AGX-17

Well they won't be called Epic, if you've seen what Josh Sawyer has said about the word on Formspring. It's so overused that it no longer holds its original meaning.

The problem is, by admission of some of F2's developers, that it locks low INT players out of most of the game's content. Speaking fluently with the retarded guy in Klamath and getting enslaved doesn't really seem like a reward compared to playing the entire rest of the game. The biggest hurdle is that you have to write a huge amount of additional dialogue to have every NPC properly recognize you as intellectually-disabled. Plus I'd imagine a lot of companions would not be willing to follow your lead. That could be a kind of check separate from actual low INT. An example in New Vegas was that on Black Mountain, you could try to use Speech to tell Tabitha that the "dumb-dumbs" were taking over, but if your speech was too low, Tabitha would see through it because you don't sound dumb enough to be a dumb-dumb. However, if you have low INT, you get a low INT option that will always succeed because you are dumb. So, certain characters should be experienced enough with the "touched" to know when someone is faking it.

Unless it's made clear to the player ahead of time that something bad is coming, and the player is given the opportunity to prevent or interrupt it, it's unfair and will just result in save-scumming. Compare, for example, those insanely hard Mario hacks or fan games like I Wannna be the Guy, they're blatantly unfair but you have unlimited opportunities to keep trying and to memorize the correct method to proceed. They give you a chance to learn and improve, but an unstoppable instant-death spell that kills you our your favorite companion permanently and is determined only by a hidden dice roll you have no control over (beyond the victim character's modifiers,) is just straight unfair. Would anyone here really enjoy a one-save Ironman mode when enemy wizards just keep hitting your player character with instant death and you have to start the game over every time?

Gameplay mechanics are the actual base function of the game. i.e. the d20 system which is a collection of equations used to determine the results of character interactions, be they hostile or otherwise. Control is how the player interacts with the game. Graphics are the visual representation of the game itself. Your poll lists all these things as though they are the same thing. Which is it you're referring to?

I take it you never actually got that far in F2. It came from Navarro. It's called a Vertibird. You steal blueprints for them. From the guys who maintain them at Navarro. One of them is named Raul. Very mysterious.

Either you don't know what the word "literally" means or you've never seen what happens when you start you car with a cat sleeping under the hood. Oh, but on the subject of kiting, it does seem like a pretty cheap tactic, I feel like if I was a guard and saw one of my coworkers go running off with his sword drawn or just suddenly fall over with a bunch of arrows in him I'd be a little concerned. I don't see how it's "cheap," it's more a function of AI stupidity than anything. It's less cheap than the alternative, like in Dragon Age: Origins where kiting is impossible. i.e. You're given control to move a character freely, but if you move that character out of the path of a charging ogre (they make it rather obvious that they're preparing to charge,) they'll still get hit and knocked down even if they're well out of the path of the charge as it happens, arrows turn midflight and home in on you, etc. If you move out of the range of an AOE spell before its been cast, you'll still get hit by it in DAO because you were in the AOE when the AI chose the target, even if the character you're controlling wasn't the target (not surprisingly, the AI there couldn't cast AOE spells without specifying a character to cast it on, rather than an area,) Some people complained about being able to kite in DA2 on the grounds that it made the game too easy, but kiting is a choice, not an inevitability, and it's more fair and more believable than homing arrows and melee attacks that fly 50 feet through a rock wall to hit a character. Don't mistake MMO AI with SP AI. But I get what you are saying. Aggro = Aggression I think it makes sense if my Wizard would throw a Spell that kills the enemy team Healer, that the entire enemy team would focus and be more aggressive against my Wizard because they both appreciated the Healer as a valued member and because it was a vital figure taken down by an equal vital figure. Chess can have aggressive tactics. But yes ultimately I'm with you, no MMO Aggression (I should be able to intercept an enemy tthat gets "annoyed" at my tactic). When a Developer makes an AI do they play it and record it or do they just add values, code/script? If the AI were realistic, all aggro would always be focused on healers and offensive spellcasters as long as they're alive, unless you somehow made it impossible for them to reach/hit that character (unlikely.) So actual realism (the enemy AI acting the same way an experienced human player would in a given circumstance,) isn't necessarily the ideal direction if the game is to be any fun.

Not really. I want it to have realism in respect to immersion, but It's simply not going to be truly realistic. None of this "there's no such thing as leather armor so there should be none!" stuff like one guy said in another thread.

Kneejerk, reactionary conservatism at its finest. These are the people who've lived in the Fox News bubble for the last 15 years. The conservative hardliners in the House don't have any problem with the accross the board cuts to social security, medicare, medicaid and so on, they've refused to budge this whole time on the basis of taxation of the rich. Government is so intertwined with the rich and corporate America, it's going to take serious problems to undo that marriage of wealth to power. Funny story: Under Republican president Dwight Eisenhower, taxes for the top earners were 90%. And Tea Party conservatives often voice a desire to return America to the golden age of the 1950s. Once again, life in the Fox News bubble has left conservatives either a laughingstock or a threat to the nation's economy. Eisenhower, now there's a Republican I could vote for.

What The ****? Why is obsession called dedication? That guy clearly has a problem, there is nothing to admire. If I was bioware, I would be happy that there are people like him paying me, for whatever **** I throw at them. Well end of the day this boils down to a completely subjective opinion of the guys behavior. I don't know enough of the context to say he is obsessed. So I prefer to say he is dedicated. In life I tend to see the glass as half full. I cannot see any positive spin to a man trying to discover what a fictional alien character's sweat and urine smell and taste like. Because he's sexually attracted to the character and wants his sexual fantasies to become more vivid. Would you feel the same way if he was trying to figure out what the sweat and urine of a female celebrity smell like? What about just some random woman he spotted on the street? I don't think you'd call it admirable dedication so much as perverse mental illness. This is the opinion of someone with a long and storied history with mental illness.

Lol, okay some of these BSN comments about Romance are really hilarious. I do find them extreme but it does show a real commitment to the game and I admire that. However you guys are using these examples as a reason Romance\Sex is a bad idea in PE, well I assume you are? But I think we all agree that the Bioware implementation of Romance\Sex is not what the majority of pro-Romance people want in PE. So they just made me chuckle but hasn't detracted from the overall objective of Romance\Sex in PE As someone who has personally delved into the BSN, I can tell you that these "gems" are not the outliers or exceptions to rational discussions. But my point was in posing the question, did romances in video games turn people into these.... things, or did romances in video games attract an existing group of troglodytes out of their caves? Either way, the boding. It does not go well.

I haven't seen any problems thus far. I've gotten no warnings, so my most extreme behavior is either acceptable or stealthy enough to elude moderation.

No, players complain about level scaling because it removes challenge (no higher level enemies than you,) and believability (everyone else is at the same level as you,) from the game. Example: Oblivion. By the late 20s in level, you were running into podunk bandits carrying the highest-tier equipment in the game when it's simply impossible that these bandits could have killed the otherworldly abominations that originally owned that Daedric Armor. Level scaling isn't hated because we're whiny and want stupid easy oneshot fights, it's because it kills immersion when everyone and their mom is carrying a Legendary +1000 Sacred Sword of Slaying w/ inflict all debuffs in the game for 1000000 seconds on strike.

I'm not opposing the leveling up. I'm opposing the character background inconsistency. I'm fine with rapid leveling to glory. I'm not as fine with a novice joining an elite team and carrying their own weight or an expert joining a novice team and being just as incompetent. The problem is internal consistency, and rising to power quickly isn't internally inconsistent, but Anders/Justice being so weak, and Liara being so strong are inconsistent. If background is what matters then what's the questing and experience for? Shouldn't it just be a tactical game with unchanging characters who start with a pre-defined set of unchanging skills and stats, then?

Skyrim's the most amazing fantasy hiking-sim I've ever seen. As a hiker who lives in a place where hiking is a valid pastime, I have to say Skyrim is a casual hiking game, like iPhone app casual. [ontopic]By the way, did anyone hear about how crafting in Skyrim is stupid and needs to be nerfed but never will because Bethesda designs for powergamers/minmaxers?[/ontopic]

See: http://www.something...cial-forums.php for details. Edit: For the record, I think this SA article should be inextricably bound with Chris Avellone's opinion on romances in all extensions of this discussion going forward.

Where is this example from? There's no denying that Japanese game developers tend to value style over substance, but I can think of examples to counter yours, that actually exist: In the Super Robot Wars franchise, the first "villain" is a middle-aged, bearded scientist (not an emo pretty boy,) who discovers (from a "bigger bad" source,) that aliens exist and are plotting to attack the Earth, but his warnings fall on deaf ears, world governments consider him a crackpot (this game came out in the early 90s, no accusations of ripping off Mass Effect.) So with the help of his morally ambiguous benefactor from another world (an antagonist running a Xanatos Gambit that doesn't reach fruition until several more games into the series,) he organizes a massive scientific foundation which is a front for a militaristic rebellion using advanced technology (giant robots, of course!) to force the world to unite against him and militarize (this same technology is deliberately leaked to the newly formed world government.) Were he to succeed, he would be in control of that new pan-global military-industrial complex and prepared for invasion, were he to fail, the Earth's united forces would be in a condition capable of defending it from invasion (which is how it plays out if you complete the game.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tNQXwjAlI0 In all seriousness, the glaring problem with day/night cycles is that either it's just aesthetic to add to realism or it mechanically restricts content to one period or the other. If you're restricting content to day or night you're then either going to have to add a "wait/rest" function so players can actually get to the content they're aiming for or you make them wait in real time, which is just a waste of everyone's time. The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons (good god those games need to be remade,) for Gameboy Color's basic novel mechanic was the ability to change the seasons at will, with the entire game world depicted in all four seasons. The gameplay obviously centered on changing the seasons to access different areas and solve puzzles. And yes, in general, night should be more dangerous than day, unless you're a nocturnal predatory animal such as a bat or a panther.

Just leave that can of worms to Bioware. Did Bioware do this to its fanbase, or do video game romances attract these sorts of people? http://www.something...cial-forums.php

Combat can become a tedious chore, the story typically cannot. With a good system, fighting is fun, but unless it's exceptionally good, you can easily get burnt out by an overly-long dungeon with excessive numbers of enemies and no respite or end in sight. It would be difficult to make every battle tactically unique and interesting, but I guess that's the conundrum. Combat for combat's sake should not be mandatory (i.e. encounters that are just a swarm of mook enemies you've already dealt with in the thousands and there's nothing to be gained in terms of story, character development, or loot.) But I do take issue with the poll's implication that there is a person for whom combat is necessary/mandatory to enjoy a story. How can such a person live life? Do you never read a book, watch a movie or TV show, or even listen to someone else tell a story? Are you bored out of your mind and hate all stories that don't involve you personally killing a bunch of things, (real or simulated,) be they people or animals or fantasy creatures? What a conundrum.

So you're proposing that these characters, who all defer to the PC in all tactical situations of life and death, suddenly demand a democracy only in the case of adding or removing party members? That's an affront to player agency (forcing unwanted/unneeded companions on players) and Obsidian has already stated that you're free to take no companions at all. It's pretty clear that PE is not going to be a game about a democratically ruled adventuring player where all participating members vote on every decision made by the party, so why would this make sense or be fun? Why would they restrict their democratic ambitions just to party membership? Why not on every mouse click, item pickup/drop, NPC conversation, step in any direction, etc.? There's no consistency in this idea (which is bad, btw, in case I didn't make it clear.)

No, but it very much implies there is *some real* science in the game. *some* Some. And these aren't claims. How are these claims? What? It's broad because the word *science* has a really broad definition. It does not only refer to physics etc. Picking up one of my points. - Do the people in the game speak englisch? If yes... - How is that not some real science? Again, this is a NITPICK on the wording in the title. Nothing else! I'm not even remotly arguing that games or narratives in general are *realistic*. Hell, I agree generally with your opinion and on the space fantasy thing (Which wording you probably *took* from George Ziets formspring, right?) Boy, you don't know when to put down that shovel, do you? Down and down you go, where this hole will end, nobody knows. The presence of English in a game developed by English speakers does not make "obvious" the presence of accurate real-world science. Nor does it constitute any form of science in itself. It is not a question of science that English-speaking people speak English. A common-sense use of language by a business in a product for communicative/narrative purposes is not in any way scientific.

[sarcasm]Yeah that Kefka sure was sexy.[/sarcasm] Memorable and charismatic are not the same thing. I can think of some charismatic antagonists and villains in JRPGs. Charismatic isn't the same thing as well-written, though. I can think of a few charismatic, well-written JRPG antagonists.

It would definitely add tactical depth to the game for the landscape (or built environments) to be a factor in combat. Even simple line of sight blockage by trees, boulders and pillars seems logical enough. Whomever has the high ground has an undeniable advantage unless some kind of massive explosion that will pass harmlessly over ravines is approaching. Or unless gravity goes away. In which case both sides are, how do the french say it? ****ed?

Another scenario which implies the presence of capitalism. Thus it cannot, in my opinion, not work with PE's world as established thus far. The best you can hope for is the landed aristocracy converting from feudalism/serfdom to mercantilism and transitioning into Landlords charging their former serfs a fee to continue working the land (something which led to rebellions and uprisings in real-world Europe.) Capitalism is a post-enlightenment economic system. Mercantilism is the most believable economic system for the setting.

Why would it be hard for the game to delete your only save?