dlux

Welcome Brother Khanach! I do not yet have the ability to edit my post on the first page, but your name will be added to the others after I have taken the time to bother a mod for help. :D And welcome Macbeth, Chronicler of the Obsidian Order!

sorry to hear that Gurkog.

I can't edit my post anymore... but welcome: Bruce P, Sheriff of the Obsidian Order Ronnie, Vanguard of the Obsidian Order Fredrik, Drunk of the Obsidian Order

Wow, that's cheap. lol ^^

Proud Members of the OBSIDIAN ORDER OF ETERNITY: New members must post in this thread. I will add you to the list and you will receive your personal forum title. Don't forget to pledge your $8 membership fee! If you find a typo in your title or if I forgot to add you, then send me a private message. It will be fixed by Fionavar (Master Moderator) on the next update! -dlux, Dark Knight of the Obsidian Order

Yup, Unity. I am not surprised by this at all. ^^

Well, well, well, what a surprise (not really). ^^

Now, now, calm down. We are highly industrialized and top world exporter behind China - We are not picking bananas for cash just yet. ^^

This is actually a big problem in Germany, the largest single market for PC games in Europe. A game that includes explicit child murder *could* very, very (very) likely be banned in Germany if it is not cut out of the game.

Sorry bro but i thought you where the person i had originally commented on this thread to. And to answer your question, if children are added there is no logical reason in relation to to either gameplay or realism within the confines of the game world why they should be invincible if no other character is. The realism you are talking about is a- impossible to program as no game can be as real as real life and b- it would make the game suck if the first arrow that hits you leaves you lying on the floor for 3 hours slowly dying or you needed to rest all the time because your character was tired as well as eat, drink, pee, brush your teeth etc etc to then only randomly trip over your own feet and break your neck. so there is good arguments against why the things you have suggested would not work in the game. now can you give me one good reason why , if children are added to the game and everyone else is killable they should be invincible? as far as i can see there is no technical limitations for why that should be. there is no gameplay reason why that should be and there sure as hell is no logical reason in relation the gameworld why that should be. I'm not saying that children should not be killable (read my posts), the statement that it adds "realism" to the game is just utter bull****, seeing that there are so many unrealistic mechanics in video games anyway (that nobody even complains about). f you want killable kids in a game, fine, I am not arguing with that. Everybody is entitled to write his own opinion in this thread - but if you want to have killable kids then the supporters are going to have to think up something better than "it adds realism to the game" to support their views.

CARTMAN IS NOT AMUSED. I chose "no". Look guys, please stop being so selfish and asking for rewards from higher tiers. The items from the higher tiers are rewards, they are used as an incentive to get people to donate more to the project - and we all profit from this. They are trying to raise funds for the game and not make profit from selling items. This is a one time only deal, you will never be able to get your hands on these items after the kickstarter has ended. So if you want to be one of the few hundred "special people" that own these awesome collectors items, then you have to cough up the cash.

If Obsidian thinks that they can do - then why not? Many people enjoy playing a game with their buddies.

You do realize the exact same argument can be made against you when you said adding children to the game would make it more realistic? I mean seriously mate but you aregue for somethig to be included for added realism and then argue against everyone else who says that if they are added it is only realistic that they should follow the same rules as every one else. Do you understand irony at all? lol, please show me where I wrote that adding children to the game would make it more realistic. Somebody else wrote that, not me. And I have not said that one feature or another makes a game more realistic. And you didn't answer my question: If having killable children is "realistic", then why can your characters whack the hell out of everything for hours on end and not suffer from fatigue, which would be "unrealistic"? What a contradiction. So I guess having "unrealistic" elements in a game is ok according to you... just not invincible children. Ohhhh, the irony. ^^

From what I understand it depends on the type of soul a character has. Some souls allow a character to cast spells, others dont.

dont you think it is a bit strange that you want children inthe game for added realism but in your next sentance you negate that added realism by making them unkillable? Is having unkillable children just as unrealistic as not having any at all? Further: You can make the game more realistic by adding the possibility to pick flowers or pet little bunnies and kittens. Is this the "wrong" kind of realism, which would explain why nobody demands it, or is it just not as fun as killing kids in game? Please show me where i said killing children in a game is fun? My argument is simply that if you add children to a game for realism then they should be just as vulnerable as anyone else in the game. personaly i dont care whether children are added or not and even if they are added and are killable i will try my best not to kill them. but adding children to the game then making them invulnarable when everyone else is killable does subtract from the realism of the game I did not state that you like to kill children in a game. I was asking why the ability to kill defenseless children in a game is so much more important (or "realistic") than to, say, pick apples from a tree. Because it makes no sense to have them survive when a villain shoots a fireball into a party in the crowded street, or to have them somehow not take any damage. There are no instances when not having an ability to pick flowers would lead to a nonsensical situation. Also, character being killable is their natural state in most RPGs so we shouldn't make them immortal unless there is a reason to do so. People being upset about children being killed is not a reason. There are people who are upset when women/civilians/their favorite character gets killed and nobody makes them immortal because of that. It's not like children can't die in a game, the programmers just don't let you kill them... But you're saying that you should still be able to kill anything that moves to improve "realism". Okay, fair enough. Then why is possible to whack the **** out of enemies for hours on end? It doesn't seem very "realistic" to me that your characters do not get exhausted.

I would say that a pure warrior should not be able to cast spells. A paladin, for example, could be able to cast minor spells (like healing and turn undead in D&D) though. Warriors could however have special close combat abilities, like knockdown or stun. Or even special stances that increase damage/defense.

dont you think it is a bit strange that you want children inthe game for added realism but in your next sentance you negate that added realism by making them unkillable? Is having unkillable children just as unrealistic as not having any at all? Further: You can make the game more realistic by adding the possibility to pick flowers or pet little bunnies and kittens. Is this the "wrong" kind of realism, which would explain why nobody demands it, or is it just not as fun as killing kids in game? Please show me where i said killing children in a game is fun? My argument is simply that if you add children to a game for realism then they should be just as vulnerable as anyone else in the game. personaly i dont care whether children are added or not and even if they are added and are killable i will try my best not to kill them. but adding children to the game then making them invulnarable when everyone else is killable does subtract from the realism of the game I did not state that you like to kill children in a game. I was asking why the ability to kill defenseless children in a game is so much more important (or "realistic") than to, say, pick apples from a tree.

I prefer to ignore smart asses actually.

dont you think it is a bit strange that you want children inthe game for added realism but in your next sentance you negate that added realism by making them unkillable? Is having unkillable children just as unrealistic as not having any at all? Further: You can make the game more realistic by adding the possibility to pick flowers or pet little bunnies and kittens. Is this the "wrong" kind of realism, which would explain why nobody demands it, or is it just not as fun as killing kids in game?

I am sick of these stupid romance threads. Every ****ing day a new one pops up after the mods lock an old one.

I would say that child murder should not be in the game. And if it is, then there should be a HUGE reputation penalty for doing so. It should be so bad that many NPCs refuse to talk to you (making quests unavailable), some merchants refuse to barter with you and even some of your companions or NPCs will attack you. You will probably only see children in towns, so maybe even all of the townsfolk attacks you on sight, including quest givers, which makes the game impossible to complete. Implied and explicit child murder are not the same thing.

That is actually a very good idea.

You're right, stupid Obsidian should not use a fixed isometric camera (with minimal zooming), because modern games don't use this perspective anymore! Look at this stupid old game, it's called Diablo III it came out years ago, 2012 to be exact! ...Wait, wtf? 2012?

Sounds absolutely fantastic - I can hardly wait for more info! The world sounds so original and interesting, a wonderful mix of technology and fantasy. :D Yes! It's LICH hacking time!!