Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by tajerio

  1. I don't really care about the specifics of the damage that a rogue can put out in 4th edition, because that doesn't have much to do with my question about why rogues can't be as good as fighters. But it does basically seem that the answer is "because that's how AD&D did it." Which is fine, I guess, but it's a bit of an unexamined assumption. My personal preference is for class potency in combat to vary depending on the situation and enemy capabilities, because that's a lot more interesting and challenging to my mind than "fighter is strictly better."
  2. I've never quite understood this. Why is it that so many people insist that rogues shouldn't be as good in combat as fighters? Is it because of the name (in which case I'd wonder why magic users get to be better than fighters)? Is it because that's how AD&D did it? Or is it something else? I'm genuinely curious.
  3. Do you have a Ph.D. in missing the point?
  4. Might I suggest you take your own advice?
  5. It's not obligated to, and in Bioware's games too often comes off as forced. I'd rather they stick with consistent story telling than trying to satisfy a social agenda. To anyone following the game closer than I've been, have they revealed all the companions yet? Oh agreed absolutely. I certainly don't want BioWare trying to tell me a social justice epic--I'm just saying that when making a game, developers can't be tone deaf about the choices they make in presenting characters and situations. They haven't revealed all the companions yet by any means. Only three of them (Varric, Cassandra, Vivienne) officially out of a total of nine. There are varying degrees of certainty as to who the remaining six are, from "practically guaranteed" to "wow, I really really hope my favorite character from the novels/comics shows up!"
  6. Because being a scientist or a philosopher is obviously beyond the reach of anyone who might agree with the idea of feminism. Got it. Now, now, settle down there. I hope that i am not taking the matter too personally for you my good sir, but surely you were taught at your local academy that it is quite ungentlemanly and a bit impolite to put words into other peoples mouths, were you not? In no way did i mention that all men who agree with feminism do so in order to get into girls knickers, just some, or only Jack. Can't blame him for taking it personally, can you? I mean, the massively condescending viewpoint you articulated is one of the reasons why gender equality still doesn't exist. Particularly this example: As if art can't both reflect and reinforce social mores.
  7. I still strongly disagree with your understanding of feminism but I'll agree that this particular discussion isn't strictly germane to DAI. From what I know of Cullen right now, it's totally repugnant to me. I thought he was basically a fascist goon in both of the previous games, so here's hoping he acquires some decent character for DAI.
  8. That's a classic case of an interpretive problem we often run into on these very fora. There is certainly a small vocal minority of feminists that basically support the position you've articulated. But that doesn't therefore mean that the majority of people who consider themselves feminists also think that men are by nature rapists. It would be nigh impossible to generate evidence for that viewpoint without simply generalizing from a small sample size, as you do there in that last sentence. I mean, I can do exactly the opposite, and say that of all the feminists I've met, not one of them has that stereotypical man-hating attitude. And that leaves us right back at square one. Bruce's definition of feminism I think is actually spot on, hewing as it does closely to common sense and not instead to a dismissive wishful generalization.
  9. A nice (and sensible) theory. Unfortunatly for any publicly traded company it won't happen. Investors pony up their money in expectation of a return, and they want a big return and right now. They don't give a stuff about quality, stable fanbase or quality. A private company such as Valve, Obsid or CDProjekt can set their own marching pace, but the vast majority of companies such as EA, Ubi, etc have to obey their shareholders. And just look at the average shareholder to see what they want - cash, lots of it, right now, and stuff the long term. Even if they have to 'eat the seed corn' to make that cash. Investors also tend to be risk-averse, though, and a $50 million gamble on a big game makes less sense from that perspective than do five $10 million dollar games. I think it's more that it's very hard for any of the major publishers to change their approach if everyone isn't doing it already, because that's also seen as a risk and your average investor is fairly similar to a chicken with its head cut off when it comes to panicking.
  10. Exactly. Not everything has to be a massive hit to make money, and certainly everything doesn't have to strive for photorealistic graphics to make money either.
  11. First, I *never* make generalized arguments about anything in the IE games. Second, I see, and have pointed out repeatedly, several problems with death spells, but unlike you non veterans(?), I don't advocate that the solution to those problems is to toss the baby out with the bathwater and just get rid of death spells outright. Third, "not knowing" how to counter something is not a design flaw of a game, it's ignorance on the part of the player. (And this is the reason why developers have to dumb down their games btw - because you DUMB casual gamers don't read manuals, don't read spell descriptions, don't study the abilities of the class/race of the characters you're using and don't actually try to *learn* about the game you're playing. You also tend to be the loudest whiners and so, to appease you, developers have to make everything easy and in-your-face Obvious in games. Consequently, the rest of us have to suffer a DUMBED DOWN game with soft, comfortable, non-threatening combat.) Lastly, I can see how someone like you wouldn't think that save-or-die spells bring a whole lot else to a game. After all, this is the same narrow mindset we get from Bioware fanboys who look at Dragon Age 2, with its 2-weapon-types-per-class system, and say: "hey! My warrior can wield 1-handed and 2-handed melee weapons. And that's more than enough.... the addition of Bows adds little else, therefore, we don't need for warriors to be able to wield Bows." <gag> I honestly don't understand how you got from point A to point B here. I say I'm indifferent to save-or-dies generally, and against save-or-dies that would be a total surprise to the player. And then somehow you transmute that into my being a careless casual gamer? How does that even happen?
  12. First time I've been called a dumb casual, though. So I got that goin' for me, which is nice. Feels like a badge of honour.
  13. You know, most of you need to play more games if these are your staples. I think "worst RPG ever played" for a lot of people translates into "most disappointing RPG ever played." Which makes sense--the games that are just bad don't stick with you like the games you expected to be great and fell short.
  14. Well, since you asked, I can hardly disappoint you. It seems to be difficult for some experienced veterans of the IE games to make a generalized argument about save-or-dies that works well. Because people who've played through the Baldur's Gates scores of times just don't see a problem with those spells--they liked them in the first place, or the meta-knowledge that was required to get around them in the first place is so deeply ingrained that it doesn't even classify as meta-knowledge. So some IE veterans are taking as granted that those spells enhance fun. And if one starts from that premise, then the argument becomes ludicrously simple. But of course it isn't that simple, because a number of people come from quite the opposite viewpoint--that a spell that causes instant death or doesn't on the basis of a single die roll is not fun. The hang-up in the whole debate is that people are arguing from two incompatible assumptions. For my part, I don't mind a save-or-die as long as I don't need to face the encounter with it once before having a general idea of how to counter it. I don't think that save-or-dies inherently bring a whole lot else to the table in terms of a fun tactical challenge, but they don't inherently piss me off either.
  15. Okay. So you troll and enjoy it. Thanks for the confirmation.If only the save-or-die debate could be characterized by such succinct and accurate summation. I'll add, in fairness to myself, that I resist the temptation to poke the "hardcore" fanbase on just about all other topics but this one.
  16. I would love to contribute to the debate on save-or-die/instant death/however-we're-terming-them spells, but there simply isn't a debate. It's a largely subjective slanging match, in which the participants all angrily talk past each other. And that's been adequately demonstrated the last ten times the topic came up. So when it comes up again, I choose to stoke the hilarious absurdity. Is it kind? No. Do I pretend it is? No. Does it gratify me? At this point, hell yes.
  17. Thanks for highlighting my point tajerio. Unable to abandon the ship without taking one last swipe at others (Stun and myself) and Lephys liking your post. No no no, you misunderstand me. I am still most amused and thus not abandoning ship.
  18. Once Stun and Hiro have both posted multiple times in a thread, it's usually time to abandon ship. I occasionally read on for the lolz.
  19. It also won't be close to hardcore because Obsidian would like more than a couple score thousand people to play the game.
  20. I certainly can rule out nostalgia. I'd never touched an Infinity Engine game before this Kickstarter, so there's clearly some level of appeal that goes beyond nostalgia.
  21. This is but one step away from "what is a game," and that way madness lies.
  22. I love grenades, particularly at low levels when something like a single tanglefoot bag can be the difference between life and death. So here's hoping they're in!
  23. Ultimately the preference for save-or-die/no save-or-die is a subjective one--the objective arguments here are mostly window-dressing.
  24. I actually enjoyed Merrill as a change of pace from BioWare's typical mentally ill/emotionally damaged companion. No matter how you as the player shepherd her along and argue with her to act differently, she doesn't change her way of thought one iota. That her way of thought is so incredibly stupid is another matter.
  25. Sebastian had some sneakily witty banter with a few of the other companions (I think Merrill and Isabela especially) that made it well worth taking him out a few times.
  • Create New...