Giantevilhead

Fallout 1 and 2 already had a combination of everything since they have AC/deflection, damage threshold, and reduced damage by %.

The password minigame is the worst part for me.

There are so many voice actors that would be great as the narrator of this game. Michael Ironside Linda Hunt Earl Boen Jennifer Hale Mitch Pileggi Keith David Simon Templeman Sara Kestelman

Translation: "We're still making this stuff up, here's a suitably vague answer that can be interpreted in one of a dozen different ways." Isn't that what religion is all about? No, that's what cults are about. Religions don't make any new stuff up, they just find different ways to interpret the stuff people made up hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Translation: "We're still making this stuff up, here's a suitably vague answer that can be interpreted in one of a dozen different ways." But really, the game won't be released for another year and a half, there's the potential for a huge amount of changes to the during during that time.

I think atheism in fantasy worlds just has a different definition than in the real world. It's not really a matter of them not believing in gods, it's more of a matter of them not believing that the gods are all powerful.

I've read and participated in several of those threads and I have not seen people demanding for there to be no revealing clothes at all. Heck, there's plenty of unreasonable responses and misdirections from people who are advocating for chain bikinis. Did you not notice things like this? "Why do you think women don't fight wars even today, with all this feminism culture going around with all the equality and stuff, cuz thats only good in the paper, in real life everyone knows the male is the strong and rational figure and the women is the emotional and weak creature.Men have more willpower to accomplish goals, that's why there arent many women Newton's around. just my opinion, I admit I havent met every women in this planet, but so far, I'm pretty sure that's how it is for everyone of them, their purpose in life is just to find a strong man and cling to it." "Like the previous guy said well, it's just unrealistic to have women running around in full plate armor and fighting against men toe to toe, why bring realism into this? Just leave women with the bikini armors, what's the big deal? they like to show off their features, and I, like any male, like to look at them." See what I did there? Providing actual evidence.

I don't see how powergaming is even a problem in single player games. It can be a problem in multiplayer games since the powergamers can force other gamers to powergame in order to compete but how I play a single player game has no effect on how you play your game.

Considering the rarity of healing magic, I'd imagine necromancy would be far more accepted in certain areas since it's much safer to use zombies or skeletons to in wars or for dangerous jobs like mining.

Depends on how their telepathy works. What if ciphers don't actually read minds? What if they actually pull memories out of other people's minds? So when a cipher reads someone's thoughts, they basically steal those thoughts from that person and makes them forget. That would force you to be very prudent in how you use their telepathy.

That's a very broad generalization. No one is actually condemning eroticism. They're condemning instances when it makes no sense. Not having non-sensical chain bikinis /= no sexuality or sensuality at all. Oh but they are. That's the WHOLE POINT of their argument. That the sexualization is inherently misogynistic and wrong. There are no qualifying factors for chainmail bikinis in white knight world. The "sensibility" is cover. And beyond that, there is little room for sensibility in a fantasy world that is almost entirely a world of imagination. Fantasy worlds are creative affairs, not sensible affairs. The aesthetics may at time mimic sensibility, but doing so is a stylistic choice, not an immutable law. Personally I hope this new fantasy world that OE are creating does take sensible cues. But I think that things like Red Sonja, Conan, and just about anything by Dynamite Entertainment etc (lol) are perfectly fine. And there are a hell of a lot of chainmail bikinis hiding in those pages. But where have "they" specifically said that? Where have "they" said that there shouldn't be any women who look like super models or wear revealing clothing at all? Where have "they" said that female monks or acrobatic type warriors shouldn't wear less clothes? And where have "they" said that chain bikinis would be wrong on a female warrior who actually has a more muscular build?

Yes, because when there are no women around then it's OK to be sexist, just like how it's OK to be racist when there are no minorities around. Sorry, as mentioned in another thread, sexist, misogynist, etc has lost all meaning thanks to the white knights/fems. Its just a shock word used to cause quick emotion gut reactions. No matter what the argument is, the group uses those words like candy to accuse the other side of being sexist/mysogynist/rape supporter..etc. Its right up there with probable cause, no matter what you do or say, your a sexist/mysoganist/rape supporter. Those people who abuse the words are only hurting women in the long run. When someone actually deserves the words, it will be ignored thinking its just the white knight/fem trolls again. So you're just sidestepping the issue because you don't like the way people are using certain words. That's a very broad generalization. No one is actually condemning eroticism. They're condemning instances when it makes no sense. Not having non-sensical chain bikinis /= no sexuality or sensuality at all. oh please, the chain bikinis/boob armour are just the cover stories, every thread like this always degenerates into how women are portrayed, why they are too attractive, why they cannot be exactly like men, why do women have to be treated differently, why is there sex in the game, then it turns to feminists/white knight political debate on the state of feminism, why aren't games designed for women, etc. Its just vitrol of the worst sort. I wish the group who keep bringing these threads up stop being wasting everyone's time and just admit that it has nothing to do with chain mail bikinis or boob armour, but it wants the WHOLE game to be a PC propaganda machine. The worst thing obsidian did was cave to this group with the boob armour debate (I don't believe for a minute the alteration was to make it more realistic), now their boards are getting hammered with this stuff because they won a round. How about you provide some actual evidence? How about you show some posts where people specifically say that there should be no attractive women or that women should be exactly like men. Heck, I've specifically said that there should be women who look like super models or wear scantily clad clothes so long as it makes sense and you called me a "white knight." All I've seen are broad generalizations based on conjecture and misinterpretations.

But they have no reason to trust Caen due to his crap management of Interplay. All he's ever done is lose millions of dollars. Why would they listen to business proposals from someone who is clearly bad at making business decisions? Companies like EA and Activision may be jerks but at least they know how to make money.

That's a very broad generalization. No one is actually condemning eroticism. They're condemning instances when it makes no sense. Not having non-sensical chain bikinis /= no sexuality or sensuality at all.

What does Brian Fargo have to do with it? He's with inXile, not Obsidian. Oops, I meant Feargus Urquhart. In fact, all the former Black Isle people probably hate Herve Caen.

Yes, because when there are no women around then it's OK to be sexist, just like how it's OK to be racist when there are no minorities around.

It seems unlikely that Herve Caen would pull this crap. He has to know that Brian Fargo hates his guts.

Why do everyone keep making huge generalizations. The problem is not having female characters who are scantily clad or show off their bodies, the problem is when it makes no sense. There's nothing wrong with a female monk who doesn't wear any armor but it makes no sense for a female knight to wear a chain bikini while male knights wear full plate. How many female characters who wear chain bikinis look like bodybuilders or athletes who can beat people up? That's the difference between how men and women are sexualized. When men are sexualized, they are portrayed as being strong and powerful. When women are sexualized, they're portrayed as being vulnerable and submissive. All the male sex fantasies are about the guy being the hero and rescuing the helpless girl but how many female sex fantasies are about a woman rescuing a helpless man?

Why are people making such big generalizations and assuming that this is some kind of all or nothing deal? It is not an all or nothing deal. 1. This is not about making the whole game some politically correct or feminist propaganda. That is a completely unfounded and illogical assertion. I want there to be good necromancers in the game, that does not mean I want the entire game to revolve around good necromancers. I want better and more reasonable treatment of women in the game, that does not mean I want the entire game to be about that. 2. This is just one element in the game, one among dozens. It will detract from the game if done poorly but it won't necessarily ruin the game. In fact, no one suggesting that it will ruin the game. For example, Planescape: Torment is a great game but is it without flaws? Of course not, it has bugs, poor pathfinding, control problems, etc. The fact that it had female fighters with impractical armor is a flaw, perhaps not as big of a flaw as the bugs or the unfinished content, but a flaw nonetheless. Planescape is great not because it had female fighters with impractical armor, it is great in spite of it. Project Eternity can be great if it falters in this aspect just as it can be great if it has bugs or control problems. However, that does not mean the developers should not try to avoid this problem any more than they should try to avoid bugs or control problems. 3. This is not about explicitly dealing with the subject in the game. Believe it or not, you can have better representation for women (as well as minorities and the LGBT community) without blatantly shoving it in people's faces, nor do you have to deal with issues that are unique or exclusive to these groups. Having a female character does not mean you have to focus on childbearing or breast cancer, just as having a straight male character does not mean you have to focus on straight sex. 4. No one is forcing anything on the developers. Instead of just making this assertion, how about providing some actual evidence? Show that there are people making unreasonable demands on the developers. Show that the majority of people who talks about this issue are like that.

Magic can make chain bikinis work but does it make chain bikinis better than regular armor of the same quality? It's a logical fallacy to say that because magically enchanted chain bikinis are better than regular chain mail then they're great armor. That's like saying that because a Ford Pinto can go faster than the fastest horse then it's a great car. You're not comparing the same things. Maybe a magically enchanted chain bikini is better than a regular chain mail but is it better than a chain mail that has the similar kind and amount of enchantment?

But this is fantasy armours we are talking about here, they're all about as protective as an g-string. Since none of the other armours make any god damn sense it would more consistent if there was boob-plate, instead of there being doubts about the functionality and sensibility of the armours all of a sudden. How would things be consistent for women to have different armor than men. If fantasy armor operate by a different set of logic then why is there still a separation between men and women? How does inconsistency = consistency?

This whole discussion makes no sense Only if you haven't taken Logic 101 or Literature 101.

Actually that subject has been dealt with. Comparing Cadegun to Furton is like comparing Iron Man to Dare Devil. It makes sense for Iron Man to wear the best armor because he depends on his armor to protect him and fight villains. It makes no sense for Dare Devil to wear a suit of armor because he uses acrobatics and martial arts to protect himself and fight villains. The goal is to create logically consistent world. People are not complaining about a female monk, they're complaining about a female knight. If there was a female monk who doesn't wear armor, then no one would complain because that makes sense. If you set up a certain of rules for something like a character class, everyone in that class should follow those same rules. Knights protect themselves with armor. Monks protect themselves with martial arts and mystical abilities, which require far greater freedom of movement. It makes no more sense for knights to wear the armor that direct enemy blows towards their heart than for monks to wear armor that restrict their movement and make it harder for them to dodge blows.

The goal of "realism" is not to make things like the real world but to construct a world that is consistent and logical. It's not about having or not having women that look a certain way or equipment for women that look a certain way. It's about having physiques and equipment that make sense. It's perfectly fine to have women who are wear little armor if it makes sense. No one would complain if a female monk wore as little as Furton because monks don't rely on armor, they use acrobats, martial arts, and mystical abilities to protect themselves. However, it makes no sense for a female knight to wear bikini armor or boob plates because that would put them at a disadvantage compared to other knights for no reason. It's perfectly fine to have women that match western ideals of beauty. For example, there's nothing wrong with a debutante from an aristocratic family in a culture with standards similar to ours to look like Natalie Portman or Charlize Theron. However, if you have a mining town where everyone does hard labor digging through the earth, shoveling ore, pushing huge carts of rocks, etc., then it makes no sense for the men to look like pro wrestlers and the women to look like super models.

I think what they really need to do is involve more factions in these choices. For example, in a scenario where a country is occupied by an oppressive invader, the "good" choice would be to help the occupied people fight back while the "evil" choice is to help the invaders crush the rebellion. However, if you include additional interests in the scenario, you can add a lot of variety to both "good" and "evil" choices. There could be factions that want to support the oppressed people for very selfish and nefarious reasons. For example, a group of weapon traders might want the rebellion to last longer so they can sell weapons to both sides and they'll pay you to help the oppressed people fight the invaders. Another nation might want to weaken both the occupied and the invading nation so that they can expand their influence. The occupied nation might have a caste system and the aristocrats are willing to sacrifice a lot of commoners and other lower class people in order to expel the invaders.