Giantevilhead

You still don't understad EVERY game has mana system even BG games, NWN and all other D&D games. Just in there are other explonation for mana system caled "slots" system/ teorie for putting it. The "Slot"-system you don't have actual mana shown (like HP for example) but you have slots, numer of posible slots are progressing in 1 lvl you have less then on 30 lv, also Inteligence stat afects it and you have more "Slots" on 32 int then on 12 int. The slot's system is used only for excusse Rest spawning for mages and nothing more. This "Slots" system theats mages like a sponge used to clean up when the sponge shove into the water it get's full of water, But when you press the sponge gets empty again and you have to put it back into the water. The "slot" sysem is reasonable ONLY when we assume that Mages don't have own power and they must by Charged like battery, so besiacly they stole energy from other resorses "their soul when sleeping " or "from surrauding". I personaly don't like this idea becose i whant to be an independent powerfull unit an not same kinda Energy/mana stealer. Of coure i like the idea that mages can take "some" energy from the environment but the CORE should be their own power. In that case it's reasonable that on 40 lvl mage we say "wow HE is powerfull mage !!" but in "Slots" system the only reasonable coment to 40 lvl mage is "Wow he suck the energy dry so hard im emprest he sucks better then anywon i ever meet WOOOOW ! " (don't get offendet it's only a cheap joke if some is then im sorry ) What are you talking about? How do I "still" not understand? This is my first post in this topic. Also, whether or not the Vancian system is a mana system is a matter of semantics. When most people talk about a mana system, they mean one that's more flexible, where a mage can cast any spell they want as long as they have enough mana, like the ones in Diablo, Wizardry, Might and Magic, etc.

One way the magic system could work is with a mana system where you can spend extra mana to make a spell free for the day. For example, a level 1 spell might cost 2 mana to cast each time but if you spend 20 mana, then that spell becomes free for the entire day.

You're forgetting that this is an RPG so stats have an effect outside of combat. Also, if there's greater interaction between different stats so that characters with points evenly distributed to every stat will have access to abilities or skills not available to characters that focus on two or three stats then they will matter.

I think every stat should be useful in some way for every class and there should be a lot of interaction between the different attributes. For example, I think intelligence should be more about capacity to learn or speed of learning so that it benefits all characters. A character with higher intelligence would be able to learn more things faster than a character with lower intelligence. Warriors would be able to learn more fighting moves while mages would learn more spells. However, mages would require higher intelligence because magic takes much longer to learn than fighting moves so while a person with normal intelligence can learn magic, they would not be able to learn it fast enough to become adventurers. Warriors on the other hand, would require higher physical stats because certain fighting moves can't be learned unless someone has a certain amount of strength, dexterity, endurance, perception, or speed. That way, you can have a lot of variations in build types. For example, a warrior with high strength and intelligence can learn a lot of strength dependent fighting styles/moves/stances, while a fighter with high strength, dexterity, perception, and speed can learn fewer but more powerful fighting styles/moves/stances that are dependent on all those stats. Magic could work the same way. Some spells would either require higher perception, dexterity, endurance, or speed, or they would work much more effectively if you meet certain physical requirements. Also, I'd love to have as many attributes as possible and greater interaction between the different stats but that can get tedious.

The Nosferatu being tech savvy aside as I recall it was an extremely small subset of *humans* that performed an experiment upon you in game. The Kuei-jin were just backing/behind them (yes I was paying attention in class). As for the vamps being highly technologically advanced doesn't that make one of my points for me. "Ancients help us all it's the humans we might even have to fire our satellite lasers to kill them dead." I can see how nukes they totally couldn't blow out of the sky might concern them. Also that means vampires are not a threat to humans. So what if the Kuei-jin uses humans? The point is that they know the value of science and technology. It also shows that they're smart enough not to risk their own lives or time when they can have their underlings do the work for them. As for vampires having advanced tech, they don't have Star Trek level tech. Humans are still a threat. The Kuei-jin weapons satellites cannot shoot down missiles, they're designed to be used against other supernaturals. Again, yes I was paying attention. The supposed Gehenna threat "end of days" thing was pretty hard to take seriously considering it was just a Schrodinger's cat thing with the coffin. Beckett himself basically says it's all hogwash then changes his mind telling you not to open the box that's largely because there's a bomb in there (which of course will end your unexistence). First, the vampires in LA do not I imagine constitute the entire vampire population. Second, vampire political squabbles can be bloody and may even lead into war. Third, there are things like pyrrhic victories even for vampires. The Kuei-Jin threat was not at extinction levels. As for other "stronger" supernaturals you're probably refering to say werewolves which coincidentally Nines manages to kill with his bare hands (I killed one as well by outsmarting said "stronger" enemy). As for Jack's speech about napalm and nukes overuse of either of those (ie apocalypse levels) could also kill every human and seeing as how humans (aside from the really stupid ones it seems) don't even know that vampires exist it's a pretty non-existent threat. Not to mention with the more advanced technology they apparently have couldn't they just blackmail all the human leaders into standing down? World of Darkness lore is starting to look a tad comical to me... You're doing a meta-analysis of the game, which makes your questions impossible to answer because you are not a vampire yourself. The game answers all your questions through the characters. "What does 'fear' mean to vampires" - there are plenty of vampires in the game crapping their pants over the prospects of Gehenna and take over by the Kuei-jin. You may not be personally afraid because it's a game, that you've completed, but the characters in the game are believably afraid. "What if they posed absolutely no threat level at all to the other races?" - The vampires pose no real threat to the humans. They have superior tech but it's not so advanced that they have an unbeatable advantage. As for overuse of napalm and nukes, why would the humans overuse them? Humans outnumber the vampires by 100,000 to 1 in most places and 50,000 to 1 in major metropolitan areas. Why would humans nuke the entire world just to kill a few hundred thousand (at most) vampires? As for stronger supernaturals (not just the werewolf but the Kuei-jin and Tzmisce constructs too), just because vampires can kill them doesn't mean they're not afraid. Humans can kill bears and lions but if you were being chased by a lion, wouldn't you be afraid?

The World of Darkness "life" for a vampire was basically a civilization that would go absolutely nowhere and do the same exact crap for eternity. It's enough to make you pity them.. almost. Which is also portrayed in other vampire mythos like say True Blood. You remember any scientist or philosopher vampires in Vampire the Masquerade because I certainly don't (Beckett and Grout were about the only ones doing anything meaningful). Fear was never truly explored or at least for me it wasn't. I wasn't exactly afraid of anything even including breaking the Redemption or going on a titanic killing spree for the hell of it. As for death and close to extinction those really weren't worries either as vamps in the World of Darkness lived sort of "outside" humanity they weren't being actively pursued by a *relevent* threat. Lastly, vampires were a threat in Vampire the Masquerade you even chased a vampire that used his power to exact vengence in a quest. The original Vampire: The Masquerade RPG was published in 1992, the first Southern Vampire Mysteries, which True Blood is based on, was published in 2001. Why does it matter if you meet a scientist or philosopher? There are several characters that talk about the existential problems of being a vampire as well as how it relates to the politics of the vampire race. Does it matter if they don't call themselves philosophers? As for scientists, the Nosferatu are extremely tech savvy and the Kuei-jin conduct experiments on you to study the weakness of vampires. Also, even though it's not shown in the game, in the World of Darkness universe, the vampires, as well as Kuei-jin, are in fact much more technologically advanced than the rest of the world. They both develop technologies to combat supernatural forces. The Kuei-jin for example, have weapons satellites. As for fear, coming close to extinction, and posing no threat to other races, did you play the game? Did you not notice all the talk about Gehenna and the end of days for the vampire species? Did you miss the part about the Kuei-jin gaining more power and potentially wiping out the vampire in LA? Did you not notice how there were a ton of other supernatural creatures that are way more powerful than vampires? Did you miss Jack's speech about how vampires won't stand a chance against humans now that they have weapons like napalm and nukes? Vampires are known to exist. Vampires are either enslaved to humans and the other races or ceaselessly running from them to remain in existance as a whole. Vampires are *not* higher up on the food chain because they are too busy trying not to die.. again. Something like that... I've never really heard of this scenario however it is probably largely irrelevent regardless. There are plenty of fantasies where supernaturals, including vampires, are hunted or persecuted by humans. Heck, that idea even shows up in the most recent Underworld movie.

I have played Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines so I know you're definately not refering to how awesome LaCroix was as he was this: to the tee. Now Jack... was a nice change of pace (because he actually learned something in his implied long lived lifetime) but even his vampire philosophy was basically "Unlife sucks or it doesn't... your choice." Also, there's absolutely no interaction with humans that don't involve feeding on them, pseudo turning them, mercilessly slaughtering them or exploiting them (ie the usual vampire stuff). There was definately some enjoyable stuff in the game to be sure (like the "woman" in the hospital) but it didn't totally redefine vampires either. That game deals with most of these questions: "What is "life" to a vampire? What is "fear" to a vampire? What are "friends" to a vampire? What is "death" to a vampire? What if the vampire race was the one close to extinction? What if they posed absolutely no threat level at all to the other races?" Also, there are plenty of interesting vampires with different and interesting points of view like Velvet Velour, Maximilian Strauss, Isaac Abrams, Mitnick, Beckett, etc. And what exactly do you mean by "redefine" vampires? If you want play a game with a sympathetic necromancer, play Heroes of Might and Magic IV.

You should play Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines

Having big choices carry over to future games would make things more epic and more realistic in certain situation. If a society has been oppressing a certain group of people for hundreds of years, it wouldn't really make any sense for you to be able to liberate the oppressed group in just a few weeks or months. It would make much more sense for the change to take place over several games. If two nations are at war, it wouldn't make much sense for you to help win a few battles and suddenly have one nation achieve complete victory over the other. It would make more sense for the war to be fought over a period of years over several games.

The obvious disadvantage of having too many significant choices is that things can get too complex, especially when you combine various elements together. For example, when you're dealing with a nation that's being occupied by an invader, there are many different ways things can play out. You might help that nation fight off the invaders, you might help the invaders pacify the populous, you might work for another faction that's trying to weaken both sides, and you might stay out of the whole conflict all together. That's at least four different outcomes that could impact future expansions/games. Depending on how you manipulate the situation, you could end up with completely different quests and stories in a future game. Not to mention how there could be differences in how you go about trying to achieve your goal. The occupied nation may have some kind of caste system that influences the rebellion. The lower/oppressed class might not want to help the upper class fight off the invaders since things are bad for them either way. The upper class might choose to flee the country rather than let the lower class have more rights. So you can either keep the caste system and retain the support of the upper class, promise to break the caste system to gain the support of the lower class, or come up with some kind of compromise. That would mean within each of the four major ways in how you deal with the original problem of the occupied nation, there would be many significant choices in how specifically you achieve those goals. The choices could branch out by huge amounts, resulting in a huge amount of work for the developers if the choices were to carry over to future games.

Obsidian has said that there will be many complex and difficult choices that can make significant changes to your playing experience. So what is everyone's opinions on how big of an effect these choices should have? And how should they carry over to future expansions/games? Should you be able to cause major changes within a society? Perhaps by helping to liberate an underclass, or change their system of government, or maybe even set a civilization on a path to destruction? Should you be able to change the course of nations? Should you be able help an occupied nation overthrow its invaders or convince a nation to invade someone else? How should that play out in future games? If you help one nation or one major faction defeat another, then that has the potential to cause huge changes in a future expansion or game even if a sequel takes place in another part of the world. How fast should you be able to cause these changes? For example, if you're trying to help an occupied nation overthrow its invaders, you might not be able to completely succeed in one game. Maybe you can help liberate one city in the first game, then you can spread the rebellion throughout the entire nation in an expansion, then you can fully liberate the nation in a sequel, and in the third game, you can help that nation either rebuild or perhaps launch a counter-attack against their invaders. I would of course also love to hear how far the developers are thinking in terms of all the potential ramifications of the player's choices, their effect on the game world and future games.

Real life paladins say these, LOL. Enjoy the game people. Actually, I'm more annoyed at the people who create false dilemmas. They act like if giving greater representation for one overlooked or oppressed group somehow denigrates another overlooked or oppressed group. They don't seem to understand that it's not an either or situation, or that different groups face different problems and often times, one group faces problems in addition to the problems of another group. For example, the Han Chinese are oppressed by the Communist government but Tibetans in China not only suffer the oppression endured by the average Han Chinese, they suffer additional oppression forced upon them because they are Tibetan. Irish Catholics were oppressed but gay Irish Catholics suffered both the stigma of being Irish Catholic and the stigma of being gay.

The funny thing is that people are overreacting to misinterpretations of suggestions and ideas. They create false dilemmas, straw-men, and non sequesters and attack those rather than the suggestion/idea itself. People act like if having level scaling means that everything scales exactly to your character's level instead of something like NV where there's only limited level scaling. They act like if the game has guns then there are going to be automatic weapons. They act like if the developers take some inspiration from other games, they'll make Project Eternity into an exact carbon copy of those games. They act like if there's greater inclusiveness for gays then the whole game is going to be about gay sex.

Except physical differences do not stem entirely from nature. If you separate identical twins and have one work on a farm doing hard manual labor and the other sit in an office, they will no longer be physically identical after a while. Both will still have the same physical potential, however. This doesn't change just because one of them isn't tapping into it. The maximum physical potential stems entirely from nature...only what you achieve inside of that potential stems from society...also nature outfitted men with greater potential on the physical level. That's just how it is. And my whole point was that it's rarer for women to achieve their maximum physical potential due to social factors. For example, female athletes have disadvantages other than just their maximum physical potential. From infancy up until they get into their sport, they have different diets and physical regimen than male athletes. After they get into their sports, they get different supplements, not to mention drugs. It's much easier to detect steroid use in female athletes than male athletes. In societies where there is greater separation of gender roles, you would expect greater differences in the physical, and mental, capabilities of men and women compared to societies in which there is less separation of gender roles.

Except physical differences do not stem entirely from nature. If you separate identical twins and have one work on a farm doing hard manual labor and the other sit in an office, they will no longer be physically identical after a while. There is practically no difference in physical capabilities between young boys and girls. However, as I mentioned before, their diets begin to diverge at age one. Similarly, their physical activities also begin to diverge at a very young age. Do you honestly not think that contributes to physical differences developed later in life? To say that physical differences stem entirely from nature and is not at all affected by society is extremely, not to mention willfully, ignorant.

Some links/evidence would be nice but I'll take your word for it. However, does that actually mean that everyone who brings up those issues are like that? Did everyone who was against boob armor say that they'd pull their money if the developers didn't remove them? There are several threads like this too: http://forums.obsidi...please-no-guns/ But does that mean everyone with those kinds of complaints are trying to force the developers to do something?

Pretty much, yes. Potential is there, and that doesn't change depending on social factors (which stem at least partially from it). Again, look at the top athletes or any sport there is. If a female PC is the top performer among woman, then the male PC is hte top performer among males, and should still physicly outperform the female PC...if you want to be realistic about it. And you still have to keep in mind that those athletes were not raised the same way. Diet, exercise, leisure activities, etc., diverge between boys and girls very early. For example, the suggested caloric intake are different for boys and girls just one year old, when there's practically no sexual dimorphism. A one year boy is certainly not stronger than a one year old girl and yet it's suggested that one year old boys have a 5% greater caloric intake than girls. A 5 year old boy is not likely to be much stronger than a 5 year old girl and yet it's suggested that 5 year old boys have a 10% greater caloric intake than girls. That difference increases to about 15% at the beginning of puberty, up to 20% during and after that. So while there may be a 40% difference in upper body strength and 30% difference in lower body strength between men and women in this society, would the difference be that great in a society in which men and women were raised the same?

Except they're all subjective preferences. Some people like cooldown and some people don't. Having or not having a cooldown system does not objectively make the game better or worse. Having or not having representation for certain political philosophies like utilitarianism, communism, libertarianism, etc. does not objectively make the game better or worse. It makes the game better for some people and worse for others. How is discussion of issues like gender or race equality different? How do you know that preference for treatment of gender or race does not figure into a person's enjoyment of the game in the same way that treatment of political philosophies, morality, and ethics does? Because its an political correct ideology being shoved down EVERYONES throat by a very small vocal minority that will not be happy until everybody removes everything controversal in the game, everyone treated exactly the same, characters are basically unisex, no racism, discrimination, sexism, etc...basically a pg disney game. I am fairly sure many (most?)of us put money in to get the games that were made before political groups started telling everybody what they could NOT do in their own works because if offended them. Where has anyone suggested any of that? I've only seen people asking the developers to be more sensitive to the subject and give more equal representation for women and minorities. I have not seen anyone demand the developers to not include any controversy. I have not seen anyone say that they'll withdraw their support if the developers don't eliminate racism, sexism, and discrimination or give more representation to women and minorities. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion or are you just making guesses about people's intentions?

About chinese athletes. I don't think any harder training would really add positive results. It's just not possible to spin this around to having women have the same body size & strength as men. And where did I say that it would be possible for women to have the same strength and men?

Ever heard "form follows function?". Social roles are not just a product of someone thinking "hey, this would be great". There's practical reasons behind it. Now I know some may think that the following will be chauvinistic/insulting. It is not. It's how things are. Physical prowes has no bearing on the individuals worth, so if anyone thinks I'm demeaning women or something, that is only because they place so much worth in physical attributes themselves. Do women think men are worth less because they aren't as good at multi-tasking? Do you hear us ever complaining about it? moving on... Let's take for example Delta Force. You have to be a prfect human speciment to get in. Recruits are usually taken from other special forces (whos tests are grueling as hell). And even then only 1 out of 10 pass. You heard me. Out of 100 special forces candidates only 10 pass. If you want some numbers (taken from the CRC data) Men have 40% higher upper body strength and roughly 20-30% higher lower body strength. During boot camp and regular training, women have shown to be twice as likely to sustain injuries (from training) because they have to strain themselves harder to keep it with the male counterparts. Most of those injuries are back injuries. And those are nothing to sneeze by, I assure you. You may think that physical strength or endurance don't have a big role in modern combat. But they do. If you have to run from cover to cover - speed matters. If you have to carry a wounded friend or lob grenades - strength matters. A lot. If you have to walk 70 miles across the desert in full comabt gear - everything matters. Women can be decent, even great soldiers, I said so before. But they are at a disadvantage and will remain so, no matter how hard they try and train. Becasue there will always be men who will train just as hard, and with their inborn advantage they will outperform a woman. And I never denied the fact that men and women are physically different. Nor did I make any statements about the worth of men or women based on their physical differences. My point was that the amount of difference has been affected by social factors. The statistics on the difference between men and women are not "absolute" differences because they are gathered in societies in which men and women have significantly different upbringings. The only way to know the real difference in physical, as well as mental, capabilities between men and women would be to conduct an experiment in which a sample of male and female infants are raised in the exact same environment and treated exactly the same. Of course, that's not ethical nor is it really possible. However, there have been societies in which men and women have been treated more similarly. For example, in some cultures that had slavery, many female slaves had very similar upbringings, similar diets, and had to perform the same type and amount of hard labor as the men. In fact, women were expected to maintain that level of labor for the first few months of pregnancy. If you took those people and compared their physical capabilities, would you expect the same amount of difference compared to men and women in today's society?

It depends on the range of bows, firing rate, and how it affects your movement. If you can only get off one or two shots against an enemy before they managed to get into melee range and you can't move while you're shooting then they might as well make it so that (normal) ammo is unlimited. If you can get off 5 or 6 shots against an enemy before they get into melee range and you can shoot and run at the same time then there should definitely be ammo limits.

Except they're all subjective preferences. Some people like cooldown and some people don't. Having or not having a cooldown system does not objectively make the game better or worse. Having or not having representation for certain political philosophies like utilitarianism, communism, libertarianism, etc. does not objectively make the game better or worse. It makes the game better for some people and worse for others. How is discussion of issues like gender or race equality different? How do you know that preference for treatment of gender or race does not figure into a person's enjoyment of the game in the same way that treatment of political philosophies, morality, and ethics does?

With regards to the main point of this topic. I think it is a matter of adequately exploring the idea of social standards and what is considered "normal" within a culture. The fact is that often times, prejudices and oppression are not considered malicious or even intentional. People within that culture simply accept it as a part of their lives. Peasants in Medieval society often accepted their lot in life and don't see lorded by nobles as a bad thing. Societies where kids have to go through tough initiation rituals where they have to get painful tattoos or experience some traumatic event don't see it as abuse. Women who had their feet bound or had to wear corsets didn't consider it to be mutilation. Plenty of slaves, especially those who were born into slavery, did not dream of freedom.

But no woman is as strong as the strongest of men. This should be reflected in the game. Not necessarily because the strongest of men might be such an outlier that it doesn't make much sense to account for such a rarity in a system like say SPECIAL where strength is a number 1-10. They aren't outliers. The strength distribution curve is symetrical (with the males curve being nudged forward). Take a look at sports. Males outperform women. It's the reason why leages and events are separated. I guarantee you that all those women train hard. And they still get beaten by men who train hard. Or if you want antoher example...women in the miltiary? Sure, there are some. Women in special forces? Nope. But do you do have to take into consideration how social factors/environment affects sexual dimorphism. If you asked the same question about the physical capabilities of men and women 100 years ago, there was an even bigger difference. If you asked the question during the Victorian Age, there would be no comparison at all.

This is exactly what makes games unfun. Trying to please every person who finds something "offensive" and people who supposedly speaks for all members of a group. I like how you pretty much said women are brainwashed sheep who are being repressed by the man to be strait mens fantasy. I mean, it could not be that women can think for themselves and LIKE to be attractive and know perfectly well that they are sexulizing themselves because they want too. Nope, must be tv, video games, movies...etc. You say I did not prove what I said, even though I used a REAL WORLD sample location to make my point. Do not believe me? Go to any place in the US where a large number of people (men and women) that is not religion based and tell me what women wear. oh wait, I forgot, women are sheep who cannot think for themselves according to you. This is the worst type of feminest argument, women are either with you, or they are brainwashed slaves to the system which you must free wether they want it or not. You have to take into consideration who it is that actually defines concepts such as "normal" or "attractive." For example, there are certain rules for how you dress and conduct yourself in a job interview but who came up with those rules? Who decided that you have to wear a tie and suit for job interviews in most western countries? The dominant culture and people in power set those rules and the people/cultures that are not in power have to conform to those rules. So in China, the dominant Han culture sets the rules and they are considered "normal" and "fair" for the majority of the population who are a part of that culture. However, it's not fair for people from cultures that do not have power like the Tibetans, the Uyghurs, the Mongols, etc. Those people have to conform to codes of conduct imposed on them by the Han if they want to get jobs and become successful. It's a similar situation with issues of "attractiveness" and "sexiness." It is certainly true that a lot of women do want to look "sexy" but who defines what "sexy" is? What are the social conventions that enforce compliance to that ideal? Who decided on the social penalties for people who don't try to look "sexy" and the social rewards for people who do? You do understand that does nothing to support your point, right? Women being sexist towards men does not make it OK for men to be sexist towards women just like how Chinese people being racist towards Japanese people makes it OK for Japanese people to be racist towards Chinese people. A third grader can understand logic that simple.