BruceVC

Quite a crass depiction of my point. You chauvinistically assume all women do not wish to explore themes of sexism inherent to feudal societies and you naively believe people only play as their own sex. Anyways I too am tired of this argument (for tonight at least) and am going to bed. To be fair Gromnir he isn't saying that actually no, he ain't. we offered alternatives earlier. sexism as a theme can be explored quite easily without subjecting those who has been historical victims o' misogyny to simulated misogyny. he wants realism. you said: This brings me to my next question, what is the reason you are asking for this? Is it purely because you want a realistic game that captures the real themes of the feudal system? he said More or less. It was part of the structure hence I'd rather explore it rather than ignore it. Outside of that it's also because I'm a feminist and I find the history gender inequality and its structural manifestations interesting and worthy of examination. HA! Good Fun! I know it may seem that he his contradicting himself but I don't think he is. He is a feminist but wants a realistic feudal themed game. Sexism was part of the feudal system but just because he is asking for that it doesn't mean he is supporting it. These types of issues raise awareness But end of the day I agree with you that you could raise the fact of sexism, or other SJ issues,without emulating the exact historical context in the game. In fact I would prefer a different way of raising these types of issues than the historical way

Quite a crass depiction of my point. You chauvinistically assume all women do not wish to explore themes of sexism inherent to feudal societies and you naively believe people only play as their own sex. Anyways I too am tired of this argument (for tonight at least) and am going to bed. To be fair Gromnir he isn't saying that You could use a game to raise awareness of a SJ issue and it could also be realistic. For example the movie "12 years as a slave " was all about slavery but you left that movie with the reinforced fact of how appalling slavery was. So you can use various mediums to raise awareness which is a good thing I just think a game isn't the best way to do it because of the gaming culture and how people interpret things , but I may be wrong

Yaaaaaaay, Stun did you know I love discussing Romance ?

I fear my main point is missed because we can't get past this. Yes, it is not Earth however the primary races are still incredibly human and the structures in place are still clearly analogous to already existing historical structures (i.e. slave societies, feudal societies). The impact of souls, the length of elven lives and the possible existence of gods obviously would have an impact on how these structures develop and persist (hence why I'm merely voicing my critique as a potential problem [see first post]) however so far they still seem to be largely similar. They have a level of technology comparable to 15th/16th century Europe; this would mean we are coming towards the decline of feudalism. Naturally this would still mean the society would be in close contact with many of its holdovers. More or less. It was part of the structure hence I'd rather explore it rather than ignore it. Outside of that it's also because I'm a feminist and I find the history gender inequality and its structural manifestations interesting and worthy of examination. Okay thanks for explaining. I am also a feminist and take issues of social justice seriously so for me if we can raise issues of SJ through gaming then I would support that But I understand your primary reason for wanting this is for realism. So for me the question is really does a person want a realistic game that does follow the avenue of feudal realism? Apart from the fact this represents realism it may even raise awareness and help causes like feminism My experience has been it even if it depicts realism it will receive more misplaced criticism because I don't think any software company can depict issues like feudal misogyny in way that will be seen as being overall positive to the cause of sexism. In other words people will misunderstand the intention and you will have other feminists criticizing Obsidian for portraying women in a demeaning way ( or other minority groups ). I just don't think its worth the possible negative publicity I hope I am making sense

Oh don't worry I'm not suspecting malice on your end or anything. More or less. Misogyny and patriarchy were an inherent part of the feudal structure and rather then merely sweeping that under the rug I'd rather actually explore those themes (along with all of the other similar themes mentioned by Obsidian). Okay that's what I thought you were asking, sometimes I do misunderstand what people are asking. This brings me to my next question, what is the reason you are asking for this? Is it purely because you want a realistic game that captures the real themes of the feudal system do you want to raise awareness of these types of SJ issues so at the end of the game you may have some people who think "wow sexism was bad in those days, I am glad I am opposed to it nowadays ( this is just a simplified example ) Another reason I am not aware of

I honestly don't even know what you are trying to say here meaning you have no doubt missed my point as well (as I have missed yours). I don't think I am misunderstanding you, but I want to understand exactly what you are asking for and why. I am not trying to catch you out, I asking for clarity. You want Obsidian to explore themes like misogyny and racism that existed in the feudal in the interests of realism, is that not what you are suggesting?

To actually show how such sexism was inherent to the system, how it manifested itself, how it impacted people and so on (same reason they'd be exploring class conflict and institutionalises racism). Crass depictions of sexism that merely show "sexism is bad" without exploring how it actually manifests and what its material causes are is why many will wrongfully believe sexism has already ended. . I want to focus on your primary objective with this type of game design. We know the feudal system was sexist and had an inimical impact to various groups. Most of us believe and recognise many modern social justice issues that are inherent in our society, like the fact that sexism and racism is still relevant and prevalent and we understand the reasons So I want you to give me an example in PoE of a society or town that would be designed that is going to educate or benefit the cause of understanding, for example, sexism that we don't already know or need to be presented with. Because I just see this type of game design raising more negative attention than being informative. I am battling with seeing the benefit?

How about a tribe of brutal lesbian, African American women who enslave and humiliate other racial groups but particularly white males in PoE? That would be an interesting dynamic if people want to be reminded of bigotry

In pre-feudal, pre-slave societies there may have been matriarchal societies, however what few references we have of such societies are almost entirely mythological and used to demonstrate the "horrors" of women being on top. And here's where I think you're simply missing the point. I'm not advocating stat penalties for female PCs, class limitations, ability limitations or what have you. Rather I'm advocating that the setting itself depict the primitive reactionary values inherent to feudalism and its consequences on the population. That does not mean the female PC is silenced or necessarily 'limited' mind you, rather they'd have a different experience where they are far more likely to discriminated by virtue of their sex but still obviously be able to fight against that. The problem I have with most fantasy setting is that they will either ignore the suffering women felt under feudalism and simply sweep the inherent misogyny of such a system under the rug or they will show feudal societies as sexist but essentially silence the female sex under the guise of "well they didn't have a voice then". What I advocate is showing the misogyny of feudal society all the while exploring its actual impact on females by still showing their agency under the oppressive system. I am not sure I understand your reasoning? So you are suggesting a society in PoE that practices misogyny so we are reminded how badly women were treated in history but in this example the women would fight against there oppressors demonstrating a voice that is often not portrayed. What would be the point of that?

Depicting inherently bigoted, oppressive and sexist systems as bigoted, oppressive and sexist is not antagonizing. Of course it can. Plenty of fantasy settings dismiss the logical structures present in primitive systems in favour of creating what amounts to an idealized modern world with fantasy coating. Pillars however seems to be examining the logical structures present in societies (institutionalized racism, class conflict and so on) and actually exploring them. there has been more than a few real world matriarchal societies... you is aware of that yes? and while Gromnir would not be bothered if PoE had gender disparity in which women or men were treated poorly, we sure as heck would not recommend that the developers make it so that a gender were suffering some kinda functional penalty by playing their own gender. seems the better part of valor to avoid altogether. what would be point? so developers could be teh rheal? to show that gender inequality is bad? we already know that gender inequality is bad. as for what PoE is doing, we suspect that if a race in PoE were having physical resemblance to sub-saharan africans, and that race were victimized by slavery in the PoE setting, obsidian might suffer some negative backlash. obvious? well, why do same thing to women? to be more real? depict class conflict between nobles and bourgeois in PoE and who the hell is gonna possibly get offended? nobody. heck, obsidian can, if clever, do the metaphor shtick, but class conflict, particularly for north american purchasers o' PoE is hardly gonna be controversial. fantasy races suffering fantasy slavery? is not controversial unless obsidian tries to make slavery seem like a good thing. but treat women like dirt? why? it frequent sucks to be a woman in rl. is many situations wherein women get treated like second class citizens. am seeing no reason to subject women players to that in a game 'cause o' anachronistic notions that such stuff is required in a fantasy setting. am recalling alfa project. it were one o' the larger planned nwn projects. had literal thousands o' members at one point. d&d drow were a popular race choice, particular for women players. we loathed drow and never hesitated to point out their shortcomings, but we can empathize with the women who wished to play as a member o' a matriarchal society. PoE is a game-- a fantasy game. is not a novel or a movie, and is surely not a reality simulator. troika couldn't figure out that it was stoopid to give women a strength penalty in arcanum even after many women complained. why should obsidian be making a similar faux pas? HA! Good Fun! Good post Gromnir, I agree with the general sentiment of what you are saying. Just because something existed in history or nowadays there is no reason it needs to exist in a game in the interests of realism. There will be more than enough controversial topics that people will criticize or be concerned about without bring undue attention to Obsidian and certain game design choices

I have a policy around training, I really try to not get too upset when on some days you just seem to lack energy and your training seems ineffective. I have found no logical reason for this, no pattern. But then I find the next day my training is back to normal. But a break for a day or 2 always helps

Not a fan of the rock, paper. scissors mini-game either and an option to disable it and just roll the dice (as it used to be earlier in beta) was requested by a bunch of people (including yours truly). The dialogues very early in are a tad cheesy I'll admit, it usually does get better later in the game though if their earlier games are anything to go by. Of course if Larian's sense of humour doesn't appeal to you you're out of luck I guess. In other news, Metro: Last Light is continuing to outweigh Oby's (psuedo?)slavic trolling and provide a brilliant experience that leads me to want to take Russian language classes. I always knew you would be able to handle games that were set in a game world outside the USA. Well done young grasshopper

Squeakymeister "waves" ...so nice to chat again Why didn't you mention no Romance as a Pro, you should have? I know you sit in the anti-romance group?

Haha, and here I was thinking "what a crappy summer sale it's been". I haven't bought a single thing yet. Well, I took a break from PC gaming for a while due to a broken computer and a huge work backlog. I'm playing catch-up. ^^ What games did you buy? Octodad: Dadliest Catch, Surgeon Simulator, Daylight, Euro Truck Simulator 2, Awesomenauts, Witcher 1 & 2, Mass Effect 1 & 2 (I've never actually played these), Worms Clan Wars, Outlast Whistleblower (technically a DLC but it's as long as the original game), Draw A Stickman Epic and Deus Ex Human Revolution. That should keep you busy

Ok, I will repeat again, slooooowly, so you can understand The lack of combat xp means that there's a different xp system in the game, which SW feels is better, therefore he includes it on his pro list. The lack of romance means - in Bruce's book, mind - that there is... no romance. It's not like there's a different romance "system" implemented to replace the "classic" way. (Mainly because romances aren't systemic exercises... ) So it's a feature that is missing, instead of being replaced by a different feature that serves its purpose. The fallacy you seek is in the fact that other venues of NPC interaction are opening up, therefore there is indeed a different system that serves its purpose. But Bruce thinks that romances are a type of NPC interaction that deserve to be treated separately from "generic" interactions, because he's weird like that (but still likeable ), so that's not gonna convince him. And there we have a stalemate, because subjective feelings can't be penetrated by logic, no matter how one tries. "because he's weird like that ", I am a bit weird aren't I But that's a good summary of my view, nice one

Haha, and here I was thinking "what a crappy summer sale it's been". I haven't bought a single thing yet. Well, I took a break from PC gaming for a while due to a broken computer and a huge work backlog. I'm playing catch-up. ^^ What games did you buy?

And I refuted Silent Winters post. So you're basically copping out of this and trying to get other people to answer for you. As I said, I really expected more from you. You don't give me the courtesy of answering my question. Seriously, is that how you're going to be? You expect others to answer your questions and when you are asked a question, you don't answer yourself. You don't give me the courtesy of answering my question. So I'll ask again and please give me the courtesy of answering it: Why is it that if something like combat xp is not in the game, it's a Pro? You funny Hiro, such theatrics. I like you You obviously misunderstand me, I'm not so arrogant to think no one can give a better answer to a question than me. That's why my answer is the same as Silent Winters. I don't mind other people answering for me because I don't have a better answer and his is the most accurate, I did explain that so I didn't avoid your question before He said "It IS different from 'no combat xp' as that's something that can't be avoided if it's in game and also changes the approach to challenges. It's a change in game focus and tactics"

Bruce, do you agree that if it's not in the game then it's not a Pro? Can you explain the logic? If you can't explain the logic, then you're arguing from a fallacy. I expect better from you. Please use logic instead of fallacious arguments please. Here's an easy question: Why is it that if something like combat xp is not in the game, it's a Pro? And please give me the courtesy of answering the question. Honestly I think Silent Winter answered that accurately. There must be a valid other option if you say "one of Pro is no Romance " Now I agree that maybe excellent dialogue can be substitute for people, but not for me. Because the implementation of Romance is more than dialogue, its about a relationship that develops with a party member on this epic quest and the RP experience that entails I'm at a customer now so I may only be able respond later

Not different at all. What other examples do you need where people have put things in the Pro argument that aren't in the game? No dlc where a lot of people are happy with? Why is it okay to agree on one and not the other and use the argument, if it's not in the game then it's not a Pro? Personally, I think if you can keep a turd (whatever that turd may be) out of a game where other companies do keep a turd in, then that's a Pro. And Obsidian are known for their superior writing so we can expect more 'quality' interactive party relationships. That's great in my book. if you want an alternative, then there you have it. Quality interaction with party members. But we don't just want quality interaction with party members. This is something we have come to expect from Obsidian, we want quality interaction and Romance options. Its not a fitting substitute to say " well there is no Romance but there is engaging interaction" for most promancers?

Please don't do that. Its more than a little rude to ascribe meaning to the statements of others without attempting to engage them to get a better sense of what they are trying to say. Anywho, I can't speak for others, but I love the fact there are no romances because the ones I have seen in games have been incredibly fake and they turn party discussions into a bad highlight reel of a high fantasy version of the Bachelor. God, that was the absolute WORST part of BG2. Having Aerie whine and cry about her damn wings, Jaheira go on and on about her dead hubbie and Viconia being the hurt outsider.. and having to suffer through all that poorly written mess just to find out it was Biowares poor attempt at bringing a Japanese dating sim to American shores when each of them tried to have a go at my character. That sucked me out of my game experience very very quickly. It turned all my joinable NPCs into datable NPCs. When I am running about, trying to save creation from apocalypse, should the primary means of developing kinship with my party members be a damn dating sim? Its stupid. Its just plain stupid. What shocked me even more was all the damn dating sim mods that came out for BG2. Some sick bastards even made incest mods so you could freaking romance your SISTER. There is no accounting for taste. Those people will probably be able to modify the game files and make their own twisted romances to their heart's delight but, thankfully, Obsidian won't be wasting development time on that adolescent rubbish. I appreciate your response, sorry if I was generalizing But I want to ask you a question, do you generally partake in Romance in games or do you ignore them and focus on other aspects of party interaction?

I find this sentiment interesting, because I personally have no interest in playing an "evil" character. Evil quest paths and the like will be game content that I never see if it is included. However, I recognize there are people out there that love "evil" stuff, and so I'd never say it shouldn't be included because I personally don't like it. I am kinda curious why people don't take a similar approach to in game romance. well, some o' this is having an obvious answer. raise your hand if you has ever encounter a game npc that simply annoyed you or tried your patience past endurance? everybody? maybe you didn't choose the, "slip a dagger between his ribs" option, but the fact it were there were enticing, and perhaps you even utilized such options on subsequent replays of the game. ironically, evil options makes choosing the bright and shiny path more palatable for Gromnir. that being said, some o' the inherent flaws with evil is indeed same as romance-- some. evil typically gets done as impulse driven and psychotic. this is done for gaming reasons. each evil act is, perhaps necessarily, insular. if you is gonna have the opportunity to good next time encounter, the evil you do in this one must be limited in scope. also, as developers wants you, the player, to embrace the illusion that you is making the choices and moving the action forward, it is difficult to create smart evil. what we mean is, smart evil is gonna have a plan, but how do developers give evil players a chance to plan? even if developers does work a clever evil plan into a game somehow, it is gonna be the developer's plan and that is possibly gonna annoy players. as such, one great flaw o' romance is same as evil-- it is insular. but to answer big question o' why we is seeing abandonment o' romance as a positive, that too should be obvious at this point. is many features in games we is unlikely to ever use. the aforementioned evil is one, though we has played evil in past. there is likely gonna be weapons and spells n' such we never use. chances are there is features in the game that even after a dozen replays we will have no interest in exploring, but we don't begrudge their inclusion. so why is romance different? because romance can't be good. we like romance in stories, and that is the problem. as an insular and tangential companion side quest, we can envision no way to improve such romances significantly. best writing in the world won't overcome what we see as insurmountable hurdles. results, regardless o' the best intentions o' the writers, will be juvenile and insulting. is not like druids or dual-wield flails or other such stuff we is unlikely to make use of in multiple replays, 'cause romances can't be considerable better than we sees now from bioware, and to us that guarantees their suckage. we may never play a druid, but we don't see the resources used to implement them as a waste. however, if we knew with absolute certainty that the time resources going into the inclusion would be better used so that cain or avellone could take up salsa dancing (perhaps together) on the company dime, then that would be wasteful, no? am not in favor o' including features that must necessarily be bad, 'cause those same resources could be used to improve the game in other ways. HA! Good Fun! I still don't buy what you are saying Gromnir. You are a highly intelligent and analytical person, I have seen you debate for days specific game features and make convincing arguments based on an impressive understanding of RPG from your exposure to gaming. Yet when you are asked to say 5 things that you like about PoE all you can think of for one of your reasons is that there "wont be Romance" ?? Out of all the real positive things you can say you mention something that isn't even relevant to the discussion. I really expected something more insightful than that from you Gromnir. IMO people that say " No Romance " in PoE for a Pro are saying it more to get a reaction than it being a valid reason that they think PoE is going to be a great game

I also liked Boo, he was cute Don't be embarrassed about saying you like Romance, there are many people who like Romance and enjoy there implementation in a RPG. It just seems to be politically incorrect on these forums to say that. But the promancer army is alive and well

I agree with most of what you are saying in this post , yet you still seem to be in denial about the impact that the sanctions had in preventing Russia from further interference in Ukraine? Is it that you don't think sanctions can effect a countries economy and cause them to rethink political strategy?