Nonek

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.

Nostalgia doesn't really apply when you still play twenty year old plus games regularly now, though that's obvious.

RPGs have improved in a couple of ways, those being combat and graphics of course. I'd say their main problem was simply not building on what has come before, great rpgs with great features have come and gone, and made not an ounce of difference on the genre. While poor mechanics from RPGs and MMOs have been aped and copied, leading to yet more degeneration. Even combat systems have degraded now, leaving nothing but graphics and lately a re-emergence of filler content, whether that is the endless grinding of combat or dull fetch quests. Is that the developers fault? Or is it the customers for buying clearly inferior products, and never demanding what was present decades ago? Or is it game journalists who have enthusiastically championed the streamlining and "innovation" (read dumbed down) nature of every new BEST GAME EVAH? The argument always seems to run in a similar manner, that developers should only focus on the "core" experience of their game, and totally abandon anything not conducive to that. Such a shame that ambition, content and features are so easily cast aside, when they add so much to the experience. It was the host of little things, side stories and interesting characters that made Sigil in Planescape: Torment such an interesting and vibrant locale. The atmosphere and bustling nature of Vizima, and the rural idyll of Murky Waters with its pleasant folksy charm in the first Witcher. The horrifying soundscapes and stygian gloom of the first Diablo, an atmosphere dripping with sorrow and danger. The vast, diverse, beautiful, colourful and interactive environments of the Ultima games, jam packed with life, character and culture. A pity to replace this with just a core experience. Edit: Of course just my opinion, whatever that is worth.

Better to serve in Suffolk than reign in Russia?

WTF kind of way is that of talking about another nation. I believe it's called racism to any reasonable person.

For a self admitted fan of the last two games, though not blind to their flaws, I find myself oddly apathetic about this news. Strange.

"That's why I never kiss 'em on the mouth."

It's strange, I was somewhat enamoured of Jaskier in the novels and short stories, yet I have to agree that in the games i've not been particularly fond of the gentleman. Not hateful, but certainly not as fondly thought of as Zoltan.

You're not going to change any of the social justice fascists simple little minds Longknife, they're too enamoured of their own self righteousness and dehumanisation of the diverse opposition, as we see from their affinity with Nazi-ism, their censorship and their attempts to stop female developers entering the industry. Thus i'd say troll them, and troll them hard, see exactly how far they'll go.

Dusted off one of my old PC's and booted up Eye of the Beholder, somewhat inspired by Endrosz' PoR playthrough. I have to admit that i'm mostly looking forward to the Legend of Darkmoon however, and importing my characters.

The Succubus quest on Iorveth's path.

Playable Odrin?

Commiserations old chap.

Oddly enough i'm coming to believe that i'd have preferred to play an Orc in SoM, though I expect the dynamic between the protagonist and Celebrimbor would be rather more...interesting.

Is going Full MacIntosh contagious now?

Great publicity for the PC release, hope marketing take advantage of this: SO RAW IT WAS BANNED BY CROCODILE DUNDEE!!!!!

I'm not sure of its veracity, but I heard a rumour at some point that Mr Hauer ad libbed Mr Batty's final monologue. Personally this is why i'm foolishly clinging to a little hope that Cyberpunk 2077 may be a little something more than its contemporaries, they cite Blade Runner as a prominent influence, and Mr Pondsmith certainly seems to embrace that genre.

I can see Jedi and Sith being trained to deflect force powers, I just don't see it as being a hard counter, more of a gradation based on a users skill and power...i'm thinking too much like a GM, sorry. Of course the real tragedy is that we will now have seven Star Wars movies and yet still only one Spaceballs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-sBROXalU4

I always found the notion of resorting to lightsabres when one has control of vast telekinetic and telepathic powers to be somewhat redundant. An enemy assails you, snap their neck with a glance, crush their heart, slit their throat etcetera, without even raising a hand. To resort to melee seems a to me a risky and dubious method of resolving conflict, when a much more effective use of their powers exists. Manipulation and dominance such as Kreia practised seems even more efficient than partaking in fencing with lasers. "I have the higher ground Anny!" "Yes but i've just torn your heart out old chap." "Oh bugger!"