Nonek

Elves can't successffully breed with humans and vice versa, their union does not produce offspring it seems. Thus they are two seperate species rather than races of a species. Of course Humans and Elves do have their own races within their species, can't remember the names right now, it'll be on the Wiki I assume.

Debussy and Ravel always conjure a nice atmosphere in my opinion. Isao Tomita also produced a quite haunting synthesised version of some of Debussy's works back in the late 70s/early 80s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPTGnnFatWo Or perhaps a little Fantasia by Tallis, re-invigorated by Ralph Vaughan Williams: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAtx578yaZ8

Well in one quite important manner they are very different, they can't breed. This being so, and there being no offspring born of an Elven and Human union, they are not races but two seperate species. The physical similarity is perhaps born of shared ancestry millions of years in the past, but that is pure speculation. I think this is quite unique and interesting, and would like to see it explored further.

I agree entirely, cinematics in games should serve interactivity, perhaps reward and affirm a players choices, not dictate flow and gameplay. I want to do, not watch, as i'm not a voyeur. Haha.

Indeed, most RPGs slaughter thousands for the flimsiest reasons, and not a word is said in complaint. Similarly Postal and other violent games are being defended because they have a sense of humour, a very thin excuse for legitimising simulated violence. Hypocrisy and personal taste interfering in professional opinion I think, just another reason that censorship is wrong. Especially cherry picked censorship.

I personally hope that there is room for more forms of entertainment, both linear crafted experiences like films and novels, and interactive ones such as computer games.

Hopefully Hatred comes to GOG, I prefer that we have a few games that present violence in an ugly, nasty and morally repulsive fashion, rather than the glamourised violence that we see in so many games. One that hopefully also presents the story of the protagonist, and how he came to hate all humanity, and resort to a killing spree. It could be very interesting or moronic, depending on presentation. Of course simulated violence has no affect on real violence, there has never been a causal link established that it does and the supposition is idiotic, but still it's worth ocassionally presenting violence in an alternative, less easy and glamorous fashion. I far prefer we tackle all such problematic material head on, rather than try and hide it away, and censor for the good of the "moral majority." Censorship is an evil in and of itself, and to deny truth is blinkered and stupid. Should we deny Spielsberg a right to make Schindler's List, and deny the horrors of the Holocaust? Of course not, those whom forget the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. At terrible cost. Similarly prostitution is undoutedly harmful, and those whom perpetuate the trade, through using sex workers are guilty of prolonging the misery and abuse that prostitutes are routinely subjected to. Once again i'd rather face this head on, even in a simulated fashion, than bury ones head in the sand and pretend it does not exist, and hide the problem behind a smokescreen of self righteousness. The truth is a very precious commodity, and too many wish to deny it outright, i'd prefer it was championed, we have enough escapism as it is. Edit: All ones own opinion and whatnot.

Those screenshots are rather impressive. Not particularly thrilled about playing Ciri, but as an introduction one supposes her inclusion is fairly mandatory, there's nothing like a playable role to build empathy and interest if presented properly. I do hope her voice actress (and Yens) is up to stuff.

Eye of the Beholder 2 - Builds on and surpasses the previous entry in every way, i've seemingly forgotten a vast amount of the game however as I just had a good portion of my gear stolen by Insal the Halfling. With all of the equipment I brought over from the first game i'm not in desperate straits, but I do wonder whether I will ever catch up to the little thief and have an opportunity to avenge myself and retrieve my gear. Skeleton Warriors and the sounds they make during combat is still horrifying.

Video DVD/Blu-Ray Nasties next and then novels and the evil of the printing press perhaps?

We've all been complaining about this for the longest time though haven't we? And it's not just their looks that are middling and boring, their personalities are also predictable and fairly much written in stone. Joker, but serious about family, childish squeeing sense of humour, but serious about anything politically incorrect, and almost always as intellectually bankrupt as your average SJF. They're written by commitee and dull as dishwater.

Ha ironic that the social justice fascists who support Nazism, genocide, censorship, dehumanisation and parrot Goerring's "Listen and Belive" mantra, should use such a clip against Gamergate. I would more equate Gamergate with the mob bearing down on them, from many countries, of both genders, of the common people and of many beliefs. While the SJFs are predominantly white, middle to upper class, and spit upon the majority as inhumans.

Back on topic, I can't help but agree with Mr Luridis. It seems to be a matter of what is fashionable, rather than what is best suited to the game and its style. Turn based combat is similarly widely reviled, despite its strengths, as an outdated and degenerative option. When in truth it is merely another option. It has weaknesses of course, but so does every method of combat implementation, even the best designed. It is in my opinion a pity when game design choices are rejected simply because they are not fashionable anymore, but at least we have Kickstarter to revive such mechanics, and embrace variety and choice.

I seem to have unwittingly shunted this thread aside into discussion of the Witcher, really not my intent, i'd prefer it to remain focused on the degeneration of RPGs over the last twenty years. Personally I found Geralt as the classic Noir protagonist to be quite compelling, but then again i'm extremely tired of the undefined, boring, over emotional, squeeing morons, we usually have to play. Geralt was a nice tonic in comparison to this, understated and stoic. He was also professional and experienced in his field of expertise, started quests himself rather than waiting for others to tell him what to do, and was not pretty or nice, appealing aspects to me. As a student of history I found the world brilliantly realised, with interesting complex situations around every corner and its characters charming and amusing in equal measure. Zoltans rough homespun philosophy, Siegfrieds geekish nobility, Vincent Meis' essential valour and humanity etcetera. The cast was some of the best presented, unusual and realistically likable that I have ever seen. I far preferred these NPCs to the usual caricatures experienced in most games, built upon archetypes without any humanity or soul to them. The world of the Witcher is undoubtedly a dark place, reflecting its realism and inspiration in the middle age, but because of this good deeds stand out all the brighter, and are far more rewarding in my opinion. I far prefer this to the usual fantasy worlds, that are merely modern worlds with a thin covering of renaissance fayre flavour. Shallow, unrealistic and simplistic. All my own opinion however, and I certainly respect others.

What i find interesting is that some members of the gaming press are now saying that Gamergate is against criticism, when in point of fact the organisation arose in part because of a lack of criticism. The undisputed corrupt nature of the gaming press, and their symbiotic relationship with the medium they should be criticising for the public, is what drove many to detest game journalism. They awarded mediocre games perfect scores and championed streamlining and dumbing down for years, and now say that they are trying to improve the medium. Game criticism is what most forums engage in as a matter of course, it is not frowned upon or unwanted, it is embraced. And the arguments are usually far more informed than the gaming press can manage, and argue for better quality, more innovation, more diversity, more internal consistency and less handholding and needless accessibility that is quite frankly insulting. Of course this criticism is also far superior to those popular critics who don't even play the games they criticise, or believe games should not be interactive at all. Yet game journalists and SJFs herald massively regressive graphical picture books as the future, and argue for a core experience, or even a single feature in a game being far better than ambition, complexity, depth or layers. They champion regression, and have done for years, at the consumers expense and for their own enrichment. Hypocrisy thy name is game journalism.

Normal retail value. Obsidian are allowed to make a fair profit from their work, the same as any other producer of entertainment. There's nothing unethical in making a fair profit for a fair product. In point of fact I believe RPGs give a much better return on investment than just about any other genre. Say £35 for a game, and I recieve 35 hours or more of entertainment, that's a pound an hour. Extremely good value. I'm also not keen on subsidising non backers purchase of the game, they should pay a reasonable market value.

In fairness though trying to stop female developers games from being bought, harassing people whom disagree with their cult, doxing, censoring free speech, trying to get individuals fired, partaking in unethical and corrupt behaviour, trying to silence women and minorities, insulting millions of people from diverse backgrounds, races, genders and creeds, even to the point of wishing they were all dead (repeatedly) however is perfectly acceptable. In fact I believe some believe it's righteous to demonise and hate perfectly innocent people who've done nothing, and aren't even on Twitter. Edit: Not to mention trying to deny charities donations because of their own petty hatreds, adoration of the Nazi's, advocation of death camps for the above millions, using unrelated school shootings and murders to score points for their own idiotic teenage moralising without even sympathising with the victims, and whatever the latest idiocy Mr McIntosh is spouting, whether that is games should have no gameplay or whatever.

Is that People Inhabiting Germanic Settlements from Saberhagen I think? Of Pigs and Men?

Reminds me I need some new pots and kettles for christmas, any recommendations.

I'm afraid I still have to disagree, you meet Salamandra and the Flaming Rose, Jacques right and left hands at almost the beginning of the game and they spark the whole quest. Indeed Azar Javed's name translates as Eternal Fire, hinting at whom he serves. Jacques and Alvin are there throughout, you simply do not see it except in hindsight, a masterful reveal in my opinion. Sarevok's actions are selfish, he wishes to seize godhood, which in the Forgotten realms is perfectly understandable for a power broker, not insane at all. Jacque is the exact opposite, he wishes to save all humanity for selfless reasons not commit mass murder, and as a source he possibly has the power to actually do so, this is not insane. Egotistical and delusional maybe, but not insane at the beginning. Jacque/Alvin in my opinion is one of the best realised and most nuanced antagonists in recent gaming history, and a daring narrative experiment that less ambitious developers simply would not even try.

I totally disagree about Jacque/Alvin, he was tormented by incomplete visions of the future and saw a way to save the world. He thus acted on it. The white frost is a reality, and the Witchers world is swinging towards an ice age, this is a fact and one cannot blame Jacque for his resolve to "save" the world. Unfortunately he lost humanity in pursuing his goals, letting his methods become tainted for the sake of the noble goal. A common failing. And the great thing about this is that in chapter 4 (the heart of the game) you, the player, provide his reasoning for doing this, which he repeats to you in his dream realm at the end. Thus when Geralt realises whom he has killed, upon discovery of the Dimeritium amulet, he realises that he had a hand in creating his antagonist. And had just righteously killed the child he swore to protect. A near perfect denouement in my opinion, and a warning against judging too quickly even the greatest monsters. The Witcher 2 doesn't really have a villain, it has a main antagonist who is a mirror image of Geralt, but chose to follow a different path under very similar circumstances. Everything about Letho is calculated to be the very opposite of Geralt, purposely so reinforcing the games theme of Geralt questioning himself and what he does, which rises organically from the ending of the first game. The other antagonists are of ones own choosing, Dethmold is loyal, clever, powerful and witty for all of his faults and has as many good sides to his character as faults. Philippa for all her faults is trying to make a better world, and prepare against external enemies, though her methods are repellant. All of the chosen antagonists are similarly three dimensional people, with realistic and relatable motivations, rather than caricatures spouting evil cliches. Even Eredin's Dearg Rhudri are not the simplistic villains they pretend to be, though dead worlds of bleached bones lie in the Aen Elles background.

Though I personally don't think the narrative is paramount in any game, as I believe that all elements should be interesting and up to snuff, there are some aspects of narrative development that I think need working on in most games. The mid Ultima games are shining examples of this, thematic relevance working throughout the narrative, subtle and nuanced themes that are not broadcast at the player but become self evident through playing. Ultima IV's quest for virtue and the unattainable nature of that task. Ultima V's focus on moral absolutism twisting the virtues that the Avatar champions, and the need for constant self examination. Ultima VI and its examination of racism, the dangers of certainty and the reminder that heroes can be villains to those they oppose and see their actions return to haunt them. Just as an example. Obsidian and CDPR are some of the only developers i've seen in the modern era that are upholding this heritage: Obsidian routinely focuses on thematic relevance to inform every aspect of its games narrative, and this makes them very satisfying to play and unravel, for me at least. CDPR routinely ask many moral questions throughout their games, and give no clear answer other than what the player chooses to believe, as well as binding everything together under the overarching questions of, What is a monster? in the first game and What is a Witcher? in the second game. Both handle choice and consequence in a superior fashion in my opinion. Themes such as these can make any game interesting to me, I do not need big bads invading from demonic realms, or any other simplistic villains. I far prefer antagonists who are all too relatable, human and flawed, existing in interesting and complex situations rather than simplistic caricatures who have no real motivation, other than acting like idiots because the unbelievable plot demands it. Unfortunately some developers cannot really handle such nuance, and thus we see extremely poorly made games when they try, that instead of relying on their themes strengths resort to the endless simplistic grinding of combat and conversation in dull grey corridors. Because there isn't any other feature to use in their games. However this is only my personal preference, and sometimes I like a well made brainless action game as much as the next person, such as the fantastic combat of Severance: Blade of Darkness. Or to indulge in testing strategy and tactics against a devious opponent, and by dint of experimentation, watchfulness and forward thinking, overcome them. Ideally a game would mx all three of these things, and not to laughable results, but I realise that is an extremely daunting challenge yet to be achieved. Still one worth supporting in my view rather than settling for less and less, and defending poor games for whatever reason.

Also since anybody can be a victim of crime, regardless of race, class, gender or whatever, shouldn't everybody be made invulnerable? Including the protagonist. It sometimes seems the pro corruption, anti gaming people are simply morons, whom cannot think one step beyond their own limited definitions.

Good lord, we're not seriously back to the idiotic assertion that virtual behaviour affects real life behaviour are we? It's been disproven time after time.

Ooh la-di-da with your vegetation and complex life forms, when I were a lad we 'ad it 'ard! Fields o magma as far as eye could see, and simple single celled organisms clinging to gas deposits. We could only dream o lifeforms and vegetation. Youngsters o today are bloody spoiled I tell thee.