HangedMan

I just want to say, Jojobobo, you are an awesome dude. I fully support and agree with your own position on these matters.

I am pretty sure that's one of them rhetorical questions. Who decides who should pay for our mistakes? Well, if you mug someone, it would be common law, if you lie, it's your consciousness, if you mix acetaminophen with alcohol, it's biology. So it largely depends on the situation at hand. I believe PsychoBlonde's question was more about why than about who. So I answered why would you want an obligation to pay for your mistakes in a game. It takes your gameplay to a whole new level. As simple as that. And no, it does not work the same way, if you just get the same effect as Ironman gives you through strength of will and determination. Beh, rhetorical questions. Am I the only one who hates them? Although, you do bring up a fair point, which I can understand, but I don't necessarily agree with. How is it different? The only difference I see is that in one case, you're choosing to do it yourself; in the other case, the game is hand-holding you.

I'm pretty sure you flubbed that, Heresiarch. As I'm reading it, we need to get one thing straight: the definition of the word "Should". "Should" implies that you have an obligation to do something. So I believe PsychoBlonde (and please, correct me if I am wrong) is asking "Who decides what is and is not an obligation, and why is it an obligation?" Or something to that effect.

You poor, deluded gamer. Real men play in codpiece only mode. Hah. You've never played in Loincloth Mode, have you? Get a load of this scrub, guys! What's this "should"? According to whom? For what purpose? If you actually LIKE to play the game by letting the chips fall where they may, then you don't have to RESIST doing so. So what you're asking for is the ability to select a mode that FORCES you to play in a way that, by your own admission, you DON'T enjoy? Fine, whatever. It never ceases to amaze me how people invent reasons for themselves to feel guilt about things and then expect somebody else to come along and fix it. This is a point I fully support and endorse. As for whether it's amazing or not that people do that... I actually just think it's kind of childish, which is unfortunately a major problem in nearly all of my damned generation. The part I do think is amazing, though, is where they don't realize this is just a form of hand-holding; which, I believe, most are not in favor of.

I agree wholeheartedly. It is, more often than not, childish and absurd, rather than meaningful and well thought out.

I am in support of this. Also, we need dynamic commentary about the size of your beard.

I've really only got one thing to say about drugs. I need more Skooma, dammit. Who has some Skooma? C'mon, I know it's here somewhere...

I'd prefer a Fallout style approach. Your main stats stay the same, while skills slowly increase over time, and occasionally, you can pick up a perk (some times through simply leveling up and becoming more of a bad ass, or through certain actions that shows the world that yes, you are the strongest dude around; etc) that will raise your primary stats.

I'd love to see this, but only if I have the option of stabbing the fool in the gut, and letting them bleed out to death. Or other varied forms of punishing death.

I like this idea.

I absolutely love these ideas, especially when it comes to making the Stronghold more Suikoden-esque. And, having the manor/fort/what-have-you be something you can pawn off to someone else would be awesome, because you can go through the quest, and not get shafted by being given a reward you don't want (Instead, you'll get the money, with just a bit more work).

Find ways to train your willpower.

I'm not sure who or what you are, but I platonically love you for this.

I love this.

The first time through the game, how do we know what we should be doing ourselves to improve the experience? Simply put, we don't. Sure, the second time through I can limit my supplies to add to the challenge. I can limit my resting to when I know I need it. But the first time I go up against a tough looking enemy you better believe I will be fully prepared if the game mechanics encourage it. Why would mechanics be in the game if not to be used? Resting every time its available is not exploiting the system, its using the system how it was designed. Going back to town for arrows any time you run out isn't exploiting the system, its using the system how it was designed. If the design doesn't match up with the intentions of the developer -- particularly in terms of difficulty -- the player will suffer for it. There is no good reason to assume I should be adding my own personal limitations to these mechanics to get the desired difficulty level for the game. If I can rest and resupply easily, balance the fights around the assumption that I will be rested and well supplied. In general, a system that encourages undesired actions is poorly designed. In answer to your question, you don't know; you have to experiment and tinker. And for me, that's the fun part. As for everything else you said, their's no real point for me to address, considering you addressed your own points. I do, however, have a question: Who determines what is and is not an undesired action?

As always, I am in favor of the players being responsible for themselves; controlling themselves.

Might I recommend anybody interested in this sort of game visit: http://www.introversion.co.uk/prisonarchitect/ ?

A 5x5 square, where I can place anyone where I want, (1,2,3,4,5,6,Summon, Companion) would be awesome. So you'd have something like this (Just something very poorly done in MSpaint): Which would allow, for instance:

And I don't want to set the world on fire.

I would like a looting interface similar to Neverwinter Nights 2's.

Cynical Lizardmen who raid and loot, but do so while maintaining a strict code of conduct. It seems counter-intuitive, but it could be done.

If someone quite literally devours another's soul?

I can get behind this. I was, however, under the impression that portraits would be akin to those in BG/BG2 where you have an artist's rendition as opposed to the 3D model. If you do have a 3D model portrait, then I can understand the different noses, eyebrows, etc being implemented. I just prefer artist renditions better, because you can always import your own picture in and there are many portraits made like this already from previous IE games. If the models are going to be changable, I'd like the changes to be seen from the isometric view. Thus beards make sense, as well as hair length and color. Body types (chubby, thin, muscular, pear-shaped, apple-shaped, etc) would also be visible. These are the things that interest me. I was under the impression that it'd be a 3D model, though I'm not sure where I got that idea from. Maybe I've been playing too much NWN2. However, if it is all about artistically drawn portraits, then I can totally agree with you about removing the genuinely useless superficial details (like nose size).

How about the morality of suicide/assisted suicide? Suppose I have the equivalent of terminal cancer in this world, and nothing can be done to save me. Is it so wrong to liberate my soul from the shackles of my body, so that I can hurry back into the Great Queuing Line? Is it wrong to ask for help, or to be helped, to do that? Edit: Also, mourning. How do we mourn the people that have passed on, when we know they'll be coming back in one way or another? Also, what about soul mates? Take the real world concept, and put it into the game...