FlintlockJazz

I take it you didn't visit Skyrim General at Bethsoft forums in that dreadful time when 8 new threads about Malukah were created every day? What is Skyrim? Prison talk for a really good rimjob.

Let me sum up my feelings on the matter: I find oversexualisation insulting to ME. It implies that people buy games for the titties and only want to play goodlooking perfect people or steroid he-men, and that I'm not only stupid to go along with it but that I would also have no interest in an authentic experience (this includes how they have been making everything more anime too and over the top). I've even known women who have been pro sexualisation, saying "Well I want to look good too!" I usually respond with "Well if we ever fight I'll know to just stab you in the tit then." They never seem to answer my calls after that for some strange reason...

A bit more than BG would be fine for me (though not too much more, there is such a thing as too much) as they felt pretty close, definitely better than the capital of Ferelden in DAO that felt like a village and a dead one at that.

They must sparkles! *bang* Damn twilight fans get everywhere...

I thought this topic had died, hate to see it back. Umberlin, you argue that if we change the monk then why stop there well why stop at the chanter then? I explained the benefits of changing the name for the monk, getting away from the preconceptions of spiritualism imherent in the name monk (and which doesn't make sense when everyone is using spiritual power as they are planning to in PE). Saying that its up to Obsidisn, we are aware of that we are discussing whether its a good choice or not as is our right, don't like it don't bother discussing it then. As to calling them dancers and changing their clothes, it changes their role in society, making them performers instead, and removes the Eastern ascetic that some feel is out of place. Plus it would be so much more interesting!

Seriously though, I really can't understand the "logic" behind DRM. I'm pretty sure that's because there simply isn't one. Companies (and especially publicly traded ones) are at least theoretically obligated to take steps to protect copyrighted works. DRM won't work for anyone with a bit of technical knowledge but does work for the casual "just cut a copy to CD" types and it's something that a company can point to to its shareholders as "fighting piracy". Companies in general also love to have maximum control over their customers and drm is one tool that can influence this. At least in theory Blizzard has near complete control over Diablo 3, for example, including a captive marketplace and the like. Note: I actually agree that drm is pointless and definitively so from a consumer's POV, but that is pretty much the rationale that would be used for it by companies. I rather doubt that most companies really want to eliminate piracy though, as once that is gone they have to explain why they aren't making money to shareholders without being able to point to x billion 'lost' dollars from pirates. This is it. Witcher 2 had to have DRM on the physical copies sold through retailers at launch despite CD Project being opposed to it because the publisher insisted on it to appease their shareholders. Shareholders (and most management) don't really understand the industry any more than Joe Bloggs they are just after money, and when they see people using their products all they know is "that guy has stolen from!!!111"

There's that preoccupation with memory, past events, and the burden of reincarnation. I think you're onto something there. We may be coming across the activities of our past lives and the consequences therein...

I hope they are not 'the agile ones' as it invariable ends up as 'all elves are rangers' due to their stat bonuses and the like. What happens if I want to play a clumsy elf? Tall and sort of alien This I like! Creepy alien elves for the win!

As long as they don't sparkle and stalk schoolgirls he can call them vampires as much as he wants!

I've never played NWN2. Were the portraits in NWN2 like those in PST (3D and animated)? If yes, then I'd definitely prefer 2D portraits like the ones in BG. They look better and if I don't find anything I like, I could easily switch to a custom portrait. I'm not really sure how custom portraits could work with 3D portraits. No, it was just a static screenshot of your character's ingame face with a rather bland and moronic expression on their face, and from an angle that really didn't do the character's looks any good.

You know what I have been wondering about: If the $4 million is before or after Kickstarter and Amazon have taken their cut. I mean, is the total on the Kickstarter all gone to Obsidian and if not did they remember to factor it in that they'll be having about 10% I believe taken off it?

Why did Tyler Durden enter my head as I read that? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo-wkv8gW6k[/media]

I would kill for AP2. It was this game that brought me to these forums the first time, to find out if there were others who couldn't understand the hate for this game. Oh, and if anyone's wondering, that is a serious offer to kill someone if AP2 were offered as payment...

Baldur's Gate, and I do mean Baldur's Gate not the second one as the portraits in that one were just horrible: the pretentious added scars, fugly dreadlocks, and my god what did they do to Imoen's face...and Jaheira's, and Minsc's! BG1 just seemed to be more awesome while BG2 seemed cartooney and actually badly drawn (Jaheira's eyes seemed wonked out).

Samwise and Frodo at least... I kid, I kid... You kid? You mean it's not an epic saga of two men's love for one another transcending the world they live in and sailing off into the sunset together?

Aye, it's why I think I don't enjoy games where they have brought in a big Hollywood scriptwriter to write it, they may be great at writing films but they lack the experience of dealing with games. Same reason why I think developers trying to make their games into an 'cinematic experience' is bad, as they end up losing the 'game' in their attempt to make it more like a film. Personally, I don't think we'll get a RPG romance 'done right' until someone makes a game based around it so that they can figure out just how to make it work in a game environment. I don't mean one of those dating sims, I mean an actual quality game, with the romance refined into an actual game, at which point developers will have something to 'work' from. Until then, it's not going to be developed to the extent that it needs to rise above controversial minigame. Nothing wrong with that, but people will continue to argue about it. Actually you can't skip the dialog as you still need to make the choices whether you skipped what was being said or not. It would be like skipping the graphical animation of PC attacking while still making the attack, you still have to engage in the dialog 'combat', make a choice and have the stats needed to make it work if necessary, if people can pick randomly without caring what happens in the dialog then it is a problem with the dialog being meaningless which is the problem I've been refering to. I mentioned specifically RPGs because they are the games that I feel need all the bits to match up, so those games from other genres are not really applicable in this case. Total War only cares whether you win or lose the battle, not whether you used Blood magic or turned into the Slayer in front of people or tried to get the paladin in the group to murder children, and so it can be left up to the computer to automatically decide for you without any affect. This is why RPGs are so different and difficult to make compared to many other game types, and why the influence of other game types is a source of worry for some RPG fans. Those dungeon hacks you mention are what they are: dungeon hacks, crawls through dungeons. They are not really full RPGs, but more symbolic of the transitional stage tabletop RPGs went through on their way from being tabletop wargames to actual RPGs, and as others have said there were other games at the time more representative of RPGs. No one is arguing against having more talking and less combat, that is a bit of a strawman to be honest. There can be RPGs that have very little combat in or which allow the player to avoid combat (if they are not interested in combat then they should be looking at finding other ways and achieving their goal after all), the point is that an RPG is pretty much an attempt at simulating a world and it's reactions to your actions and choices and to tell a story in, and if you can just skip certain parts of it then what it is saying is that those parts are irrelevant, something a good RPG should not be doing in my mind.

The 'problem' I have with her comment is that it is indicative of the problem in general with Bioware games: the parts of the game seem to be unconnected with each other. RPGs really need to have each part of the game influence each other, the dialogue needs to influence the combat and both need to be influenced by the same stats for instance. Bioware games have increasingly segregated the dialogue and combat to the point that you can be using blood magic in front of an entire city and no one seems to mention it in conversation. The writers should be working with the designers and those implementing the combat mechanics to make sure everything works and makes sense in the world they are building, for instance TNO's ability to switch classes was written into Planescape's story as his using his 'forgetfulness' and even justified questlines and the like. If you are able to skip combat to get straight to the dialogue or vice versa with no impact then something is wrong with the RPG you're supposed to be making. That's my opinion anyway, take from it what you will.

I believe BG2 cost around $5 million at least I recall reading somewhere. While that would be more nowadays since they won't be using cutting edge technology and the like hopefully the costs of things will have gone down substantially and these guys are alot more experienced and organised than they used to be, so maybe they'll be able to do more with less?

Only if there is also an ability to enslave nations with necromancy. Combine both and we have a bold and daring game. The necrophiliac bard that had the largest harem ever known in an RPG. Combine it with Metiman's proposal to combine subdue mechanics with romance to make a 'one-sided romance' and potential brothel and you have true awesomeness.

On that topic, I think there's a serious misunderstanding here, although some posters might actually fall into the above category. But when I say I don't want chainmail bikinis and huge boobs and whatnot (also not barbarian/GI males), this has nothing to do with fighting the PC fight for women liberation - as I said before, I like games that scratch the topics of sexism, racism, etc. as long as it leads to a deeper story experience. What I want is an IMMERSIVE game with a decent and subtle style. I'm not thinking only that chainmail bikinis and oversexualized characters are sexist, I simply think they're stupid, dumb, unerotic and an annoyance in many games. I like women, and hell, I even look at their "features" from time to time because that's just human nature. But that doesn't mean I like porn starletts with blown-up features only running around in ridiculous lingeries. I actually like normal women. And the same applies to games. I have nothing against erotic, but I hate the way most games only cater a male virgin audience on the lowest level. Agree totally, the catering to teens with their steroid heroes with oversized weapons is what I'm arguing against mainly.

Because this is not a book. I'm sick of railroaded stories in videogames. If Project Eternity is going to be like that then the developers should warn us. At least I would stop worrying about this game and I'd look somewhere else for a real role playing experience. Since this is an RPG I want to be in charge of what my character does and feels. I want to be able to decide if a love story fits the character I'm playing or not, exactly like I want to be able to decide if I'm good or bad, chaotic or lawful, altruistic or individualist etc. Let's say that in the beginning of the story my character is happily married. The plt starts and after a painful event my wife gets killed. I want to have the chance to decide if my character finds the strength to move on (and finds another one to love) or keeps mourning his true love forever. This is roleplaying, not some ready-made experience you have to swallow as it is or screw off. You know, I find this hilarious and indicative of this thread: Jarpie actually started off claiming that there are books without romance in because proromancers were saying all good stories had romance in them, now we are at the stage that its reversed and people are arguing that just because some books don't have romance in doesn't mean it can't and that its a game not a book and so shouldn't be compared. This argument truly has come full circle, hilarious really...

Orlan Paladin. ...what?

You are arguing with the wrong person, I was just telling CrazyPea about that particular argument.

No one's even said that don't start flinging that around. The argument is that if there are romances in the game they WOULD have to cater to all which would lead to at least half the companions needing to be romanceable hence why they don't want it in at all. This would be assuming the companions were incapable of being bisexual. Personally, even though I am pretty much straight I would rather there be gay and lesbian romances than none at all, including ones that cater to my specific wants and needs. As long as they were well written, which again, should be a non issue. The argument then becomes, are they worth it in the sense of the playerbase appreciating it, which, again, I believe they would for the most part and if they didn't then they could ignore it. We've already discussed bi as well, its all been one long heated exchange over what people want. Bricks have been thrown and babies sacrificed to dark gods, assassinations in the dead of night and last minute castrations, its all been done, sorry you missed it. IT IS a highy emotive subject. And to be honest I'm hoping that Obsidian don't listen to anything posted in these threads. But, I'm afraid, that like many other games companies in the past, they will. And if the only people to speak out are those who are against such things, they will get a skewed idea of what people want. And if the only people who speak out are for it you get the same problem. I hope Obsidian are not using ANY of the threads on these forums to guage what people want. The main problem with this thread in particular is that the argument is going round and round, with others handing out knives to those in the back...

No one's even said that don't start flinging that around. The argument is that if there are romances in the game they WOULD have to cater to all which would lead to at least half the companions needing to be romanceable hence why they don't want it in at all. This would be assuming the companions were incapable of being bisexual. Personally, even though I am pretty much straight I would rather there be gay and lesbian romances than none at all, including ones that cater to my specific wants and needs. As long as they were well written, which again, should be a non issue. The argument then becomes, are they worth it in the sense of the playerbase appreciating it, which, again, I believe they would for the most part and if they didn't then they could ignore it. We've already discussed bi as well, its all been one long heated exchange over what people want. Bricks have been thrown and babies sacrificed to dark gods, assassinations in the dead of night and last minute castrations, its all been done, sorry you missed it.