in-game. For example, details like the scarcity of female physical fighters, the Gentleman's Club, the Orc slums and factory workers, and so on were all there to enforce the feeling that this wasn't just a LARP where modern people put on old clothes but a believable setting. And yes, the absence of the printing press is huge.

So, I saw the thread "How 'medieval' do you want the world of PE to be?" and decided to make a poll out of it. Here's what was originally written by the OP there: This aspect of the game is very important for me. I want the setting to discuss all the issues resulting from it's various premises. So, from what we know from interviews and such: The general technology level will be roughly equivalent to Late Medieval Europe The printing press has NOT been invented Gunpowder has been invented, but guns are still primitive We will see colonization, probably roughly similar to what historically happened in the 16th century Iron is common enough to allow adventurers access to plate armor Thus we have a basic understanding of technology, but we are more in the dark about the societies in the game. Also, we don't know how magic has impacted technology and society. Magic can act as an equalizer between women and men, for example. This would result in high- magic societies following more closely today's feminist ideals, while notably the same is not true of low- magic societies. If magic is easy to learn and comes to a person naturally (if D&D- style sorcerers are common), it might serve to flatten out class differences (because it's hard to have serfs if one of them can throw a fireball in your face anytime). On the other hand, if it takes a lot of time and resources to learn, then we might see magocracies where class differences are even more pronounced than historically. Also, if magic is hereditary the magocracies will probably look like traditional kingdoms in their government structure, if not, well, they won't. Healing magic can serve as an explanation to why plagues and diseases are not more common - on the other hand, plagues could perhaps also be magically engineered. Intolerance is actually a topic that is often treated in fantasy games. Too bad that it's often extremely black and white, where the "bad guys" are intolerant of everything except their race/ religion, and the "good guys" are tolerant of everything. It's naturally a very, very easy plot device. A more realistic approach would be that intolerance should be more spread out. Here, magic adds the dimension of intolerance of magic users. Colonization could be vastly impeded by magic, if the colonized areas had a magic- using population. Arcanum was a setting which gave magic(k) and fantasy races a very serious treatment. No matter how historical Obsidian wants to make the setting of Project Eternity, I hope they will copy Arcanum in offering serious explanations to why the societies look like and work like they do.

Of course it's harder. First, I don't think you've searched for Swedish texts (even as I like to think of my country as English- speaking, most texts about Sweden still tend to be in Swedish). Secondly, Latinos in the US are obviously a larger community in absolute numbers. If they are x times as many as some minority group in Sweden, you will find x times as much about them on the Internet. Let's make another example about how bizarre it is to compare immigration in absolute numbers and not in percentages: if we have 10 guys in country X, and 1000 guys in country Y, and 100 people from a foreign ethnic group immigrates to country X, and 101 people from the same foreign ethnic group immigrates to country Y, which country's culture will change the most? By your bizarre logic, the culture of country Y would change more than the culture of country X (in spite of the original culture in country X becoming a minority!). Give me a coherent reason why impact on culture should be measured in absolute numbers. Of course I didn't mention Sweden, I only had to make one example in order to show that you've messed up your concepts. It would really be akin to beating a dead horse if I had to show the same thing for Sweden when it was obvious from the first case you had no idea of what you were talking about. It's a question of definition - if you want to "population in the year 2008" to mean the population on January 1st, 2009, and so on, then we have eight years of increases, the measurements of 2001 to the ones in 2009. If you want 2000-2008 to include whatever happened during 2008 (that is, measure at different points with regards to the first and the last year), then for the sake of the argument WRITE THAT OUT EXPLICITLY. Nonetheless, this does not change anything. Will do! Mexico: "According to a paper presented by the American Society of Human Genetics Mexicans were found to be 58.96% European" "Sonora shows the highest European contribution (70.63%) and Guerrero the lowest (51.98%)." "Another study, one focusing on the general population in five Latin American nations — Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, and Puerto Rico, — estimated that about half (50.1%) of Mexican ancestry was of Amerindian origin; 44.3%, European; and 5.6%, African. Compared to the other Latin American countries, Mexico was found to have the smallest amount of African admixture. Mexico has the second largest amount of Amerindian ancestry, topped by Ecuador." So, for Mexico, apparently having some of the largest percentage of Amerindian genes still leaves the country with about 45-70% European heritage. Hardly "overwhelmingly amerind descent", if you ask me.

A potted pot plant on wheels? Groovy.

So I take it you've been to France?

Irrelevant. Comparing based on percentages is misleading in this context. With a population roughly five times greater, those percentages mean that non EU-residents in Spain account for more than three times the amount of total immigrants in Sweden. Total immigrants in Spain are close to 2/3 of Sweden's total population. You want to compare immigration in absolute numbers? How bizarre. Have a look at this list. So, according to you, Germany should have double the effects of immigration that you're talking about. Not to talk about Russia or the US! The issue of immigration in Spain must be tiny or irrelevant compared to what they're experiencing in the US. Maybe you should take a lesson from our American forum members about the effects of immigration? Clearly, from that list, they must have felt immigration much more than you have. I think you will find that it's obvious that you will need to compare the impact of immigration to the number of people already in a society - for a small country, a smaller number of immigrants will make a larger impact. To make a thought experiment, let's assume the Community of Madrid suddenly became an independent nation. A citizen of Madrid (with the largest percentage of foreign population in today's Spain) would meet with a Spaniard (that is, Spain excluding Madrid). The Spaniard would then say that the Madrilenian had no idea of the effects of immigration, referring to the larger absolute number of immigrants in Spain (that is, Spain excluding Madrid). Don't you see the absurdity of the situation? By which I'm not referring to the notion that Madrid would break free from Spain, but the absurd argument of the Spaniard, that is, your argument. Let's see. The population of Spain in 2000 was somewhere around 40,26 million. If the mean yearly population increase of Spain is 13%, we get, for the population of Spain in 2008, the equation pop_2008 = (pop_2000)*((1,13)^ , where "pop_2008" is the population of Spain in 2008, and "pop_2000" is the population of Spain in 2000. This would mean that Spain whould have had a population of a whopping 107,02 million in 2008 (compared to the actual 45,56 million). Surely, that is not what you are trying to say? I understand it can be too much to ask everyone for a general understanding of math, but in this discussion, it's going to be hard for you if you don't understand at least the basics. Hang on, those aren't "real" immigrants, then? Pretty inelegant how you dismiss them. Not really surprising though, and pretty much in line with the lack of real world knowledge of immigrants and other cultures displayed in the rest of your posts. I assumed that your statement about me not having any idea about serious immigration was aimed to ridicule my opinions on multiculturalism. If the massive immigration you speak of consist of ~50% (an example) people who already speak the official language, are descended from people of your country and come from former parts of your country, that's hardly relevant to a discussion about multiculturalism. I understand that the culture of Latin America is way different from that of Spain in your opinion, just as the culture of Finland is radically different from the culture of Sweden in my opinion, but those will remain opinions as long as you can't quantify "culture" in some meaningful way. Oh, no, you don't. You don't get to decide whether I deserve to be labelled a xenophobe. Your presumption that you do, by virtue of evaluating whether a certain amount of immigrant acquaintances is above an arbitrary threshold made up on the fly is sufficient proof that I'm not one is both laughable and pathetic. Funny thing is that, I, by definition, could not simultaneously be a xenophobe and have > 0 immigrant friends. It was an ironic statement. You were meant to understand that your inital statement about your "immigrant friends" was "laughable and pathetic" because it adds nothing to your list of arguments. We are arguing about the immigration levels of different countries. Remember? Also, you've got serious issues if you take offence at some guy from the internet thinking of you as one kind of individual or the other. You might not be aware of this, but the "Some of my best friends are [insert ethnicity here]" comment is so commonly heard from people with racist views it's become a joke.

Why are some people even discussing real- time RPGs without pause? Hardly relevant in any way, is it? Real time RPGs with automated pause options represents the ideal combat system, in my opinion. The advantage of real- time over turn- based is all about concurrency of actions. A good example of this system being implemented is HoI 2 (although it's definitely not a RPG).

I'd love to see critical misses in the game!

Sorry for the double post, couldn't edit last post. Let's stick to the facts. The numbers relevant are the one concerning the actual immigration, rejection rates are irrelevant - if Sweden rejects 99% of all immigrants but still have a larger amount relative to our population, that does not prove your point. (The number of applications is an indicator of this, however not the most important number. Please remind me in the future to not link to articles by citing anecdotes, but with a list of all the most neccessary information in an easy to read and understand summary or a suggestion to READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE). So let's first reexamine your original statement: To make things clear about where we stand, I aimed to refute that Sweden does not have "significant" immigration. In fact, I would also like to extend that refutation to include the counter- claim that Sweden has more significant immigration than Spain (the country you are referring to). To the numbers, then. The article states that Spain approved 350 asylum seekers in 2009 (out of 4480). Sweden approved 7095 asylum seekers, out of 23930 who came here. People who seek asylum are the best indication of extra-cultural "immigrants", since they often are forced to flee, without knowledge of existing culture, from impoverished and wartorn countries, which in turn often have non- Western cultures. We want to try to avoid people who immigrate from a similar culture, or with the explicit intent to adopt a Swedish monoculture since they won't contribute to multicultural society. Let's continue on. Let's have a look at Wikipedia (which you link to yourself) - immigration to Spain, and immigration to Sweden. At the bottom of both articles are 2011 data which reveals that out of the countries listed, Austria has the highest amount of immigrants (15,2%), followed by Sweden at 14,3%. Spain comes after Belgium and Germany with only 12%. But that includes numbers from within Europe, people with similar culture (Right? Which comparison do you prefer?). We can also see the number of residents born in a non- EU state - where Sweden is the highest with 9,2%, with Spain only at 8,9%, leaving Austria in between. Also, I would like to draw attention to the graphics showing where the immigrants come from. Spain has a VERY LARGE percentage of non- EU immigrants coming from Spanish- speaking Latin America. Hardly a "culture clash", eh? Let's delve deeper and take a look at official Eurostat data in the chart here - numbers in thousands of people. Notice how Sweden and Spain have similar numbers (especially pre- 2007) in spite of Spain having FIVE TIMES the population of Sweden. So, do you still think I can't imagine how "significant" immigration Spain has? Oh! The "I have many friends who are..." argument. I've never seen that one executed so masterfully before. Also, I like the part with sweat and tears, it makes you sound like an edgy, overwrought, (maybe wannabe working class?) kind of guy. Maybe you have more immigrant friends than I have. But could you please post an exact number so that I know just how right you are and how wrong I am? It would seem to me as an intelligent and statistically sound way to end the debate about the immigration levels of Sweden and Spain. Those swearing words really are your specialty - I mean, I'm not averse to a strong word myself when the context demands it, but still, I wonder how I am supposed to win this argument when you have so many of them, in one single post. Not to mention the insults. "You fail at statistics (which doesn't bode well for your career as a scientist), you fail at reading, and you Google-Fu is weak. Or maybe you just think everyone but you is really dumb and will readily accept your bull**** without a second thought.", "pale armchair theorist ass", "go **** yourself". Me, I can't even come up with half that good arguments. Please, if you've saved some textbooks from rhetorics class, can I buy them? "go **** yourself". Is that Plato or did you come up with it yourself? Truly, an intelligent and thought- evoking comment. Okay, sorry for all the sarcasm and irony. But please. Swearing words and insults that are not even funny to read, just skip those. Let's stick to the facts and keep things reasonably civil. You must understand that you seem like a xenophobe to me. Don't respond with swearing and insults, that will just make you look worse.

You're correct in that it shouldn't be important. And neither should "ethnicity". I have no idea what the "world wants" - whatever that extreme generalization means, and that is not relevant to the discussion. What NATO does or does not do is also not a part of the discussion (you can of course argue that NATO does or does not advance multiculturalism, but that is not what we're talking about here). The change will not come from any particular strata in society, it is a product of the advancement of the human race. Inventions from the written language to paper, the printing press, the telegraph, the telephone, and the Internet have enabled the free exchange of ideas and culture across the world. As ideas and knowledge became more powerful, so did the state have to adapt to give more power to ideas and philosophies over physical might. First came the rule of law, then at some point nationalism (the notion that a state should be defined by its ethnic/cultural identity, not by its ruler). After this, democracy (the notion that all people in the country have equal rights to influence the country). These are all gradual advancements that have made it possible to govern a country even under the increased spread of knowledge and power of ideas. Nationalism is currently being democratized by allowing all people equal say in defining a the ethnic/cultural identity of the state. Can you see how democracy is related to the dissolution of nationalism (of course, you won't notice this at all if you live in a democratic monocultural society)? What is happening right now is that the advancements in physical infrastructure and information infrastructure are creating an increasingly global society (it's really been going on since the dawn of civilization but the rate of change is increasing). The states of the world are therefore under pressure to adapt to these changing circumstances. I'll give you an analogy. A free market fosters competitive companies who work, by innovating and copying others, towards good business practices. Multiculturalism fosters a competitive society, by absorbing all the elements of cultures it encounters ("ideas" or "memes"). I could also compare this with biology, but I think you get what I'm talking about now. Just as a larger, free market will leave a smaller, protectionist market uncompetitive and backwards, so will a multicultural society leave isolated societies behind. You know, it's not a coincidence American movies, brands and culture are so popular around the world. America is just a huge melting pot of all the different European cultures, and has seen some immigration from other parts of the world as well (I won't mention the Native Americans - that part always makes me sad). What propaganda are you talking about? Yes, I'm sure you had a more functional society in Bosnia before the economic hardship. Whenever people suffer, they seem to want to destroy their society, and regress to a more primitive state of living (just look at the absurd extremist parties popping up in democratic societies whenever the economy falters). What is this "new" model of multiculturalism you are talking about? Are you sure you're just not throwing **** on a concept you just believe you don't like? a) Of course. I am not talking about a single person or group of persons forcing other individuals to adopt modern philosophies. Multiculturalism will, in maybe 200 years, have become the only modern way of thinking through natural evolution of society like I described above, just like nobody today in the civilized world wants their country to be an absolute monarchy. b) Of course not. But we're talking what is LIKELY here. Anything is possible under the right circumstances. c) Not at all necessarily! Actually first of all, no culture is ever preserved absolutely in any meaningful sense, because they change over time. In an ideal multicultural society, ideas will be traded between cultures and even as every larger ELEMENT of a culture will likely exist somewhere, the individual culture, as a singular unit, will disappear instantly.

"What's in a name? That which we call a psionicist, by any other name would smell as sweet."

I live in the largest city in the country that has the largest amount of refugees per capita in Europe, barring Malta and Cyprus. You seem to have a fixation on "culture" and "customs", whatever that means. I think it's quite arrogant to see such importance in someone's cultural heritage and ethnicity. People are defined to a much larger degree by their own separate personality. What are you going to say next, that you can smell people's nationalities from 100 yards away? That people of [insert nationality here] are all alike? You seem to have an immense amount of prejudice concerning people from differing cultures. The world is not going to change in an instant. You're making a fool of yourself when accusing me of believing that seems to be the core of your argument. Of course I don't think I can just tell everyone to be nice and that's it. It will be a gradual process and in the end, everyone will adopt multicultural, democratic ideals because that is the only philosophy that can unite the world. At times, this progress will be slowed down whenever global economic downturn occurs amid the ensuing discontent, blaming and pie- throwing. Hopefully it won't end up in too much pop-a-mole with extreme nationalist regimes. It's kind of like free trade: you can try to pretend capitalism does not exist and lock yourself in, and you'll end up like North Korea. Nationalism is a stillborn ideology. As improvements in communications have made a globalist ("multiculturalist") ideology possible (and increasingly necessary), so has nationalism become an obstacle instead of the uniting factor it was in the 19th century.

You still have not understood one iota of what the issue at hand is. The problems are "Boobplate" and overly stylized armour is unpractical and even potentially harmful for the wearer in combat. The sexualization makes no sense. I would have laughed out loud at a female adventurer wearing a "titplate" or otherwise not covering herself properly. There would be no end to the sexual harassment she would face. In too many games, it is simply normal for women to walk around half- naked or with silly armour pieces. Both of these problems are extremely immersion- breaking for me. I don't care one iota about what female gamers or women think, my complaints are all about how I feel about the game. I don't care the slightest about how women dress in real life. To make a comparison, think about a game being made about astronauts. The male astronauts all have normal spacesuits, but the female astronauts have suits with large fake ****. Or a game about the war in Iraq, where the male soldiers look like normal, but the female soldiers have skimpy clothes and tit- shaped body armor. I don't see space suits having plastered- on fake ****. Modern body armour does not come with breast- shaped exterior. And medieval armour was not manufactured in special "pr0n" series for women. Please let this be a SERIOUS game for SERIOUS gamers, not fantasy- themed soft porn for 12- year olds. This is a mature cRPG, not a Hentai dating simulator. I don't want to sacrifice any realism for fan service to basement dwellers who really believe "armor pieces must look that way in order for women to fit inside them". Get out, meet some real women and let Obsidian concentrate on making a serious game.

I think that armor should always be realistic. Boob plate is not practical for fighting. I could definitely see boob plate as ceremonial armor, but it's pretty damn stupid in combat. Also, the social aspects. In any halfway realistic medieval world, she would be unable to move anywhere without being sexually harassed.

I want to have as a companion the soul of a mighty warrior reincarnated as a cow.