Monte Carlo

Excellent. A solid, palpable 'C', verging on C+ if you hadn't used such an obvious forum name. Keep at it, young padowan,

My problem is I suspect this game might end up taking itself a bit *too* seriously. It's high-fantasy. Which needs to be, just now and ten, light and shade. Which is where we probably have irreconcilable POVs on what constitutes fun. The whole point of a CRPG is to be fun by simulating a distinct unreality. Sorry to be harsh, but there has been an influx of shrill Codex-inspired hipsters and story-tyme obsessed-LARPers over the past few days.

We have a huge dungeon and two cities. Now we need a wilderness area / an island type adventure. This would fit a colonial vibe I quite fancy playing Conquistador over human-sacrificing savages.

* sigh * More "this is breaking my immersion" guff. And the dragons, spells and undead don't? It should simply be a party creation tool. Period. Not all of us want to drag NPCs around all of the time. Also there are comparatively few of them. What if the cleric drives me nuts? And I want a new one? How is that breaking your immersion? The clamour for some sort of uniform experience across all players and the intolerance of varying play-styles is getting tired.

Codex echo chamber. I'm hitting the sack i'm sure we can all resume this tete a tete tomorrow.

Lord almighty you are insufferable. I try my best, although you rather prove my point.

You basically described a typical sandbox RPG, then proceeded to claim that you "hate sandboxes". I...don't know what to say to that. I'd better get out of this thread before I get warned by one of the mods. Later dude, I'm sure you'll grace us with your cuttingly acerbic wit another time.

You are the hipster. I am going to, in the circumstances, have to take that as a compliment.

Hello? This is a dungeoneering IE game romp, not emo vampire story-tyme.

The faintly patronising tone of the hipsters on this thread amuses me.

Not really.

Well then, I'm pleased to inform you that there's a very successful developer named Bethesda that caters to tastes precisely such as yours. Funny, I hate sandboxes like Skyrim. Loathe first person games. hahahahahaha I can't let you get away with that one ... how can anybody enjoy a Bethseda games combat mechanics?

And? It might be easier for a restaurant just to serve chicken soup all day too. This is about the customer, right?

Well then, I'm pleased to inform you that there's a very successful developer named Bethesda that caters to tastes precisely such as yours. Funny, I hate sandboxes like Skyrim. Loathe first person games.

Compromise for how many, though? I think there are like, what, four of you in this thread disliking this? Why should the devs compromise with such a tiny group? I'm not saying your tastes and opinions aren't important - just that the developers have a vision, first off, that they should stick to despite what the community wants, and that, secondly, if they tried to compromise with each and every small group advocating for something you get a monstrosity like Dragon Age 2. Says the guy who likes romances.

It's about design and reward. I like random stuff. Exploring. Wandering monsters. I like to wander on and off the critical path. I like gaining power at different rates of progression (you call it grinding, I call it enjoying the game's combat mechanics). Some players want perma-story tyme, but I don't. It's an XP system I think works and I'm comfortable with, it's simple and fairly elegant and i'm a small 'c' conservative when it comes to these things. I am also a passionate advocate of how I choose to play a game I paid for is nobody else's concern.

the point is that you can still kill everything on sight. or do you just kill for the xp as josh described? The point is that I choose not to abuse the system, unless in another play-through I feel like it. This thread is an existential struggle between gaming libertarians and Utopianistic-gaming Maoists.

D minus kiddo. Back to troll skool for you.

Ask yourself the same thing. If killing by the millions rewards more, eventually everyone will go for that to reach the maximum. With the Sawyer's suggestion, every roleplay option is available. Point not Found

I'm glad that the manner in which a complete stranger chooses to enjoy a piece of digital media has become such an important source of schadenfreude for you.

BUT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO YOU? It's a single player game for chrissakes.

Some people view these games as very story-driven / experiential and some people view them on a far more granular level. Most people are somewhere in the middle. I tend towards the second category, although clearly I enjoy the plot / objective / NPC aspects too. I see no problem, whatsoever, in a hybrid of those two extremes.

Srsly, why is this so difficult to understand?

* sigh * the XP model. I view it as very restrictive.

I love how folks who, by implication, can't help meta-gaming and exploiting systems are advocating a restriction of those of us who can.