RangerSG

I can't share the enthusiasm for a D&D project, since that will mean the abomination 4e ruleset. And I've already sworn never to buy anything related to that. Pathfinder would work though... Arcanum 2 would be interesting, though more likely a steampunk/ Dark Towerish RPG---oh, now THAT would be fun--a Dark Tower RPG. I'd prefer Warhammer to 40k. If I were to have my dream setting for sci-fi, it would be Babylon 5. I'm guessing something D&D though, given the advanced notice.

The 3.5 rules a bonus over 2.0? No. Sorry. I tolerate 3rd edition rules. They're not a "bonus" over AD&D rules. But now this *is* going to get off topic. WotSC was ever the bane to quality RP.

Are we taking requests? The Malazan Book of the Fallen, Steven Erickson's setting would be a glorious RPG opportunity. Multiple factions and races to choose from, many utterly unique. A magic system radically different from that of most fantasy RPGs. A rich, developed pantheon and history. What's not to like?

My impression with J.E's artistic design was that it seems to be heavily influenced by Disney's Mulan but with the latter still being portrayed accurately to Eastern design. The difference? Disney relied on years of research on Chinese culture before designing Mulan while J.E's artistic design is simply from a guy who had never been to China, nor gone through in depth study of its history. As a result, the design of J.E is simply an interpretation of China, but its not even Chinese. As noted, you are operating under a misconception. JE was intended to be a mix of eastern and western styles. It was not intended to portray China or Japan, it was intended as a unique setting mainly eastern but not entirely. Any problems with JE, IMHO, have nothing to do with the setting, or at least it's lore and background.

Tell me Volo...in what other industry could even one out of 100 products failing for people it was promised to work be acceptable? That's a fiasco. And you're willing to concede that 1 out of 20 might have failed? That's a disaster. Thanks for making my point. So next time you want to flame people with personal insults, you might want to do a little simple math before you post. Or do you like undercutting everything you say?

Yes Volo, but MEPC already has "fiasco" written on it to many gamers.

That is utter rubbish. "Can't maintain their PC's properly." I run NWN2 without lag in all but the most intense battles, that has requirements almost as high as MEPC. I run games fine that have HIGHER requirements than MEPC. It's got 'nothing' to do with the requirements. It's 100% DRM, thank you. And it's not a "small number of people." You obviously didn't pay attention to the DRM issues on the Bio forum for MEPC or the GPF fault issues...which are also almost certainly DRM related. So yes, Demiurge, who did the port, passed off to a LOT of people a game that was effectively a coaster. And Bioware let it happen. Bad on them, worse on Demiurge for their obvious failure to port effectively on MANY levels, as the tech support forum shows. Fortunately, Bioware took that issue more seriously than people like you who want to play apologist and join Microsoft in crawling through people's systems did. Failure? What failure? You're acting like they've released a damaged product. In that case, they'd have to pull all boxes back from the shelves. Again, a small percentage of users might have some issues due to whatever (and often easily fixable) issues, but going out and condemn the whole industry is just silly. You just start the executable, connect to the servers shortly, and you're done. Game runs. Works splendid. Why do people have an issue with that? Because the DRM on MANY systems locks up the PC. That's why. It doesn't work "splendidly." Also because on principle, it assumes the gamer is a criminal. Because it ASSUMES you are guilty of copying.

That is utter rubbish. "Can't maintain their PC's properly." I run NWN2 without lag in all but the most intense battles, that has requirements almost as high as MEPC. I run games fine that have HIGHER requirements than MEPC. It's got 'nothing' to do with the requirements. It's 100% DRM, thank you. And it's not a "small number of people." You obviously didn't pay attention to the DRM issues on the Bio forum for MEPC or the GPF fault issues...which are also almost certainly DRM related. So yes, Demiurge, who did the port, passed off to a LOT of people a game that was effectively a coaster. And Bioware let it happen. Bad on them, worse on Demiurge for their obvious failure to port effectively on MANY levels, as the tech support forum shows. Fortunately, Bioware took that issue more seriously than people like you who want to play apologist and join Microsoft in crawling through people's systems did.

Well, I DID have my game not run because of the DRM scam for MEPC, and lots of other people did. I waited 2 months for the patch to 'fix the problem' like they said it would. And guess what, it didn't do it for ANYONE. So yes, I love Stardock for having the guts to stand up to the crap that goes on in the gaming industry today.

What was the reason for the comparison? None as far as I can tell. No I would would pick bio everyday of the week and twice on sunday. A slight alteration here. I would pick Bio minus EA to develop the next D&D game minus that ****ty 4E rules set. Well, I think 4e should be universally ignored. And I won't buy anything from any developer that uses it. But that's another issue discussed ad nauseum elsewhere But yes, Bio was better as an independent developer, I fear. I'll grant that EA 'might' have recognized their errors of the past at this point and is letting Bio do it's own thing...but that won't last beyond what I see from DA when it comes out.

You mean the NWN2 OC? The slideshow? oh dear. That was a painfully uninspired ending. It seemed to scream, "Sorry, we're out of money." The battle slideshow before with Nasher was painful too. Why not cutscenes? I know people here tsk tsk Bio for using them too often. But if there's ever times story-wise for a cutscene over a monologue, it's to heighten the dramatic tension of the plot right before the end-game and to provide closure to the story at it's conclusion. If we could have a cutscene before the duel in Act2, why couldn't we have had them there, where they made much more sense? The slideshows gave off a terribly familiar feeling (for those of us who played TSL) of 'lack of finish' to the NWN2 OC. Slideshow at end to show consequences of your actions is ancient BIS/OE trademark that has been present since Fallout. poolofpoo was being clearly sarcastic though because narrating was horrible. And Nasher clip wasn't cutscene for obvious reason; GAME COULDN'T HAVE HANDLED IT Remember resource hogness of NWN2's engine Yeah, NWN2 especially at the beginning was not terribly optimized. Neither was NWN1 to be honest. And I do think that the previous was being serious, because most people do think Aribeth's voice work was good, even if they hate her character. And to be fair, she's memorable, the only thing memorable in that OC. What HotU did with her character was poor, the HotU story would've been better if they'd not tried to tie together the OC into it. No fake Sharwyn, and no mention of Aribeth.

You mean the NWN2 OC? The slideshow? oh dear. That was a painfully uninspired ending. It seemed to scream, "Sorry, we're out of money." The battle slideshow before with Nasher was painful too. Why not cutscenes? I know people here tsk tsk Bio for using them too often. But if there's ever times story-wise for a cutscene over a monologue, it's to heighten the dramatic tension of the plot right before the end-game and to provide closure to the story at it's conclusion. If we could have a cutscene before the duel in Act2, why couldn't we have had them there, where they made much more sense? The slideshows gave off a terribly familiar feeling (for those of us who played TSL) of 'lack of finish' to the NWN2 OC.

xard, I loved Silent Storm 2. Good game, good combat. But I don't see how it proves I have to have turn-based. Or how turn-based must be better than real-time. It's a red herring. A good combat system is a good combat system regardless of whether it's running between "rounds". And as long as pause is enabled, what's the real difference?

Europa Universalis (III) is about as much realtime as the Infinity Engine games. I.e. not very much It's Real Time enough that if you're not paying attention you can get yourself in REAL trouble real fast. Do you need more real time than that? I don't think so. That it does that without being a clickfest just makes it more delicious a system. I enjoy EU's marriage of traditional and RT strategy. And their mix of grognard and alternate history. Though I think EUIII swings too far to 'faking it.' EU2 is still the high-water mark of the series for me. But that said, I agree that IE was 'barely' RT. But then, when you can pause at will and issue orders, how RT is any system? I really don't think of the NWN system as RT unless I'm playing MP and have "player pause enabled" turned off.

Meh, I don't get the whole turn-based, real time debate. Especially if you can pause at will. That's a total red herring issue, IMHO. Even in strategy games. I used to think turn-based strategy was the only kind that made sense, then I played Europa Universalis. The issue is pacing and timing of encounters and combat, not whether or not the game stops for you or not.

1) I want a fun factor. There can be lots of flaws, but if the game is fun, I'll forgive it. If it's technically flawless but dull, then I'm not going to play it. This is still something I do for entertainment...not an academic exercise. 2) Strong story, where PC choices affect the world believably. I don't want a world where everything happens regardless of what the PC does. Or where nothing seemed to change at the end of the adventure. I want a real sense that the PC is interacting with the world. And don't have "oh, your PC is going to be railroaded now so we'll have the PC act with complete stupidity" moments. SoU with the Medusa, HotU with the chest with your gear. NWN2 with Bishop and Qara/Sand, things the PC KNOWS are going to go wrong, and no matter what, the Player has to play dumb and accept them. That's weak writing, to me. I don't mind an overwhelming odds or being trapped. Just make it a situation where the trap really isn't so obvious I can't see it from half the story away, or something that only an utter moron would do. 3) Combat? Don't make it so painful I have to be a grognard or an action-game junkie to like it. But make it believably efficient, and every combat should be winnable without gimmick tactics. Note, I'm not saying an end boss shouldn't be impressive and powerful. I just mean I shouldn't need to munchkin the game to win (like most strategies to beat Sarevok at the end of BG1 revolved around, for instance). The actual engine means diddly to me. Just so it's efficient, fun, and not terribly twitchy. 4) Characters, I want intriguing core NPCs with meaningful interactions with the PC and the world. The closer they are to the PC, the more I want them to have depth and impact the story. Do I want a romance from one? If it's believable, yes. If it enhances the depth of the story or the interaction of the PCs, yes. Not having one to have one. Aliana in the Lord's of Darkness mod for NWN1 was very good. Robin in tdon's Sanctum of the Archmage is also good. Safira in MotB wasn't bad...but it was sudden. Many I've felt were simply there to fill out a checklist, including Casimir and Elanee...which was infuriating because I 'liked' what I saw of both of those NPCs. But there wasn't enough. 5) Finally, I want a world that's believable, has a strong sense of history and lore, and I want to be able to spend time learning that in-game. I don't want a setting like the Forgotten Realms, which is a little of everything til nothing is unique about it. Make a world I would WANT to be involved in. Whether that's saving it, saving myself, or both.

That's true perhaps 'if' you play a fighter only and 'if' you play only the OCs. Try to limit yourself to that in non-OC mods or on a PW or playing anything OTHER than a tank and you'll die; quickly and gruesomely. It's also only true because NWN OCs throw immunity items around like candy. And some of the fights in Hordes were quite dramatic and even strategic. The dracolich for one, the "dead magic" spider lair, and if you fought Meph, that was a true epic challenge. The mod community typically has fights considerably more difficult than the OCs. And I don't see anything in NWN2's OC combat that is more difficult other than a few optional encounters in MotB...really only one, if you do it early (the ancient vampires). And mages are not more difficult to play in NWN2, they're just less fun, since direct damage spells do a better job in core rules of killing your own party than the enemy. Thus I have to not use any of those spells and basically play a party buffer and/or melee mage, which I can do fine, but despise.

Dark Raven, Since this is about combat in RPGs, I'll simply say that I've never seen 'pathfinding' in an RPG that wasn't problematic. I remember having my party get stuck on virtually every tree in IWD2. And the bridge...*sighs* But Morrowind had it the worst on this score. The "follow me" quests in Morrowind were dodgy no matter how well you knew where you were going simply because the AI pathfinding could get hung up on 1 plant on a road. And I also preferred BG's combat to IWD's. Don't know why it seemed IWD's AI was less responsive. I didn't think Morrowind's combat was worse than Oblivion's. Autohit was not nearly as big a deal as the fact in Oblivion if you don't carry 3 sets of armor you can't wander a dungeon without losing all your gear and wandering around naked. Unless you're a master armorer, of course. I don't think there was a single thing Oblivion did better than Morrowind, to be honest. As for NWN2 combat...I don't know what to make of it. I'm in the camp that thinks magic in NWN2 is hosed...but that may be simply because 3.5 nerfed the direct damage spells so badly that only a melee mage or a party buffer is workable. But the animation on certain spells (like magic missile) makes them nearly useless from the beginning, and too many times I've seen fireballs go off too slow to prevent friendly fire just so the animations could look right. I played NWN1 in core rules, but NWN2 I won't touch there.

Common sense? Call me crazy but I tend to think that women would be better at writing female characters and romance and men would be better at writing men characters, but what do I know I don't read romance novels/stories so take that for what it's worth (nothing) Thanks. That might seem logical, but I've read enough book reviews to see female authors get blasted for writing "Mary Sues" to know that doesn't necessarily hold true. *shrugs* A quality character writer will write quality characters, and it has more to do with understanding the motivations of the character than what gender they are.

Why does a romance 'have' to be 6-8 3 line dialogues? I'm sorry, but you seem to have a self-defeating argument that assumes just because something has been this way before means this is the only way it can be. BG2 was the 1st attempt at serious romances. And they were far more than 3 line dialogues. Were they imperfect? Of course. But I think lots of people judge them based on what they think the standard of writing should be now as opposed to what things were at the time when that was NEW. That's an unfair comparison. NWN OCs (and the NWN2 OC romances, which were jokes, Safira is a little more than a joke, but still woefully underdeveloped) were generally too shallow in terms of SP writing across the board. That was a product of making the OCs open to MP as well, and the fact they were just as much a display case for the toolset as an adventure in themselves. Using these as a barometer is absurd, because DA is not trying to replicate NWN. It's already ditched MP. I think there's plenty of examples in the module communties for both NWN and NWN2 that show that non-essential romances can still be woven into the tapestry of a plot and make for a successful result. Lords of Darkness, Dance w/ Rogues, Sanctum of the Archmage, The Aielund Saga are ones that come to mind for me. There's others as well. The real issue when it comes to romances is the desire to write them. Not just because you "need" to include it as a feature, but because you BELIEVE in it as something that adds to the story and the life of the characters IG. BTW, on the GRR Martin issue. I seem to remember things a bit differently about that. I think there were just as many "all rights" from long timers as trepidation. I think the thing that's cooled the Martin references over time is the fact Martin can't get his books on the shelf anymore. I think he's lost his plot, to be honest. It's the only thing that explains why things are taking so long now. And for the record, I think a Malazan setting (Steven Erickson) RPG would be an amazing experience... that would be one MMO I might have to cave in and pay money for if it was done that way...even though I despise MMOs. And a NWN style SP/MP moddable game would be a dream. I love the way he does magic, even if you can't explain it.

3e and 4e more rational than original AD&D? Pfft. You have officially lost my interest.

Why is it 'better' to do something half-rear-ended than just bite the bullet and do it? Don't tell me "because it's always been in the game." They tossed Vancian Spellcasting, which is equally part of traditional D&D. So it wasn't for a lack of wanting to disassociate from the history. They already told us all that us old-time D&Ders were going to have to take a flying leap. If you're right (and I don't think you are) and alignment wasn't a good system, then junk it. If it's wrong, keep it. But don't do what they did here, keep it but neuter it so that it's bloody useless even for RP purposes. I don't know that there was a 'single' design decision in 4e that I would consider acceptably thought out, let alone approve of as a player. It's a mess. Most of what they did reflects this sort of, "We're not sure what we want, so we'll nerf it until it doesn't influence anything" thinking. Pathetic. And I'm not a 3rd edition fan either, but almost every change in 4th ed. represents the same downhill spiral WotC has been on since they acquired the product.

sounds like they got at least one thing right. also, much as i like the old Vance-style spell system, it's pretty hard to argue that what they had in 3e was still Vancian: substituting spells? sorcerers? warlocks? if anything, it was 3e that was Vance-in-name-only... No, they got it completely wrong. If they had removed it entirely, I'd have been upset, but I could've accepted it. If they'd have clarified the mess they made in 3e, then that would've been better. Instead, they nerfed it so it has not meaning, but left it in anyway. How is that right? It's so useless it could be ignored, but so hosed it cannot be. Like most of 4e, it's the worst of all worlds. I don't disagree about 3e making a mess of the spell system, that said, once again, instead of fixing their mess, they threw it into an MMO blender and came up with just about the worst solution possible. And since I don't care one whit about the FR, the whole 4e ruleset has no justification to me except for marketing, and since the marketing ploy was, "We're going to tell all you old-timers to honk off" I'm going to do just that. Pathfinder for me, thank you.

I think what makes BG2 stand out for so many of us, as well, is that there's no game really like it that's been out since. It's the last of the old-style, turn-based, story-driven CRPGs. So it sticks with us, and many of us have kept playing it. Other games have had games like it made since, even if not as well. But I think it's safe to say that the industry has decided that a 60hour story-driven (but still having non-linear elements and side quests) RPG is beyond the profit margin of companies today given the technology required. I think they're selling the market short. I know I'd skimp on graphics and have "functional, but not super-flashy" if the story was brilliant and the world attractive. (And yes, I know technically BG was real-time. But with the autopause system, you could set everything so it played like turn-based very easily. Right down to end of combat round.)

I bow my head in absolute utter embarassment at forgetting this gem of a series. My favorite version would be 01/02, the last version with the wibble/wobble tactics system. But the series was amazing. The sucessor series, Football Manager, is still too unbalanced for me to get nearly the enjoyment I got out of CM. Easily the best sports sim of all time. One of the best strategy games of all time. And you could even RP in it, since you assumed the manager's persona. Tactics, acquisitions, finances. Bloody brilliant game.