RangerSG

I haven't been geeked about Civ since Civ 2, to be honest. To me Civ 3 was oversimplified and Civ4 was a step back in the right direction but the AI cheating was still way too obvious. That said, I'm a sucker for my Grand Strategy. So I will "always" line up for anything with Civilization, Europa Universalis, Galactic Civilizations, or Alpha Centauri in the title.

Boo, The Blight is "vague"? How? You see what they do to everything in their path. And if you know anything about history, you know that it's destroyed whole nations before...and that wasn't hyperbole. Even if you don't care about that, you know that whatever your feeling about your recruitment, it's done. Now most of my PCs did want to become Wardens (not all, but most). But even the ones who didn't understand the simple fact that if they don't fight the Darkspawn now before they destroy everything, they're going to have to later when there's nothing left to fight for. And who knows...maybe along the way you can acquire some power for yourself in a way you can make use of it. That's a whole lot better than waiting around to be the last person turned into darkspawn. I'd call survival a pretty good personal motivator. And the only way you're going to survive is to end the Blight. As Dresden would say, "Saving the world was just a bonus."

uh huh. you see this as a strength of bg2? okie dokie. It boils down to this. I always role play an egoistical character that cares more about himself (and his immediate companions) than abstract notions such as saving the world. I can't identify with that sort of thing or any idea larger than the character I'm playing as. The character is always good towards others, but those that are "there and then". Vague concepts of common good don't interest him. BGII allows me to do that. I find it superior because of it. Torment allows me to do that as well. When I role play I want it to revolve around me . Petty? Perhaps, but everyone is entitled to his own role playing style. I think its much harder (and riskier) to pull off a personal plot. Torment did and look at how it ended up. Regardless if done well it scores major points with me. That's all there is to it. But as Gromnir said, in DA you *ought* to be motivated to stop the Blight. Even if you do consider the "run away" option, where are you going to go? 30 years later, you're going to have to fight them (when it's worse for you) or become one (epically bad). I'd say you have far superior personal motivation to do the plot in DA than you do being a selfish bastard in BG2. Imoen? So what. Irenicus? Let him rot in spellhold. Ironically, the kind of character you're describing fits the plot in DA better, from where I sit, than BG2. That was the problem playing evil in BG2, why the heck would I go to Spellhold when Irenicus already locked away in the best place for him? At least in DA, I know that I'm being an anti-hero because the alternative is worse. And Tolkien didn't "start" fantasy literature either. The Quest narrative is far older than him. And even saying the "unite the good races" was a minor plot of LotR is making far too much of it. The movie made more of it than the books did. Gondor didn't need "uniting," it was being attacked. Actually, in the books, one could make the case that no one "united" other than Gondor or Rohan. There's a reason the "Last Alliance" ended the Second Age. As for the difference between a trope and cliche, well I think Jim Butcher said it best. "If it works, it's a trope. If it doesn't, it's a cliche." Boiled down, all literature uses tropes. Sometimes you avert them or subvert them to a degree. But they're always there. The only question is, "Did it work?" By and large, the tropes in DA do, better than they do in any RPG I've played since BG2. I didn't like PS:T because I didn't think it worked as a game. I didn't buy the motivation for the plot. I didn't see the need for the quest. Hence, no motivation. It's fun to read the dialogue. But honestly, there's little motivation to play it. And as a point of fact, most of the sales were long after the game exited the timeframe of "on-market." Most of it was back-order by word of mouth from people who'd played BG2. And if you want "non-standard" fantasy, I love Kay, and Steven Erikson (who's about as non-standard as fantasy gets these days). In fact, the one MMO I'd ever be sold on would be a Malaz-verse setting. So it's not "wordiness" that turned me off on PS:T. It was pacing. There's a difference. A game has a different balance than a book. It goes with using a visual medium. That's what was forgotten in PS:T, and that's why it didn't become more than a cult-fave game. I love the Dresden Files. But if Jim Butcher tried to make an 800 page doorstopper with Harry, I think it would flop. Why? Because Dresden isn't "epic-fantasy" paced. It's "Adventure novel" paced. PS:T was set as an adventure, but paced as a novel. Thus it played for lots of people in a very turgid fashion.

And I'm tried of hearing how "Gathering the good races to battle ancient evil" was LotR's plot. It wasn't. "Take the Ring to Mount Doom to destroy the ancient enemy" was LotR's plot. The "good races" battles within the plot were a sum total of 3, and all humans. You only learned the other races fought to from the appendixes. Rewriting LotR's plot to make your argument only shows that you're watering all fantasy to the lowest common denominator--which you can do with any two pieces of literature and call them "clones." All literature has tropes. Whether they are used well or poorly is a different question. But expecting fantasy literature to not have a quest narrative is something like expecting wisdom literature to not be written in proverbial forms. It isn't going to happen. And DA's plot owes a lot more to aSoIaF than any other fantasy work, to be perfectly honest. The competing political factions, the "larger evil" being masked most of the plot by worldly politics. It's pretty clear that Martin was where Gaider was doing his plot cribbing from. Good and bad on that score. If you like Martin, you probably like the main plot of DA. If you're burnt out on Martin, you're probably thinking the plot is running thin. And if you're comparing it to LotR--sorry, you're cribbing from pre-game criticism that really ends up being, "I'm tired of fantasy role-playing." And if you are, then you bought the wrong GENRE. And no one should be blamed for that than yourself, since it claimed to be a fantasy RPG on the tin. The "LotR" comparisons are honestly paper-thin, and in the end pretty much end up at the point of where every fantasy setting comes into play. And you thought Watcher's was the greatest dungeon ever. And I thought it was overlong, bloated, and only worth doing for the stat boosts and game-breaking gear you got gifted as part of the game. And your NPCs added next to nothing to the experience. Certainly less than Oghren and Shale do to the Deep Roads. I loved BG2. But to say it didn't grind or its NPCs were so much better or such...erm...no. It was epic and huge and unique at the time. But there's a lot of nostalgia that goes into our view of that game. Not that nostalgia is bad. But it was hardly flawless. And I'm sorry, I'm in the camp that PS:T never appealed to. It wasn't because it was a different setting. It was just too slow a pace. It took too long to get anywhere. Similar to SoU's problem, few people are going to care how awesome the end may or may not be if the beginning is a steaming pile of rubbish.

Boo BG2 had no "two hour grinds"-- do you recall Watcher's Keep? Which was nothing if not an endless dungeon crawl. See also Durgan's Tower in BG1. The long dungeon crawl is a staple of the RPG. You like it or you don't. I thought the Deep Roads was very effective. My PCs invariably look around it going..."I'm going to end up somewhere down here, aren't I?" And the lore on the darkspawn ought to have been enough to convince a person they weren't D&D orcs...of course, let's be clear, D&D didn't invent orcs...or virtually any monster in the compendium. So saying this or that "copies" a D&D monster is nonsense. If you want to discuss roots of fantasy, let's be honest about where to look. Monte, It's way too early to judge the DA toolset. It took years for the IE modding community to get started. It took over a year for NWN's mod community to get serious. NWN2's took just as long (and still hasn't matched NWN1's, and probably never will). I'm not going to say DA will have a great toolset or won't. But talking about it, at this point, is nonsense. The heightmap system requires a serious investment in time. Similar to the increase in the learning curve from NWN1 to NWN2. Many of the NWN1 modders I've chatted with have said it's going to take a while to get familiar with what the toolset can do. So "wait and see" is the only answer there.

I was disappointed when I read this in the FAQ too. I'm guessing they had serious issues with the import on a dead PC and decided that if someone wanted to do it that way, they could since people were crying about *not* being able to do it anyway. That said, I won't import my "sacrifice" PC. She made that choice for a reason, and it just doesn't fit to bring her back.

You can say that after the Urn of Sacred Ashes quest? Your choice there affects your party big time. How about your choices in/after Landsmeet? Life or death, quite literally, for several of the NPC's. Your choices affect the ending in ways you cannot even imagine at the time you are making them. The Dalish quest had three potential outcomes, and the results of each could not have been more different nor affect the game more. I'm really confused that you would say this about this particular game, since it is the first game I've played where choices have such far-reaching, potentially catastrophic and unpredictable results. The Dalish quest affected the game? How? What I said is choices don't affect how the quest plays out, you still do a long grind and a decision at the end. And they're not great because you can always do the right thing without cost if you want to, nothing new here. As far as being unpredictable, that's why I said they're not very satisfying, for example you have to say something that doesn't make any sense at the end of Alistair sister quest, or else Alistair will act like a boneheaded jerk at the end of the game. Well, I've never said anything that "doesn't make sense" to Alistair after seeing his sister. In fact, I've never done the "hardening" line with either romance option. So I fail to see how it's "necessary" to avoid having Alistair act like a jerk in the end. Though I would note, that whether or not you like what Alistair does in the end, it makes perfect sense given his internal motivators. His actions are irrational, but entirely consistent. And since human beings aren't computers, what he does makes sense.

You can say that after the Urn of Sacred Ashes quest? Your choice there affects your party big time. How about your choices in/after Landsmeet? Life or death, quite literally, for several of the NPC's. Your choices affect the ending in ways you cannot even imagine at the time you are making them. The Dalish quest had three potential outcomes, and the results of each could not have been more different nor affect the game more. I'm really confused that you would say this about this particular game, since it is the first game I've played where choices have such far-reaching, potentially catastrophic and unpredictable results. I'm with Di on this one. I don't see how they "don't make a difference." Which option you pick to deal with the demon in Redcliffe matters. The quest for the Urn can send half your party up in smoke (Sten en route, Lel and Wynne when you make the choice. Revealing you're a BM can make you the enemy of both the Circle and the Templars and gimp you in the end game. The choices with the Dwarves make a radical difference with what happens to them in the end. And if you "blow through" that quest without talking to people, you may never understand why. The Dalish/Werewolves, as Di noted. And personally I'd say Alistair's reactions at the landsmeet are absolutely in-character...even if they are stupid from a strategic POV. And I also remember how when FO3 everyone here loved on it, but now are much more cool in their analysis. I'd chalk this up to "familiarity breeds contempt." Bottom line, if a game gives you a dollar's worth of entertainment for every one spent, can you really complain about the value you've received...esp compared to say a movie? Or even cable/dish TV? Seeing I enjoyed almost all of the 123hrs I spent on my first DA playthrough, and still enjoy the game 3 months later, I can't complain for value. Is it BG2? Nope. But gromnir said that best. BG2 had multiple iterations to get the engine seamless. All they had to worry about was story. DA was not just a new story, it was a new setting and new ruleset. Comparing it to BG2 is, by definition, an unfair comparison. Compared to the original BG, it stands up much better. And the original BG was very grindy. Aimless wandering was fun, yes. But it was a mechanic to hide the grind.

I think the reason DS9 was loved was because it wasn't mainly finding new life and making peace. the Federation got into a war with another group during several of the seasons and showed a more military side to the feds. I don't think Trek would make a very good RPG because you don't exactly have true free agents running around in the TNG era. Well you do but non in the sense of "heavily armed" agents. The standards of RPGs (western and japanese) just don't conform very well to Trek because there is no morality or rag tag group of well meaning adventerurs who save the day... everything is done for the states benefit, so it wouldn't make sense to limit a player about what equipment he could requisition, and you couldn't very well have morality play any form of role because there's only "Us" and "them" really... Agreed, that's another reason I think B5 would be better suited to an RPG. You have lots of "free agents" and mercenaries roaming around. Some sell information or drugs (dust) or weapons. Rangers could fit in the "free agent" category, especially on cover. Even Psi Cops operating similarly. Lita was a "free agent" even on B5 for most of seasons 4 and 5 as a telepath. There's lots of room in that environment to choose factions and play them to suit your character. Plus the tactics and physics are just more realistic. Tech matters, but not so much that it can't be overwhelmed by numbers. Fighters and mixed assault craft actually work and work together. The battles in B5 were always stunning displays, especially in seasons 3 and 4.

So NWN offered server maintenance, fulltime DM staff, constant development, testing and addition of new content, event organization etc "for free" before? If you can't shell out $15 a month, my advice would be to stop whining and get a job. Homeless folk aren't their intended target anyway. YAWN. I have a job. Doesn't mean I want to waste my discretionary funds on something I got for free previously. Next time, try an actual argument instead of clueless trolling flamebait.

I'd prefer something more alike to Deep Space: Nine. Getting thrown on some remote planet/space station and dealing with pretty much everything ranging from political intrigue, over-sexed Betazoids to an alien threat from an unknown part of the galaxy for instance the obscure Tholian Assembly or the Breen. A Deep Space 9 type scenario would be my first choice as well but I think something resembling the original series would be an easier sell due to the movie's success. Meh, if you're going to do a space station-based TV setting, Babylon 5 over DS9 anyway. All of DS9's best ideas were ripped right out of JMS' storylines anyway. And Sheridan, Ivanova, Delenn, G'Kar, Kosh....ahh, those were characters. Still my favorite all time TV show. heh, then I see Maria agreed with me.

Agreed, to me, no matter who the developer for the MMO version, it's a stupid business decision. Why would people pay for something they got for free previously? Especially during a severe recession. But do we expect Atari to do anything but FAIL?

Atari is bereft of ideas. Is anyone surprised? There is only one MMO I would ever support. A Malazan Book of the Fallen MMO. That's not to say I don't like MP cRPGing, I do. But I don't want an MMO to do it. NWN Persistent Worlds worked perfectly well for that.

I think a fairy-tale style inspired RPG would be a blast, and not just for kids. In fact, I think what would be fun is a RPG where the world is essentially medieval tech and virtually non-existent magic if you stay in the cities or where the faithful have power. But the further you go into the wild, the stranger things get, until you get the sort of fairy-tale weirdness. Or in a modern setting like the Dresden Files. Most people don't/won't see the weirdness. But it's there for the people who can sense it. And a few can manipulate it.

Ill probably regret asking - but what is so horrible about 4E Forgotten Realms? I haven't even looked at the books so have no clue. (Also it seems like in my experience that whenever a new edition comes out there are always those who complain about the artwork - I remember it about 2E as well). The better question is what is there about the pre-4E Realms that was at all worth preserving? The 4E Realms may be awful, but can they possibly be worse than the jumbled cavalcade of cliches that was the pre-4E Realms?? True enough, but did they need to replace it with another host of lame cliches? Let's kill Mystra...again. Oh, she couldn't see it coming this time, even though she would have total access to divination and OUGHT to know something was going to happen. Let's blow up some continents again, because we didn't do it well enough last time. And let's "simplify" the pantheon by killing all the deities that gave the realms any kind of unique flavor, along with all their planes, of course. *sigh* Why is it every version they see the need to go on a pantheon-destruction spree. Are they really so clueless as to not be able to figure out that if they left the thing STABLE for a while, that maybe it would be easier to follow?

I'll agree that you became more relatively powerful earlier than you did in FO1. I think whether or not you were half-way done or not really depended on how much random exploring you did. I don't disagree that the leveling rate can't be dialed back slightly. But I do think that the degree to which this is true is exaggerated. Especially if the comparison is made to the capped FO1, and not the (functionally uncapped) FO2.

um, because he signed a treaty that said he wouldn't have them after the first war. silly argument, killian. taks Yes, but we force him to sign that at gunpoint. Just because a country is invading another does not make it right to just up and declare war on them. Well, seeing as we were BEGGED by the Free World to lead the effort against Iraq in the initial Gulf War, actually, yes it did. And since we never, as a point of fact, signed a formal peace treaty with Iraq, we were free by international law to commence hostilities again as soon as Iraq was seen in violation of any terms of the cease fire. Whether or not Iraq had WMDs (and blaming Bush for something every intelligence agency in the world thought was true from the mid 90s is absurd), there is no doubt they were violating the cease fire agreement. Ergo, hostilities were justified as a point of law. Honestly, the only thing I think we did wrong with regards to Iraq is that we acted before we completed operations in Afghanistan, and that has left us generally stretched too thin. As far as the "torture" memos go. I'm not a Cheney fan. I've never been one. But he's right; if you're going to release the documents, release them all. Don't just release the ones that make you look right. And not even THAT right, as it turns out, since his own intelligence chief conceded "valuable" intelligence was gained. And it's flat out wrong to ask people for their legal opinion and then prosecute them for giving that opinion. Simply put, that constitutes entrapment. This is nothing but the latest installment of Obama's permanent campaign. Keep the focus off what he is (or more accurately, is not) doing by continuing to make it look like those big, bad Bushies are all the problem when the Democrats own it ALL.

I call Fallout 3 puny because I hit max level after playing only 30 hours. Maybe not puny, but the leveling is way off kilter. I hope Vegas has better leveling design than FO3 did. After 30 hours I should only be level 10 tops. And I would note (again) it was easy to hit max level in FO1 that early as well too. You might try keeping that fact in mind before protesting. Especially since BethSoft said that they were trying to keep the challenge rating closer to the initial FO as opposed to FO2. Honestly, I'd say they accomplished that, generally. And as the main quest was designed to be done in 30 hours, it's really not surprising you'd hit the cap in that time. Heck, in FO2, after 30 hours, I'd have been to almost that same level. So really, the leveling worked out at close to the same rate as the previous versions. If anything, maybe slower.

True, F2 played around with the illusion of player achievement a bit much. Then again, it has one of the better time limits that I can remember, not too strict, but urging you to actually finish your quest, the real motivation behind the character. Anyhow, the problem in F3 wasn't the level cap, since F2 had some very rewarding character progression despite the same cap. The problem was the complete misdesign of how xp was handled and in how large quantities. The character was an unwinnable death machine because any player would reach the level cap way before the halfway mark, if he did any backtracking at all. I had to mod the game to slow down xp gain before levels felt meanigful, the game just threw them around like nothing. Same could be said about the perks, one of the worst ideas of game design ever to give them out every level. I just had to pick several of those "+5 to something" perks in a row and lose any kind of challenge that much sooner. Perks in previous Fallouts were something you were anxious to find about and pick, because they were relatively rare, every 3 or so levels(depending on some traits). I don't know if I ever felt I was invincible in FO3. Like previous incarnations, I was always one nasty explosion from being splattered all over the wasteland. 1 super mutant critical with a rocket launcher, or hitting the car nearby *cringes* was usually enough to remind me of mortality. I think the perk every level decision was made to mitigate the pain of the loss of traits (in fact, I'm sure that this was mentioned as the rationale in an interview). The why of that was a lengthy discussion, and I didn't entirely agree, but I could see why they made it. It did make the game easier if you wanted to powerlevel your PC, yes. But if you wanted an RP concept, it gave you a way to make the game playable throughout. *shrugs* I'd love to have traits back, of course. And I'd trade that for the old perk system. But I'm not sure how viable that kind of change would be. To me, if the choice has to be made between system tweaks and story, I'll take more story every time. That's what I think Obsidian can give us that FO3 did not above all else. So that's what I care the most about seeing.

I think that when mentioning the "level cap" issue in FO3, it's only fair to note that you had a level 20 cap in FO1 as well, and it was pretty easy to reach that before the end game. Also the "sense of urgency" in FO2 was very artificial, as no matter how long you took to get back to Arroyo, the vertibirds had already done their work. So those complaints on FO3 don't wash with me. The one complaint I do find valid is FO3 had very dodgy writing in places. But writing has never been BethSoft's strong point, so I was hardly shocked. The other is the Vats system could've been cleaned up more and the melee combat system...well...ugh. It stunk in Oblivion, it still stunk. And I agree about Oblivion being wretched as a game, though I loved Morrowind. So I'm not a BethSoft hater. But Oblivion was to me a step backwards in every area except visuals from Morrowind. I liked FO3, but I agree that Obsidian can add what the game lacked, so I'm optimistic.

I just finished Toll the Hounds the latest in The Malazan Book of the Fallen by Steven Erikson. I enjoyed it, the general impression of this one has been "loved it/loathed it." And I definitely fit in the 1st camp. If you liked the series to this point, you should like this. I think it was better than Reaper's Gale. But not as good as Memories of Ice or The Bonehunters. Things are definitely more on the "personal" level in this book, as opposed to some of the epic scales of the earlier books of the series. I'm currently reading Anathem from Neal Stephenson. The world-building in that is simply awesome. And as usual, if you like Stephenson's "intellectual asides" from his other series, you'll find them here with a vengeance. And you never know what supposed "throw-away" is actually a hidden plot nugget until the end. On deck is R. Scott Bakker's The Judging Eye. I'll have to reread the original series first however, to regain my bearings for that. I love Glen Cook as well, his new series, The Instrumentalities of the Night, should be getting a new book in it this year. *crosses fingers* It has all the gallows/mercenary humor of The Black Company, and a lot more political intrigue in it. Not saying it's better, but he definitely shows that he can play the "intrigues" game in this series as well.

That's how I recall the initial FO3 reaction as well, generally a surprised positive. It wore off over time to some degree. But I think the final reaction was still; "The system was viable (could be better, but it did what it tried to do), the atmosphere was great, it was well polished, it just needed more RP." I think Obsidian can definitely add the RP element that was missing and turn a solid game into a winner. I think they may have some time for some minor system tweaks. But I think if they tried to overhaul the engine in a year, they'd be suffering from excessive ambition. Whereas if the story/RP elements were amped up, I doubt anyone would have a reason to seriously complain about the final product.

Wow. I'm amazed. I really thought this would be a bit of good news for Obsidian. But it seems that some people here can complain about anything, even getting the chance to have a crack at their old franchise again. I personally was pleased to hear this. As far as what the Oblivion-engine was capable of, I really wish people would check what the mod community did before they ASSUME that the generic faces were all the engine was. Taking 5 mins will show that simply wasn't true. Rather, it's part of BethSoft's assumption that players want "realistic" (ugly) looking faces in games. The mod community has accounted for that error before. As far as the combat system goes, I'd really rather they focus on story/setting and getting the most out of what they can in the current time rather than tweaking architecture. Regardless, I'm happy for Obsidian, and look forward to seeing this released.

Now something in the World of Darkness I could go for. Vampires, Mages, either is fine. Better, one that lets you do either one in the game itself. Please...not a 4e game.

Well, it can't be NWN3, since Neverwinter doesn't exist in 4e. So I'm sure they'll call it something else. But it'll be intended to fill that market, I think as well. I do hope I'm wrong, I really have no intention of supporting 4e in any way, shape, or form.