FlintlockJazz

True, more options the better! :D

Agree, the wide brim version is the better version, removing the brim is what makes it look more like the kiddy version of wizard. IMHO of course.

Pointy hats: oh yes! People slag them off, people say they look bad, but they are always better than what we normally get for wizards, and attempting to avoid them results just in ****e looking mages. Take the hats for wizards in DAO, they were crap, my mage was embarrassed wearing it. Hell, I was embarrassed, the whole goddamn world was embarrassed for having them and they brought nothing. Nothing beats a good pointy hat! Here's evidence of how awesome they look in real life: http://www.sallypointer.com/pointygallery.htm EDIT: A well-done pointy hat with the right costume can even look ominous and creepy, giving mystique to the wearer.

I refer to it as PE or Eternity, as I find myself constantly thinking Path of Exile whenever someone says PoE. Just which game got to it first really for me.

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people seem to think romance=interactivty and that no romance means no interactivity or relationship. That's not true, it's not 'romance or bust' it's 'romance or friendship or familial or parent/child' or any other equally valid and just as meaningful relationship. The relationships that are not romances are overlooked in most games, we should be campaigning to get more focus on them, yet here we are...

I don't want 'archetypes' so to speak, I find that, especially today with the more limited options in dialogue for most games, that it often means you just keep choosing the same 'archetype' response every time because otherwise your character ends up just too erratic. For instance, do we need a 'witty man' response for every option? Better to just have a witty response when it's appropriate so that people can choose that inbetween their usual responses. Or if there are 'archetype' responses, to let there be more than one archetype response for each, so you get more variation, especially since some 'evil' actions can be done by 'good' characters and vice versa. For instance, say I'm playing a goody-two shoes who normally helps people but who believes so strongly in 'justice' that they will not let people just walk away for doing a bad thing, especially if they think they will do it again: I should get a choice to gut the muggers because I can't take them into the authorities and refusal to just let them go and do it to someone else that doesn't require me to gloat evilly and proclaim that I do it to satisfy cthulhu. I don't expect a choice that will fit perfectly of course with my motivations, but one that doesn't assume I'm being an evil bastard would be nice. I remember playing through Venetica, early on you get murdered by two twats who decide to murder you, an innocent girl at this point, because you 'might' be the person some attackers had been after and then GLOAT over it, before panicking when you rise from the dead (you're special) and begging for mercy. The good option is to **** out and let them go, but hell was I going to let MURDERERS get away with it just because they were lucky the girl they stabbed up came back from the dead, next girl they do that to might not be that lucky! It was a duty to smash their faces in! No doubt I failed to explain what I'm trying to say naturally.

Though it loses the optional aspect if, once the player learns about it, some sort of consequence happens. True, but then I'd argue it's an aspect of running a party-based game: you are trying to manage a party and dealing with issues in one way or another is one of those aspects for a party based game involving npc companions (as opposed to an entirely player created party). In DAO you can lose party members while doing the urn quest (pouring blood in it causes Leliana and Wynne to turn on you) despite it being a story quest and in BG1 party members can leave if you don't do their quests in time or even turn on you as Minsc is renowned for doing.

Dialogue, in general, may not be "optional" though depending on how one roleplays, whether or not dialogue would be experienced could still be optional. Romances are technically optional, but we've established that that is seen as unfair towards those that do not like romances. But how about a companion quest? If it is not required to finish the game, it could be considered "optional" and if the companion quest was to kill an NPC (that maybe you liked), you could choose to not do it as part of your RP experience. Should something like this only exist if there is an alternative piece of content to make up for not doing this particular quest? I'd say no, you can have companion quests without having alternatives and it's then your choice whether they are important enough to do something you don't really want to do, but then I'd say that the choice should be taken into account by the quest. For instance, in your example I'd say not killing the NPC should result in the companion leaving or possibly even turning on the player. Take Zaeed in ME2 for instance: last time I played it I did his loyalty mission after the main questline had been completed, chose to save the people and then at the end left Zaeed to die under the cliche pillar (I'd prefer to have put a bullet in his head as I left, I don't like leaving business unfinished), I consider that just as valid a quest completion as getting his loyalty for my character. I can see both sides of this with various pros and cons, though I actually agree with you with respect to the Underdark choice. Fair or not, a player will feel "punished," even if it could be valid that "hey, not all choices are equal." It's been a while since I last played Bloodlines. Do the other vampire groups have equivalent quests to the Tremere ones? (I think some might, but not all. Not sure) I imagine "you got some unique content because of the class you chose" would be irksome, unless each class received their own unique content? Yeah, I wouldn't expect equal results for both choices, otherwise there still isn't a choice. The problem with the Underdark is both choices conveniently put you in exactly the same place regardless of how you got there at the beginning of the Underdark section, it's just that one jumps a section, reinforcing the perception that one choice is just a short cut. Yeah, at least some of the other clans have their own quests. I know the Nosferatu have their own one and can get a clan haven as well. I don't think the Tremere actually get any quests for their haven though, I believe the quests are still doable by everyone and it just requires you to make some choices in certain quests. You also lose out on the standard haven upgrade (the downtown apartment the other clans get) and you can't betray Strauss to the Hollywood Baron without losing out on the Tremere haven (I played through Bloodlines again just end of last year as a Tremere ironically), so you do make sacrifices for the extra content. I wouldn't find it irksome that a class got unique content and others different, it depends on the situation, hard to say. All this is just my opinion though, others still have the right to their own opinions of course (for now...).

KotOR.

I thought the world/landscape in Morrowind was very good at the time... But like every Bethesda game, the character models and animations were embarrassingly bad. If SWTOR has taught me anything, it's that evil in the Star Wars universe(or at least how it is interpreted by Bioware) is just juvenile nonsense. There is no motivation behind the bad actions one takes, other than being "ohhhh so deliciously evil." My female sith inquisitor would constantly spout stuff like "Time for blood!" Also, all of the villains are moustache-twirling mwahahaha'ers. If you look at Star Wars A New Hope by itself, and look at some of the earlier ideas for the script, it appears that the Imperials were more nuanced and had more developed motivations, such as Moff Tarkin being quite the power player despite having no gooby powers. The original idea for the emperor was that he was actually just a figurehead who was becoming more irrelevant and that people like Moff Tarkin were the real power players, but then Georgie made the emperor a sith lord and more a mustache twirler who likes to do stupid things for no reason. Notice that as the original trilogy went on the higher echelons of the Empire became more and more faceless and irrelevant while the Emperor and Vader gained more autocratic control: A New Hope you had guys like Moff Tarkin who actually order Vader around (who wasn't that important a person in the Empire it seems). Then in Empire Strikes Back, Vader becomes the bossman of a fleet and the senior officers are all terrified of him and get choked to death inbetween trying to do their job professionally. Then Return of the Jedi, where the officers are irrelevant and get killed by teddy bears. And as this happens the Empire turns more and more into moustache twirling stupidity as the focus and control is all put on the Emperor, who really is just a pathetic one dimensional character who epitomises the cliche Bond villain.

I not only think a non-combat RPG is possible but would actually like to play one. I like Alpha Protocol (probably not so blasphemous here but the hate this game seemed to get was bizarre). Dunno if I would say it had the best character development but it had one of the best choice and consequence system around. I think KotOR is one of the worst games ever made. Never played KotOR 2 so can't say anything about it, but everything about KotOR 1, from the gameplay (atrocious controls, mind-destroyingly boring combat even when you get Jedi powers, oh which reminds me penalising those who manage to level up and do quests before unlocking the Jedi quest is also bollocks) to the story and characters (seriously, what is so appealing about the characters in this game? They are dull, arrogant toss-rags, pompous ****, etc both the good and bad characters). Seriously, give me my money back and burn this atrocity! Dunno if this is blasphemous, but playing a character who is special and is chosen is getting so tiresome I wouldn't mind one where I play a bum. :D I had your mum last night, all night. Oh, wait, this is about RPG secrets right...

Okay fair enough. Taken more generally, what are your thoughts on optional content? Should it only be experienced at the exclusion of other optional content? Or is there wiggle room here? It all depends on just what the content is imho. For me dialogue with companions isn't really optional, I find the companion relationships important to me, how they react to things and what they do is part of the story and me managing them part of the game. If it's a party rpg then I expect the party to say and do stuff essentially. As for other content, I recall someone mentioning the Underdark section in another thread and how you were given two options: go with Seamus and get an extra sequence or go through the portal and lose out on it. This seemed to penalise players who took the latter reason for no discernable reason. If instead of just cutting out a sequence the portal sent you to a different area of the Underdark to where you eventually end up going with the other option and have a variant sequence instead of just shortcutting it then it would have been better in my opinion. Kinda like the choice between Bohdi and the Shadow Thieves, or choosing between the Watch and Thieves in Neverwinter Nights 2. Though having said that, if I am given a choice I expect there to be differences. If all that happens is a change in the names of the people I am fighting then it feels cheap. For instance, in the Russian Embassy mission in Alpha Protocol you get a choice of Sie or Albatross as your handler. If you take Albatross then the ensuing sequence makes sense as the enemy you fight are the types to do a full-frontal assault but if you choose Sie suddenly you are fighting G22 doing a full-frontal assault (which their profile claims they don't do) attacking the embassy to kill a man for apparently no reason other than you chose another handler, making the sequence play out exactly the same way.

Ok, who? Except of Garrus the green assasin alien possesed by some demon I don't remember any of the above characters. I do remember Sulik, Cassidy, Marcus, Morte, Dak'kon, Modron, Bishop, Gann, Keldorn, Jan Jansen and other memorable companions. Also the most recognizable Bioware character, as far as I know from almost every poll there is, is MINSC for some reason. Even Bioware themselves does not understand the love for Minsc, as their attempts to recreate him fail, and will only get harder the more they try to do 'dark' fantasy and move away from the old cheesy fantasy they were actually good at. I love him, it essentially boils down to his enthusiasm is infectious and he is essentially the light hearted adventurer not taking himself seriously. His breaking of the fourth wall and cheesy lines is the kind of thing you get in a tabletop RPG session and epitomises cheesy roleplayers. *Backhands Bruce* Bad Bruce, bad! Very bad pun! You should be ashamed! Backhands Bruce does have a nice ring to it though, rhymes...

Sorry, I more mean: if there were dialogue options that were available to non-romance players but not to romance players, would that make romances more palatable for you? Or is it simply "I do not like romances at all, and therefore they shouldn't be in because it's content that I'll only see doing something that I don't want to do?" I know it's not me you're asking, but for me yes it would. There's other problems I have with it but it would become more acceptable. It's more the fact that characters shut up and refuse to talk if you don't seek to bone them, and that there seems to be no other kind of relationship than 'to bone or not to bone'. There's no bromance, familial relationships (brother/sister etc), friendly rivalry, teacher-student relationship, parent-child (imagine sticking a PC with a orphan kid they have to look after, actually I liked that Skyrim tried that), etc. It's as if the dialogue is a 'reward' for bonage. I think the idea that dialogue is eaten up by the romances, that the developers have spent so much time developing that dialogue but not on the other dialogue, doesn't help people's acceptance of it. This idea is reinforced when romance-option characters shut up early on when not being romanced but the other characters keep on talking.

I'm not one of the ones you quoted but I won't be getting DA:I I guarantee you. I wasn't joking when I said in another post that I had gotten out and was relieved to do so, it's just not worth the self-abuse of hoping that 'this time might be different'. Plus, I have literally become fed up and frustrated with the 'Bioware characters'. I tried the DA2 demo, which is when I decided to finally go and leave, and thought "I seriously cannot be bothered with these type of characters anymore..." This is the honest truth now, I just got tired of them, I knew exactly how it would play out and the pompous self importance of the characters and forced cinematic experience finally destroyed me. No more.

Monte you funny To be honest my character generally only pursues Romance with human females or similar races like a Drow (Viconia comes to mind), the main reason for this is I normally play a male character and that is what seems logical during my RPG experience for me personally. A female Kobold isn't what my character would initiate a Romance with And what, may I ask, have you got against kobolds exactly??!! Is not a kobold entitled to the same love as that prissy elf bitch or human tart? What are you, bigoted? Give kobold love a chance!

Pillars of Eternity Episode 1: A New Pillar It is a time of CIVIL WAR in the galaxy...

Someone stole your sweetroll?

Ah yeah and the selection and attack quotes of party members, didn't think of that.

Yeah, I've got SoZ but haven't had the time to get past the party creation bit yet, didn't realise the strategic element was that strong. You've bumped it up my list to finally play.

Breasts? Where?? Best not be in boobplate!

I want to have a dragon! Then ride it! While giggling like a schoolgirl!

I know you're joking, but bloody hell the idea of an party RPG mixed with overlording actually gets me excited! :D The only thing you could get me even more excited with is if you started talking about mixing party RPGs with Sid Meier's Pirates!

Oh my god I remember that one! In fact my response is on that page! Ah that thread got to levels of disturbance even the Sith would have been horrified, good times.

Fear me!!