Orogun01

JRPGs have better game mechanics that WRPGs.

A pure stealth game wasn't going to attract that much of a crowd, my guess that they struggled trying to make the game marketable.

Nothing's sacred.

I haven't played the previous games; I think I only played the original for about 5 seconds before I decided it wasn't for me. The game does offer a lot of options to customize your own experience, it literary lets create your custom difficulty which was a big bonus. The only real critique is about the levels being too small and as a result the exploration being too linear. OTOH you can't really have graphical fidelity and deep exploration. It's a solid game I just don't think is for everyone and it's definitively not for fans of the originals.

Do you care to offer a more scandalous one?

A good character is above all interesting; I don't think Patrick Bateman has any of the attributes mentioned in the video and yet it is a great central character. You don't have to relate to him you just need to be curious about what's on his mind, and little by little you start getting a sense of him and the world he inhabits and you get him. That's suspension of disbelief, making an average normal person understand a psychopath, even if they don't like or agree with him. If your character is interesting, people will want to know more about him/her otherwise it's just going through the same motions as the rest.

I think some of the best player dialogue options I've seen where in VTM:B; it didn't have any of the usual flavors, it was in fact quite constricting but it still managed to give life to my character. I think good writing supersedes the number of options, I rather have 3 well defined archetypes than 5 just thrown there for the sake of variety.

I apologize for my blasphemous opinions that keep drawing too many facts.

Then you should say something dirty like: " I min-max my character in CoD" I just think that we're out of complaints, I mean there aren't that many WRPGs. Also, Ultima in no way deserved 9 sequels and were only made because Lord British is loaded.

Keep drinking Mt. Dew and it will be 10 years from now on an electric wheelchair; seriously, sugary drinks and junk food is really bad for arthritis.

Like every political campaign you're not targeting the opposition, you're going for the undecided. The middleman that has no opinion and no bone to pick, you sway public opinion in favor of LGTB and turn the violent criers into a vocal minority. I doubt that any president feels so strongly about LGTB rights that they would go to war against their own people and I sincerely doubt that the majority of Ugandans are violent bigots by nature.

I am fine with the possibility of losing, it makes the game so much interesting. What I'm not fine with is the game throwing more than what your character can handle and then pretending that there is a viable strategy, because when they conceived that level they where using a different build. You can't nerf players and then ask them to defeat the mightiest dark lord that threatens the land on hand to hand combat. And a bit of Devil's Advocate, if every monster in Skyrim was a viable threat then you couldn't get from point A to B without dying a few thousand times and burning some hours. on a 100 plus hours game where going from point A to B is all you do; its counteractive. On that note; I hated Morrowind. Why are you going to make a FP game and then have everything be controlled by rolls. It is just ridiculous when the game says that I didn't hit a monster when I can clearly see that I'm hitting it. Edit: this thread its cathartic; I've been holding on to some of these opinions for years now.

Agreed... but... I don't understand the problem there; the point is to develop the character and make the best choices available to them... ergo, it has to be limited to their stats; why should player agency come into it at all? (Aside from perceiving the best options available to the PCs... and hopefully succeeding with them; perhaps with a bit of luck.) It's not like the game is supposed attempt to swap the player for the PC; we have enough of that crap in game like Skyrim. The rules in D&D based cRPGs at least afford them some immunity to that. The rules in D&D where made for a tabletop system (maybe not so with third edition) where the player can directly communicate to the DM what their intent is. In that scenario you need attributes to determine chance of success. Video games are more straightforward in that you're limited to what choices are available, if on top of that the chances of success of those choices is random you have reduced what the player can do to the flip of a coin. Which would be fine if you could approach complete the game with any possible class build, but when the character you conceived is a bard/duelist that specializes on single combat and cavorting with wenches and the game decides to throw you into the forest to fight hordes. Well then we have a problem, since there is no way to communicate to the DM that I want to climb a tree and stab at the beasts from a branch. In short; less comprehensive systems give players more freedom as they are not restricted by the failings of their class. Another opinion: I hate hand holding in dialogue, It kills any sense of immersion when the game sees fit to give me the right answer instead of letting me figure it out on my own.

I do not care for Gothic, Risen or any other RPG where the end result of leveling is not that you excel at something but rather that you are competent at it.

Doesn't seem like an experienced team, I'll give the prototype a try and decide based on it.

Ohh la la

Did you heart went boom boom booom and you said "Son, pack your things I'm going to take you home"?

I remeber watching Vanguard "missionaries of hate", it's a documentary about what you mentioned. Basically Christian missionaries went to Uganda, propagated their views and supported Uganda treatment of LGTB and when they got too extreme they denied anything ever happening. Perhaps I should have explained myself better; I'm in no way in favor for moral relativism just moral liberty for everyone. My beef is with the methods of the West rather than with their ethics, I basically see it as "If you don't let us push our morality on you to stop you from pushing your morality on others we'll sanction you". I don't believe that two wrongs make a right (although two negatives make a positive but that would be more like two bad guys killing each other; sorry I ramble)

I often find myself of two minds on issues like this; on one side I think laws targeting specific groups are a gross abuse of power and often they are moot since the groups being targeted are often harmless. Not to say that you could just treat them lawfully without special measure just because of their choices. On the other hand I dislike how the first world powers try to force their morality, it shows a disregard for the country's autonomy and it just comes off as condescending. Plus the political sanctions are useless since most of these countries are completely authoritarian or their electoral process corrupt (not that ours is any better). Sanctions might influence public opinions against their leaders but they have no real recourse, so in the end you penalize everyone in the country (gay and straight alike) while the leaders are the least affected. I know this for a fact because of a freaking 40+ years embargo.

Kotaku just about destroys it, the reviewers dislike for it is quite clear, but TotalBiscuit seems to like it. Honestly, it doesn't seem to be half as bad as I personally expected. I just hope it will sell enough to let Eidos Montreal do another Deus Ex. Oh noes it's not Skyrim or LoU, it must be bad.

Is it just the mods or the installation, cause if it is the latter then DIY.

Magic is awesome, writers suck.

You misspelled Suikoden II Did Suikoden let you Suplex a moving train? I don't think so.

It communicates intent but not language. Which is why when someone speaks aggressively I listen more to their feelings than their words.

I'd be just as happy if another Tolkien-esque game of any variety never gets made ever again. The thing is though, Tolkien-eqsue doesn't just mean elves and orcs. World of Warcraft has elves and orcs and it's not even remotely like Tolkien's work. There are suprisingly few good cRPGs in the same style and level of quality as Tolkien. I understand, and I stand by my statement. High fantasy, in general, is far and away the most played out setting in RPGs, and video games in general. There are so many other great settings that have barely, if at all, been explored. Let's make some games in those settings and give high fantasy a rest for a good long while. Yeah, nowadays is so common that there are cliches about the high fantasy races and what not.