Elerond

Ideal male and female forms depends on culture where question is asked. Often most important factors that impose those ideals are roles that said culture sees to be most ideal roles for males and females. And as idealistic roles in our culture changes and fragments it also make people criticize mediums that are monotonic with their idealization and even more so when medium uses idealization that make other gender look like passive objects, when cultures (at least Western cultures) have started to more and more despise people that don't take care of themselves, which causes more and more people despise passive characters that can't do anything else than look pretty in some standards. There is whole industry that specializes on marketing who constantly research different groups of people idealize and how they react when they saw those ideals realized. And how make products look like they are part of peoples ideals. But as ideals change from group to group, marketing works usually best when it is targeted only one specific group especially when we speak small segment products like what video games were in 90s. And when product type's imago is created around to idea that it is only one group of people, that idea can become as self feeding monster, as culture around said product type and therefore marketing for said product type focus only that one group of people, even after the fact that products from said type of products are used at least in some extend by people from all the groups. And when culture sees product type so that it is only for one specific group of people, then product makers that do produce said products in said product type often also make their products work for that one group of people, even though they don't do market research to see who they should aim their product. Objectification always coincides with idealization, as most often your aim is to make people want things that you objectify and to do so you need to make your objects to be ideal objects that people want to own. But in games you most often also want idealized subjects that people want to be. And then there is that grey area where you subjects are also made objects of desire, which blurs roles of subjects and objects to one big mess, where people don't know do they want to be the subject or own the object or bit both. As all matters of cultural view there is no final arbiter, but only ever changing consensus of people that changes from group to group and place to place. Which means that everyone has their own idea what is ideal and how it should be accomplished. And like every social issue, people try change other people point of view using different tactics from friendly debate to scare tactics that make people with different view become silent and doing so excluding (or at least try to exclude) them from general consensus. One could always argue that if you exclude or try to exclude people you are doing something that is morally wrong, but one could also always argue that things that are good for you are morally right. And as there is no absolutes when it comes things like morally wrong or right, which means that one can always argue that things are morally right or morally wrong. Although general consensus about morality in society usually is the thing that people refer when they speak about morality of things, but as general consensus of people is always changing and evolving it also means that one never can say absolutes that are morally right or wrong. But at the end society decides if things that one does are morally right or morally wrong, but other (and future) societies can give different answer to subject. When people who aren't target of product like said product it is usually seen as positive thing by product maker, but it can also bring subcultures around product which product maker don't like and it can cause general consensus of people see product in different light than it is marketed and therefore can change future of product. NOTE: This is long idiotic philosophical pondering that should not be considered to be anyway serious and you should question its factuality. It was written only to entertain myself.

In objective based xp system level designers when they design levels they also design objectives that grant xp for that level. (At least this is usually case) So if level designer puts Ogre camp in level s/he also puts some objectives considering that ogre camp, which for example could be get rid of the ogre camp, kill or otherwise dispose ogre leader save or kill (and blame ogres) prisoners in ogre camp. Objectives aren't quest by themselves, but quest usually consist on or more objectives that player must complete before quest is completed, but objectives themselves don't need to be and often aren't part of quest. So objectives in levels don't need to be given player as quest so that player can complete them, but instead of that player can tumble on them as player would tumble on them in game which uses kill xp. Especially as encounters aren't generated by using procedural methods, but instead made by designer by hand. And probably not only player get xp from this encounters, but this encounters probably have also cause and effect reactivity with game world, which usually much simpler to implement when you already have system that keeps track on what player has done and what actions s/he has used, which game needs when it uses objective based xp. So one could say that quests are story lines in the game which have objectives in them that take said story line forward when player fulfill them, but objectives themselves don't need and often aren't part, at least directly, such story line, but are instead of things that reward player when s/he does something in the game which designer of the game has decided to be worth of a xp reward. An example scenario: Player explores world and tumbles on bridge, which is guarded by trolls who demand that player pays them before s/he can cross the bridge. Crossing said bridge is not part of any quest and it's absolute optional for finishing the game. So player can decide that s/he don't want to pay and go some where else, or s/he can kill the trolls, when s/he unconsciously fulfill an objective laid by level designer which give her/him specific amount of xp points, but if player decides to go explore level more s/he can find that there is dam in that river which previously mentioned bridge crosses and that s/he has option to destroy it, which also fulfill an objective laid by level designer and if player decided to broke the dam and then goes back to the bridge player finds out that bridge and troll guarding it are gone, but player can use ruins of said bridge to cross the river. Addition to immediate effects on level both killing trolls and destroying the dam have also long run effects, killing trolls will make player hero in human village down the river and villain in troll settlement cross the bridge, destroying the dam will also cause horrendous damage for human village down the river and cause it to demise at the end and furthermore troll settlement cross the bridge see player as villain. (of course there could be other options to fulfill the objective, which have their own long run effects, like, making a raft, persuading trolls, etc.). So at the end objective xp system don't prohibit exploration and random killings any more than what per kill based xp system do.

Like Angry Birds and Clash of Clans

At least BG1 has respawning enemies in several places. And in BG2 there was spawning enemies in several places when you rested.

Random encounters can be simple and rewarding: For example of rewarding random encounter: Your party comes across with merchant caravan which is under attack from bandits, monsters, enraged animals. In this encounter you have two major choices; First one is that you can sneak past the fight, which gives you encounter passing experience, which for example could be 600 xp points. But this also means that some nearby village is supply blocked and prices there rise for example 20% higher what they would normally be. Second one is that you can help merchant caravan vanquish their attackers, which will give you encounter passing experience (600 xp) and additionally you reputation will rise within that faction which caravan belongs and caravan will sell you supplies, for example, 20% cheaper than normally. So sneaking past the fight maybe easier and safer choice but helping caravan is at the end probably much more rewarding option to choose. And of course there could be option number three where you help attackers or kill caravan after you have dealt with the attackers, which will give you much better loot, but you will become as bandit/outlaw within that faction where caravan belongs. Second possibly rewarding encounter could be ambush, where your party is attacked from multiple fronts. In this encounter there is two obvious choices: First option of course is to fight until all the attackers are dead, which rewards you with encounter xp (for example 1000 xp points), loot from dead bodies (which worth for example is 200-500 coins) and you reputation in nearby city/town/village will rise as use removed some bandits/monsters that have plagued them. Second option is to flee, which will reward you encounter xp (1000 xp), but if attackers belong in some faction in game you will get reputation within that faction that you are coward, which will probably cause you problems in future when you deal with that faction again and possibly near by city/town/village will hear that you aren't very heroic band of adventures and will think less about you. Then there can of course be other options like that you can cause landfall (or broke a bridge or something like that) when you retreat, which will deal with attackers and you get encounter xp, but it will cause blockade on the road which will hinder nearby settlements and lower your reputation in them. Then there could be encounter where you will come cross with bandit toll on road, where you of course have options to pay (possible to persuade), fight, sneak past. Pay (persuade) option is probably easiest, but also gives you smallest reward and is probably bad for your reputation, sneak option is not necessary any easier than fight option, but it is safer and as it don't deal with bandit menace it also probably means hindrance for surrounding area. Where fight option deals with bandits and rises your reputation within law biding settlements and factions in the area and you of course get loot. And if you do some of these more and add some random factors in these encounters you can easily have rewarding random encounters in the game that aren't probably too taxing to make. IMO.

The fact is there is no xp for kills. We all know this and it can't be disputed. If we're taking the IE games as an example, and going by my view of Risk vs Reward for a random encounter, if the reward isn't worthwhile to engage in combat, then the best option is to not engage in combat at all. Because there is no xp reward for killing, you're going to waste valuable spells and health on a purely random encounter. Then overcoming the obstacle through other means (if possible) seems the best option. Also, we know there are limited rest spots in the game. So why waste spells and valuable health on killing for no xp for kills in a random encounter with so little reward in loot? If that means fleeing to the edge of the screen like in the IE games, then that would be one of the best options, especially if the rewards are some random loot that can be picked up anywhere in the game. If overcoming the encounter by other means instead of killing the enemy nets you xp, then a non combat method is preferable. Seriously, why waste valuable spells and health in a purely random encounter when a rest spot might be miles away? Unless there's some really cool loot, then it's not worth it. Again, Risk vs Reward. I don't see the risk in engaging in combat if I can run away in random encounters like you could do in the IE games. And if overcoming the random encounter nets you xp though non-violent means, then running away seems the best option. In my example I compared IE like XP gain mechanism to PoE's XP gain mechanism in imaginary random encounter scenario. You assume in your run away example that there is possibility to run away from random encounters, and why would you risk losing valuable health and spells for couple points of xp (as Baldur's gate 2 as example most of random encounter's gave you only marginal amount of XP and loot was most of the time only reason why one bothered with them). In my random encounter scenario, you can't avoid that counter as only way to get away from the counter is to pass the blockade in some means provided you and you get xp reward when you do so, even if you choose combat option .

So running away rewards you xp for overcoming the encounter? How do you define combat in a random encounter? If you define it by killing the enemy, then there is no xp for killing enemies. But if it rewards you for overcoming the encounter, then look at my above response to DCParry. Random encounter's in games like PoE happen usually when player moves between two placing in map, and game usually loads random encounter map. Which can easily made such that player needs to go through blockade made by enemies by violence, cunning or stealth, and with some planing all these approaches give player challenge which level depends on how s/he has made his/her party, which level said party is and what is game's difficult level. So in high level objective system player gets xp when s/he gets through the blockade in every path or combination of paths s/he take. In low level objective system player gets xp from every enemy s/he kills, every successful skill checks when player interacts with objects laid by designer to make non-combat option possible. With single path approach bot high and low objective systems gives player same amount xp, but in multi path approach it is much more difficult for encounter designer to limit amount of gained xp to same level regardless of how player solves the encounter. If encounter can be solved only by combat, then high level and low level xp gain is same, although in low level system player usually gains xp in smaller increments and s/he needs to kill every one in the encounter to gain max amount of xp, if there is possibility get out of the encounter before all enemies are dead.

Prove it. If there is random encounters in the game, then are there any actual reason that is based on something that have be said by developers that you would not be rewarded with XP by solving them by some means given you by designers? If not then burden of proof is on you IMO. Burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. Azmodan made the claim and it's for him to prove it. Not for anyone to disapprove it. That's shifting the burden of proof onto someone else and in this case it's not for us to prove a negative. We can only speculate on what might happen in random encounters going off the IE games. The only two randoms that were moderately difficult for low-mid level parties were the Wyverns/Spiders and the Bandits with Ice Arrows. The bear or Winter Wolf encounter near Nashkel might be troublesome on the first time, but after you've levelled, it was easy. The bear never dropped anything. Everything else was a waste and I always ran to the edge of the map to continue my game. But Azmodan claim was counter example against Stun's claim that there is no XP from combat, so Stun needs to so proof that his/her claim has any merits before there is any need for Azmodan to give any proof for his/her claim IMO.

Prove it. If there is random encounters in the game, then are there any actual reason that is based on something that have be said by developers that you would not be rewarded with XP by solving them by some means given you by designers? If not then burden of proof is on you IMO.

First thing that article pop up in my mind is that sonic screwdriver could actually work in hacking like Doctor Who uses it

No, that's not it at all. The challenge of HoF mode in the IWD games is to finish the game. 99.9% of the combat was unavoidable. The same challenge with Path of the Damned will also be to finish the game. It's not about the combat, it's to finish the game and say 'Yes, I finished HoF / PotD'. Not, 'I just did 500 battles in HoF mode'. Avoidable encounter's don't necessary make it easier to finish the game in Path of the Damned mode as to avoid combat you need party that has necessary abilities to avoid those encounters, which probably make it less superior party in combat and as game has unavoidable encounters that can mean in such challenge mode that party which can avoid encounters may not have ability to survive from unavoidable encounters or at least those unavoidable encounters are much more difficult to beat than what they would be with full combat focused party.

Path of the Damned is combat difficult challenge option for those who want their combat to be extremely challenging, so I don't understand why it should anyway impact on difficulty of non-combat options, XP gain from combat or even how much loot you get from combat. There is at least three challege modes in PoE, which you can turn on one, two or even all three. If you want to make non-combat options more challenging you can do that by turning expert mode on. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/316398

Infinitron Sawyer mentions that there is min and max sizes for the circles and his word choice perception rating in my opinion indicates that perception attribute is not only thing that impact how large or small character's perception circle's radius is.

If I understand correctly comparison to average perception rating is done to proportion radii of the circles to character skill levels, so that radii of the circles can be kept in about same size when party members are on same level as enemies on the level.

There is also federal taxes that need to be paid and those vary between 15-35%. ($10,000,000 to $15,000,000 $3,400,000 + 35% Of the amount over $10,000,000) although there is lot of ways to get tax deductions. Project costs can be difficult to calculate without all corporate information as employees often work in multiple projects, projects also typically use also other resources that are shared with multiple projects. Which usually causes that corporations have expenses that can't be listed to any single project even though most of projects are part causing those expenses. And there is also expenses for corporations that don't save them from taxes even though they cut down their profit. So individual project's numbers can be difficult to analyse if you don't know how corporation is organized and how general expenses are written down.

Steam's/GOG's cut is about 30% and corporate taxes are only paid on profits for the whole operation and aren't therefore generally considered when estimating the profitability of individual projects. What transaction fees do you think would eat up 20-60% of gross revenue? When we speak about pure profit, then in my opinion we speak about net profit instead of gross profit, which means that taxes, etc. are already deceased from the sum. And generally when we speak profitability of individual we also know how much was company's total revenue, gross profit reductions and net profit, which make it possible to speak general profitability of projects/departments/etc. using gross profits as they are usually much easier to calculate for such things than net profits. But if we want for example to know if individual project was profitable enough to pay for it's successor project then we need at least estimate what is that first project's net profit, so that we could have at least some sort estimate that tells how successful first project need to be that second project is self sustained.

Over 50% of that revenue would go some other than Obsidian, as steam and gog, etc. shops take their cut, which is several ten percents of sale revenue, and then Obsidian needs to pay transaction fees and taxes. Which usually means that $10 million of digital sale revenue will grow bank account "only" by $3-5 million.

http://www.etsy.com/listing/175112598/cat-battle-armor

In real-world history it took 400 years for guns to advance in such level that they dominated over "prior" weapons that also advanced greatly during that 400 year period. Although in siege weapon side cannons replaced catapults and trebuchets much faster because they were easier to move and they were much reliable than their predecessors. Advancement of metallurgy that made better guns a possibility also made possible to make better armors like full plates, ships that could cross oceans, long swords, heavy crossbows, better castles and fortresses, and also many level houses become more common, as tools advanced with warfare or maybe warfare advanced with tools. And all these things can be found in typical fantasy worlds, Mass Production was not quite common thing during European Renaissance (14th-17th century) but also not unheard as Venetian Arsenal, which was upgraded to it mass production capacity in 1320s, shows as it was massive complex of shipyards and armories that could produce about one ship every day, which was also reason why Venice rise in such great power. But it probably should also mention that craftsmanship was very valued thing during European Renaissance. So in my mind typical fantasy settings can have guns and still keep that romantic simplicity vibe, but maybe that is just me.

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Mature themes mean themes that are usually too complex to younger people to understand or/and content that society feels that is in inappropriate for young people to experience. For example philosophical ponderings of meaning of life and etc. usually seen as mature topics as most of the youth don't have enough life experience to actually fully understood what question means and how there is now single right answer or is there even right answer. Same goes for wars and similar conflicts when you handle them in mature way as there is no bad guys or good guys, heroes and villains are usually same people but their role in story depends on which side tells the story. And of course themes and content that tell about things that society sees to be inappropriate for youth for one reason or other, like people's capacity of senseless cruelty and violence, sexual nature of humans (nudity, sex, reproduction, etc.). People's habits to detach themselves from this world by using legal or illegal drugs. Of course in mature story telling, teller usually assumes that his or her audience knows things and have experienced theme, so there is much less explanation of why people do things and what they aim to accomplish with their acts. And when we speak about mature themes, one should never forgot political, monetary and etc. motivations and reasons for happenings and people. And difficult concepts that are usually consequence of these things, like slavery, famine, poverty, class systems, etc. So in short mature means things that are seen too difficult to youth to understand or things that society don't want youths be exposed to during their delicate growing period. So there is no easy way to explain what mature means as it means all topics that are difficult to explain and topics that are taboo or some otherwise seen as inimical for young (and sometimes even for adults) .

George RR Martin ‏@GeorgeRRMartin_ 19 Dec - Well played bookstore, well played.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_colonialism Colonial era 1492 - 1945/99 Starting from Age of Discovery and ending to massive decolonization after World War II. In 1999 Portugal give up their last Asian colony Macau. Although France, Great Britain and other countries still own some of their colonies, so one could argue that colonial era is still ongoing era.

noir references products that has characteristics of "film noir" meaning though and bleakly pessimistic world view and characters.