Naurgalen

Well, the title of this thread provides one: At its core, socialism is created to satisfy human needs, even if thats not well implemented. Thinking of others as human beings instead of profit-making-things its a beginning. But my real problem is that both system dont endorse that people can be corrupted, specially if they are smart & educated and have no moral / ethical limits. For that problem one solution I thought is a REAL democracy, or in other words a direct one. OFC that would need huge social changes and the people in power would never allow it, but we have internet today, it can totally be done if the system is reorganized.

Why I don't like capitalism?: It appeals to our animal part, our selfishness, ego and ownership of things. It blinds people to think that money is the end instead of a mean to get the things we really care. It makes us forget that we are SOCIAL animals, and all the progress, evolution and technology we have as humanity its not because 1 "special" individual that "deserves" to be "ultra millionaire" illuminated us. We forget: the teacher he had, his father, his friends, the doctor who cured a illness he had etc...all that made him what he is/was. There are other systems that are better.

Okay, so how do I make a buffy muscle wizard? Or a weakling barbarian? How will the world know if I'm a weakling or a powerhouse physically? Not to mention, according to your explanation a massive 2m tall guy pounding you with his fists will actually do less damage than a weakling wizards hitting you with his fists. According to you, a stat that has been a core stat for almost all cRPGs in the last decade and a half (since I remember), doesn't have a representation in this game, meaning it doesn't exist. Oh, and where does it say that Might is actually Soul Strength? I've never ever read something like this from devs or from game. If Might is Soul Strength, why isn't it named that way. Soul power would be far more intuitive and clear name than a Might, don't you think so? What if I told you that a Barbarian with 2 constitution will be a weakling like you want?

For me, it all depends on the lore of the world. Better history > Conventions. (Check Planescape:Torment if you don't think that it really can work) For example, if in the setting people have an intrinsic "soul power" or "might", and the way you channel that (muscles for fighters, brain power for wizards) is properly explained/explored through the game I wont have any problems with the attribute. I really think that attributes that match the setting are more important than attributes that match our nostalgia. And I trust the developers to don't **** the lore in that way. PS: Nobody found strange that d&d´s strength and constitution were not related like in real life? As you can clearly see, I asked that question. Now, care to explain how I implied in that post that in this game might equals strength? The question asked was whether or not the fact that it doesn't is reflected in attribute checks and if so, which other attribute would get checked for cases where strength would be the usual go-to attribute. And where I said that you implied that might equals or doesn't equal strength? I only said you associated both things, and in responses to that the thread some peoples opinions implied it. =/

1) Yes I have read the thread, but it seems that when it derailed from the first idea you didn´t. It was, in fact, asked: Here you have it, the question that united "strength" with the in-game attribute "might". It has a lot of answers too, but you can re-read to find them. 2) You are wrong again, the real point of the post is that there can be physicaly strong wizards, heck its even on the title. You may or not agree to that but that was the real point of the thread. (I don't for example: as some people pointed out most of the characters that are not flawed in the dichotomy body-mind, are supernatural beings, sometimes of godlike powers (Tolkiens Noldors) or directly gods (Gandalf, Thor, Mercury), not the more terrenal "nerdy" creatures to what wizards are actually associated) 3) Yes, you will see old mans ripping mountains apart with their bare fists, the monk has all the traits for that. Ok then so when the Might stacking wizard hits a beetle with his longsword he is in someway interacting with some internal soul energy that then causes more damage to the creature? Is this the same for the fighter then? It isn't his muscles (seeing as athletics has no effect on combat damage) its his soul energy. Well ok then. So given that having a fighter with zero points in athetics has no effect on combat I guess we have to conclude that in this game your body's physical ability to effect the world isn't represented by the attribute system. This is the the road the developers want to take then ok. It is their game. However, this doesn't meet my expectations and I am very dissappointed with the current system. As I have done previously in this thread I think there are ways the developers could alter the attribute system to resolve this problem to my (and maybe others?) satisfaction I don't think Might is an absolute attribute, like the old "wisdom" that represented will, knowledge and sometimes perception, "might" may be Strength + Soul Power without problem. Whats is Soul Power may not be explained until we play the game to prevent spoilers. ----- Don't misunderstand me, for me it "feels" strange and I would like the return of old and classic Strength as much as you both, but the attribute by itself is not illogical, just vague. (and possibly on purpose) PS: For the 100% body physycal ability to affect the world there is still constitution

People, please: MIGHT is not STRENGTH. If you destroy boulders with your fists in this game is not because your biceps are of epic proportions, its just that your ability to take power from your soul is epic. That is what might means. Does it feel counter intuitive coming from years of d&d? Yes, but its not a mistake in a coherent level. Think of might as "Ki", "Energy", "Presence","Chakra", "Cosmos" or heck, the lore friendly "soul power"!

I have tried to explain this to you several times and I'm clearly failing, I'll try one more time In the English language we use dictionaries to determine the meaning of words. For example if you think the word "arrogant" means happy you are wrong and it doesn't matter what your personal experiences are or what you think the work "arrogant " means, it doesn't mean happy. This is irrefutable and cannot be debated I listed the definition of feminism from two of the main English dictionaries, Oxford and Merriam-Webster, and it doesn't mean sexist and it doesn't men are discriminated against. It means "the advocacy for the equal rights of women"....I am battling to understand why you cannot understand this simple fact ? You are forgetting: 1) The connotations that words have 2) Language is in constant change: words mutate and are created based on culture, so dictionaries are always a little behind in the new "trends" 3) Where you live change things too: In my country the woman harassment is very different to what I have seen in other country's. Here mans are 90% of the time trying to "seduce" womans (sometimes for real, but most of the time for show off) and verbal/physical aggression is really strange. Now about the thread: Discrimination is always wrong, it doesn't matter if its about sex, age caste or whatever. Its 100% truth that we are not equal, but that doesn't mean there are better humans than others: we are just different, with advantages and disadvantages on different things. Even the most intelligent, strong and wise man can´t progress alone very far. We understand that we need others (even when sometimes people forget or believe that they are superior), and that's what makes us humans instead of a group of animals.

I´m hyped now.... its.... strange.

While I must agree that the "latinoamerican" Spanish is FAR more homogeneous and acceptable than the one from Spain for non European people, there is a valid point from one of the "negative" posts behind me: The little details and subtlety's are always lost in the original translation from the native language unless the translations is made by really good professionals. (and even then, that someone tells you the "joke" / "double meaning" etc... is always less fun / rich that when you grasp it yourself) I don't know if Obsidian can get that kind of people with the founds we gave them, or if it is that really important knowing that fans can probably translate the game to specific regions/country's eventually. Even if they do it, I would still recommend playing the game in the native language and trying to learn the little details of it. I learned lots of English by playing Planescape: Torment and searching every word and phrase I didn't knew. And years later it paid me well in the English classes too. PS: I´m from Argentina.

How on Earth is that spell evil? There's nothing more natural than the cycle of death and rebirth and hastening that process seems like a very druidic thing to do. From a druid's point of view that's probably the very opposite of desecrating a corpse - more like karmic cleansing and atonement in death. That´s the point, its not intrinsically evil. Like you said, from a nature perspective its just accelerating the time. But I'm not sure that the wife of the thief that was stealing you will think the same about his husband having flowers protruding from his eyes and chest. Hell even some cultures would find that spell completely despicable/profane because you cant give the corpse a real burial. So that makes you, the good druid to think: "I should respect their beliefs" or you, the neutral / evil druid "nature is the only law".

You could let the AI in BG2 do some things, but it was too basic, in most battles it would mean loosing several characters.

I like the spells, but what really surprised me is to see one "evil" druid spell that desecrates your enemy's corpses to heal your party. That is fresh and really uncommon.... and I love it because if you role-play a good or evil druid it makes you think about using that spell or not. It would be totally awesome if you can put more of that kind of grey-moralized spells (for all the casters) into the game, maybe raising enemy corpses as zombis that fight for you for a time? Damaging your companions to fuel an incantation? I know you can come with better ideas.

While the OP and I share the lack of time, I'm just the opposite of him at the expectations: I'm starving for a "real" RPG like PoE. I realized this it when I bought Shadowrun Returns and I finished the game in 1 day even while the game lacks real roleplaying quality's and its super ultra linear. (But the setting has so much potential and some user created maps are far superior!!). Old school rpgs are sadly too rare (the last one I can barely call that is Dragon Age: Origins) and when you really love the genre and its quality's: strategic fights, personalization, deep story's and characters, role playing, etc... ... its hard to not make time for it, even if it is just 2 hours before going to bed. Finally, I don't think one can just replace cRPGS with aRPGS cause while similar, they give different experiences to the players, like books vs movies. Its just a matter of what one wishes to "feel".

I think that both "abortions" are completely different things to compare. A female abortion means that a woman is ending a possible human life in a physical way that will mark her physically and psychically. It is a very complicated thing in a moral or ethical way that its mostly leaved to bigger problems like rape, health problems for the baby or mother etc... A male abortion means that a man doesn't want to be responsible for his son. His reasons may be reasonable (his condom broke, he was "cheated" etc...) or not, but still that last fact is present: it IS his son and he is responsible for him when he decided to **** knowing its "dangers". And at the very end, even if he was cheated, the law should punish the cheater, not the baby or dismiss the fathers responsibility for his actions.

While I can understand the personal preference of the OP for 3D graphics, the game design argument is just.... bad and has no sensible logic behind. Not every game needs to be in 3D, good artistic 2D can be equal or MORE beautiful than 3D while being less computer intensive. 1) Think about animations: 3D requires rigging, and while you can make very soft animations you still are limited compared to a hand crafted 2D animation. (+ there will be hardware power problems if you need liquid / complex transformations & effects, software complications if you need hair movement to be realistic etc...) Ofcs in 3D you can see it from every angle, but if your camera is locked by game design, it means nothing. 2) Think about detail: 3D still has problems with complex things, the best modeled face is still behind a good portrait, some things -especially organic- are not so simple to do in 3D and look real. 3) Style > Graphic quality, every single time. Style is what makes coherent the visuals of the game. Style transcends time while realism changes with the technology.

While I can agree that the trees in the stronghold are from only 1 species and it can be just a little repetitive, going for a BG approach is totally immersion breaking. Most forests don't have that many of really different species (For example the kind of leaves are related to the humidity of the place), so in a controlled places like a stronghold i wont expect more than 2 or 3 at all. Forest could have 6-8 depending on Obsidians resources + if there will be different kinds of forest. PS: But I would love to see trees REACT to the wind, that would be awesome.

Story+Companions (its rare to find good story's) & Gameplay (the last thing that was similar to BG2 was DA1, so looong ago! ). Playing a bad-ass elf wizard is 3rd (yeah, suffer the elven power GhoulishVisage!) and 4th, the keep, the update about it really increased my expectations about it.

I feel the main complain about epic levels is because we haven't had really well thought high level games at all. That is because they weren't fleshed out and the game still worked like lower levels but with more + numbers in your stats. Most games concentrated in the main history and totally forgot the implications that a god-like character has with a game world: that lead to poorly scaled encounters, no acknowledge of ones feats/actions, and a very limited view of what should be being a demi god. Hopefully, that can change and reactivity and new options appear when you reach certain places of power in the story: For example: 1-6 commoner, 6-12 knight, 12 -18 lord, 18 - 25 demigod. That means that thought those levels the game "changes", the world "opens" to new challenges and "closes" the ones that aren't anymore: at 6 you have the keep and you became a pro adventurer, stop doing "fetch tasks" and "work to live the day".... at 14 your political influence is far larger and is a part of the plot, you have enemy-allied lords, kings and maybe even countrys to protect/counter... you don't fight anymore for improving "your party" but "your domains", at 22 you are venerated as a lesser god and that brings a lot of more unexplored ideas: more power full gods that don't like you, gods destroyers, a nemesis, corruption, otherwordly beings, zergs, place, one older enemy lord that plots to kill you and drain your powers etc... being just a newborn god, you need ways to "stabilize" your new powers / influences.... learn about followers, domains, new threats and places. Maybe forge a plane, imbue your party with godlike powers, try to ascend them to godhood (more enemy's incoming xD), plot to destroy or protect a race, souls, magic, or whatever law of that universe... there are so many opportunity's. And remember: you may be a god, but when you fight in other gods realm, you follow his rules. (or in other words: encounters must take into consideration the place)

Lore-fan here! But I would love more involvement between the books and the game. (book related quests, finding knowledge -and secrets- from allies and enemy's, how to deal with some monsters, culture (how to deal with the tribe of cannibalistic elfs without dying) and ofc epic things: gods, "dragons", demons (and how to (and don't) attract their attention) legendary weapons, spells and artifacts (clues to where to find them), world-historical characters / places AND mysteries-unclear things)

For me, the problem is this, if you read: "The Cipher slumps to the ground, his body wracked by spasms of pain, his hands shaking as they rise to clasp his temples. For a brief moment of eternity he struggles, silent and senseless, wrapped in his own world of agony. Finally his blood red eyes rise from the floor to lock upon yours with the force of a hammer blow. "Get out," he groans." (Thanks, Nonek) and then you see a simple grimace facial expression, the image has FAR less "information" than the text, making it redundant. (or even disrupting your immersion when there are little differences, which is a common problem that reusing the same images can do) Otherwise you have to make a very good and detailed animation to convey what those 3 simple lines of text do. That is lots of work, that most times wont be reusable only to be "on par" with text writing. Being better than text would involve a good actor + body recording or a squad of top notch animators, things that only on films are made.

Bioware will/is probably making it. EA games is in a partnership with Disney to make Star Wars games, but only battlefront 3 has been announced.

Well, first of all, I really like the ideas for the stronghold, and like almost everyone said: i love the prison idea. Still, I have a couple of suggestions: 1) What if putting legendary weapons in your stronghold increases the "prestige" it gets and ofc the chances a thief will try to get that item... 2) Make some upgrades incompatible. Like you can have a church for only 1 god, the wizards tower can only be focused to 1 kind of magic, the "well of souls" can be used to grow a druid tree OR a necromancers altar etc... . That way our choices matter more and there is more re playability. 3) Make the Stronghold be a part of the world... maybe a dragon appears early on and you have to make a truce so he doesn't destroy all, maybe you can late kill him, or pleadl to protect you, or manipulate to attack your enemy's... and the same for other monsters, lords and entity's. PS: And I know this wont get in, but i would LOVE if somehow, if you play a wizard/artificer you can "make" a spell / artifact from within a certain amount of choices in your library! Its like "forging your weapon" for a warrior but is very strange in most rpgs.

Spells, "Skills", lore books, rare artifacts and knowledge (maybe a secret which can serve to many things, from talking to undead to bribe a king or command a demon by his true name) ARE underused treasures that i would LOVE to see in P:E.

I know most of the people on this forum wont agree, but I liked Baldurs Gate 2 exploration FAAAAAAAAR more than BG1. Ofc that BG1 let you explore in a less linear way, but letting me explore desert plains is not my idea of fun. I liked far more exploring what was the problem in Umar Hills, or how to escape the deadly underdark. I had a reason to explore, and the locations were all memorable and with little-to- medium history's in them.