FlintlockJazz

Yes, I think you have a good point here. Sure, it can be argued that the 'real' villain was Sovereign but the way it was done made Saren completely neutered not only as a threat but as a person. You want them to have flaws but not to the extent that they not only cease to be a credible threat but actually become comical.

I want a villain that has shades of grey (though not 50, sorry had to be done), but not a 'magnificent bastard' type that ends up with even the devs who made him falling in love with him and turning him into a mouthpiece for how awesome his plan was and how he is so cool which is something I've seen done a few too many times, especially when the villain's plan wasn't really as clever as the writers think. I think the best villains are the ones that draw a reaction, make you want to chase them whether it be for revenge or just to find out what the hell they're up to, though to be honest, I'm not sure if a 'villain' is what is needed, I mean [spoiler alert for those who may not have played it, crazy though they may be] Planescape Torment pretty much doesn't really have a villain, as the 'bad guy' is essentially yourself and the goal is to find out what is going on. I also like it when there's more than one villain, operating at cross-purposes to one another. Truly alien-minds like the suggestion of the alien from Aliens also work when done right for me. It's why I like Ravel but not Flemeth/Morrigan despite their similarities as 'ancient powers' in their world: Ravel is truly alien while also not actually omniscient and doesn't claim to have the right philosophy on life (because she was too busy taking your intestines out), instead just doing what the hell she wanted, whereas F/M just came across as slightly kooky arrogant humans who had access to the writers' plotline and who dictated their life-philosophies to you, but I digress. And I suppose that would be make for one of the scariest villains: someone who does what they do 'because they can'.

You wouldn't use a sword against plate or brigandine anyway, regardless of type, more a sidearm weapon really. Rapiers were slightly later than that as well, 16th century as opposed to 15th century which is what I think late middle ages are but don't quote me on that, I'm definitely no expert. Longsword would probably fit better there for the late middle ages. I don't wanna be immodest, but I'm pretty competent in this matter. I studied medieval warfare and I also had one or two sessions of historical fencing. Rapiers are definitely late middle-ages weapons. Maybe I'm missing the english word for "stocchi" (sing. stocco), but I guess I'm correct calling them rapiers. Anyway, linguistic diversions apart, "stocchi" and bastard swords were used against plate armor in a very specific way, a technique called "mezzalama" (half-blade). The technique consist in putting one hand on the hilt and the other hand on the lover part of the blade (that usually isn't sharp), using the sword like a lance and trying to hit the weak spots of the armor (not covered by plates). I've heard of half-blading, didn't know it was used for that but makes sense, thanks. From my understanding, most people used swords as backup weapons on the battlefield for when they lost their primary weapons, except for specialised weapons such as the Landsknecht two-handers which were used against pikes I believe, so I'm guessing that if they are being 'authentic' then the guy in the pic may be geared up for fighting more lightly armoured people than you would find on a historical battlefield. I'm pretty certain rapiers were not around until the 16th century, though there may have been an intermediate weapon before then and the 'stocchi' name you use sounds familiar, so yeah we're probably discussing different weapons there.

You wouldn't use a sword against plate or brigandine anyway, regardless of type, more a sidearm weapon really. Rapiers were slightly later than that as well, 16th century as opposed to 15th century which is what I think late middle ages are but don't quote me on that, I'm definitely no expert. Longsword would probably fit better there for the late middle ages.

I apologise in advance for the analness of this post and how I'm going to be bringing real-world stuff to it. Yeah, simplicity is beautiful most of the time. Yes yes and yes to all of these!!! I agree fully. Personally I think we should have pointy wizard hats. People look down on the gandalf hat but it's not really used that much in games (especially for PCs) and is damn awesome. Oh, and I'm being completely serious here, I do actually want this! :D One thing to point out here: plate armour was actually lighter to wear than chainmail, and neither required the user to move slowly to wear (fully armoured knights would often chase down lightly armoured bowmen on foot). Plate's distribution of weight actually made it easy to wear compared to chain where all the weight was carried on the shoulders, and if I was to ever create a historically accurate thief character then I would actually prefer to wear bits of light plate instead of leather since it would be lighter per level of protection and make less noise (it doesn't clank like people think, that noise is actually often added in by SFX departments in films due to people's misconceptions of it). No one needed assistance to get on horseback, that's hollywoodism based on a French king who was too fat to get on unaided. The actual problem with plate is heat exhaustion. Wearing a full suit traps the heat, which led to many knights collapsing from heat exhaustion in the middle of winter in snow. Of course, how to simulate real world mechanics of wearing plate may be too hard for most rpgs and alot of people would complain claiming it wasn't 'realistic' not realising that they actually have it backwards. Actually, using the actual arms and armour a medieval setting would use would be very different from what we actually normally play in. Alot of the armour used is actually from other places or completely fictitious (studded leather for instance), and varied drastically from area to area and time period to time period (full plate wasn't even used until the end of the 14th century for instance despite the common misconception that it was used throughout the middle ages, chain was instead used). If we used proper european gear we would have a vastly different setting already without needing to go abroad. For instance, leather armour would NOT be present: it was not used in Europe to any great degree due to the fact that our animals did not produce good enough hides to make it worthwhile, instead we used padded cloth which was not only cheaper but was actually better than leather! Take a look at padded jacks to see what padded armour really looked like, it was pretty awesome looking and better imho than leather. I'd also like to see the use of kettle hats in a setting, along with halberds and bills (which, contrary to what some people I have spoken to believed, were not only used in mass combat but also used one on one effectively). Yeah, okay I admit it I just want to be able to play Bill the Billman a simple footsoldier driven to adventure by happenstance! :D Again I apologise for the analness and history lectureyness of this post.

Oh hell yes, I get so fed up with hearing Claudia Black in everything now, and when I hear that 'so-and-so has Bob voicing their character!!!' I'm like "So that's less money for the actual game then..." I liked Imoen though, didn't like the 'break the cutie' they did to her in BG2 as it made her teen wangsty at points, but always kept her around in my playthoughs.

Not keen on finishing moves. If the corpse ends up in a certain way due to what killed them, like as a frozen shattered statue if killed by an ice missile or a gash from the swordblow that finished them off I'd be happy with, but no pre-rendered 'cool' animation like in DAO and not because of some arbitrary critical hit on an enemy with 10% health, I like to know I won through fair play and not because of some fortuitous roll at a fortuitous time. If a guy goes down anyway because of a critical hit then sure, their arm or something can fall off as they go down but only if they would've died anyway.

England, UK. Where tea is sipped and beer is chugged.

I was going to mention Venetica. Personally I feel that in most games armour is just picked up to be sold anyway and just ends up being timewasting heavy junk. I'd prefer that you acquire armour through other means than loot and just get more money instead of armour via looting.

I agree with others, a castle is a bit over the top, and is used for ruling not living. A manor is more apt (and where still built to be defendable if thats your worry) fits more characters and more customisable (can take more forms and therefore fits more classes). Or you could own your own tavern, gain an income and lure rival adventurers to their doom! Evil minion by the fireplace to send them off on suicidal quests... Or if you're really set on ruling then how about a whole village? Though then you're looking more at some sort of medieval sim city game...

Thank you sir, it's a pleasure to be here. I'll try to keep my killing of Holy Grail Knights to a minimum. You'd better. *Om nom nom* Er this one wasn't a knight and wasn't donating... *burp* (Sorry for the double post, awkward to respond to multiple people on my phone).

Thank you sir, it's a pleasure to be here. I'll try to keep my killing of Holy Grail Knights to a minimum. Bah, for a Fallen Knight like me an ordinary mug of bear is as good as the Holy Grail so I'm quite safe I hope.... Well its not so much that they are grail knights or even just knights at all, rather its they just tend to come within leaping for their neck distance alot... but if you have the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch you should be safe, oreven just listen to Tim the Sorcerer when you meet him!

Pervert, Dreamer, they're the same thing really.

Thank you sir, it's a pleasure to be here. I'll try to keep my killing of Holy Grail Knights to a minimum.

Well, I've increased my pledge too by $8. Damn here I was hoping to cut down on my pledging when along comes Obsidian, then the GameBanshee chipin for it, and now you guys! Why don't you just smack me in the face and steal my wallet?? I'm on Kickstarter as Jazz, and you can give me the title of White Rabbit (with sharp pointy teeth!) of the Obsidian Order please.

Aye, I heartily agree. Also, just gotta say, love your forum avatar.

This is a shame. I'd have liked some answers to some of the things in AP answered in AP2, or even with dlc. Oh well, usual case of unique game dying thanks to incompetent reviewers. EDIT: Difference in tastes I can understand, but the reviewers didn't seem to take that into account is what I mean.

I'm FlintlockJazz, and I approve of this thread.

*Back after being held hostage in Italy by Italian doctors for almost two weeks after fracturing his ankle in three places and needing to have metal bars and screws put in to make sure it heals right* Sad to hear the part about dlc, AP is one of the games I would actually consider buying dlc for (which is weird since I haven't bought any of the pay-for dlc for DA:O or ME2). Hopefully they might do some in the future, but it doesn't sound too good. Patching, the game works well for me but anything that helps improve the game's functionality and shows that they are still working on it is good news in my book!

I don't think most people are necessarily arguing that one is better than another (though some maybe are), in fact I'm certain most people like both Bioware and Obsidian, it's just a bit of confusion over why AP got marked down for something by reviewers while many of Bio's games also have it and yet didn't get marked down for it.

Welcome to the club! EDIT: fixed quote. Do we get our own clubhouse? Damn, our evil plan isn't working! I mean, um, glad to see you're taking it so well.

No, the actual literal meaning is that there is not a single person who had their expectations met. "Everybody" is a singular pronoun. It just looks like a collective one. Of course, it's incredibly pedantic to point that out, since we all know what Unskilled actually meant (what you say above)... but, technically, he was wrong. You can't say this game DID meet everybody's expectations and you can't say that it DIDN'T meet everybody's expectations. You can say, however, that it did not meet all people's expectations. Yeah, I think I should check into things a bit more before making big posts that are basically wrong. Made an example of how presumption can lead to ****ups myself there.

unskilled-: "What AP did was fail to meet everybody's expectations." Me: "It hasn't failed to meet mine, please quit making statements about my opinions." You: "He said everybody's expectations, not anyone's." As far as I can tell you implied that unskilled- wasn't speaking for me like I claimed he was. Since everybody is every person and I'm a person saying "everybody's expectations" makes it a statement about every person's expectations which includes my own. Since my expectations have been met, his statement wasn't accurate. My entire point is that we should try to avoid sweeping generalizations. I think this is a case of unclear posting causing confusion. Unskilled may have meant 'everybody' in that it didn't meet anyone's expectations, but the actual literal meaning is that not everyone had their expectations met. The literal meaning therefore means that it can indeed meet some expectations it just did not meet all expectations of everyone, so you can have one group of people whose expectations were met perfectly but as long as at least one person didn't then everyone's expectations were not met...but then no game has ever been released in which everyone's expectations were met anyway, so stating it is unnecessary unless of course he did mean that it failed everyone's expectations and so it makes sense that some people will presume that... This is a prime example as to how easy it is to misinterprete someone. EDIT: Argh, people already posted to clear this up, oh well nothing to see here folks.

Cheers dude, that's a cool definition. Trying to define what an RPG can be pretty hard, especially with all the different perspectives, I kinda subscribe to the belief that it should really be an umbrella term for a wide range of mini-genres (action rpg for games like Diablo, JRPG for, well, JRPGs since they are quite different from other RPGs, etc). I've seen some pretty hairy arguments arise from trying to define some games as RPG or not hehe. Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to post your definition for me.

I actually liked Mr Thorton. I know alot of people apparently don't like how effeminate he looks, but in this age of steroid-enhanced rugged Space Marine looks we get with every other character in games I liked Thorton's look (plus I don't really see how he is effeminate to be honest, and considering how they buffed up the male avatars in WoW to Arnie level even when you're playing a mage or blood elf because the players claimed they looked too effeminate I'm not convinced it's me with the skewed perspective, though I am screwy). Sure, he came across as a **** sometimes, especially when he was trying to be suave, but I consider that part of his charm, he is after all meant to be a manipulative person and I love the "Is this guy for real" look you get off Scarlett if you do the suave route.