TrashMan

Now I was pretty much going on about how the initial point equaled sapience with a specific reaction, which is not necessarily the case. A pretty useless nitpick, but I was bored.

Personally I consider it more of a "deliberate effort and thought" vs. "happy accident" thing. Some works are made with deeper meaning imbedded in the very core and carefull crafted from day 1. Other may possibly have some symbolism if looked from a certain angle at a specific time of day and while chanting the prayer to the dark gods - and simbolim the oginal author didnt' evne plan for or intend. There is a school of thought that nothing has any intrinsic value, but the only value is what you assign yourself. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the creator thought or tried, or what message (if any) he wanted to send. It only matters what you see. Then there is the opposite that calims that only the creatros intentions/emotions matter (a.k.a. - Modern Art) I kinda in between. Some things have intrinsic value and in general what you see is what you get. But intent and effort do matter, at least a bit. I hate modern art. And I dislike people who read too much into things. and I suck at explanign things and should probably shut up, because what I wrote doesn't really explain my position very well.

There you go and mention tentacles. You know I was saving that for later, but now you ruined the surprise. Magical field of almost any shape and size that can be controled by casters = magical tentacle monster constructs. The real reason people fear mages in Dragon Age.

To be clear, the player would still be the one to make the call. You would simply select a dialogue option along the lines of "Here's what we're going to do: (Plan details here), *Cast Greater Invisibility*", rather than just telling everyone what you're planning, then having to go into your spell book outside the dialogue, select the spell, and cast it on your character. Especially if the dialogue happens literally as your approaching the situation at hand, and you make some kind of "Yes, we're doing this now" decision, and everyone around you goes into some sort of "We're not going to follow you right now if you just leave and head back to town, and so the game isn't going to let you leave until you address this situation you just told everyone we were about to address" mode. It's simply, well, potentially not out-of-the-question is all. I'd rather it not be handled by dialogue, as well, but I can think of at least the possibility that there might be a reason for it to be handled within dialogue. I mean, unless you have a good reason, I would assume you're going to share the plan with your party, rather than just randomly casting Invisibility on the Rogue and staring at everyone until they figure out what to do. So, the dialogue and the chosen action kind of coincide at that point. I get what you mean, though, I think. I just realized: If the dialogue says "Okay, we'll do this *cast spell*," then now you know, just by reading that, that that's a valid strategy, whereas you may not have known it if you hadn't read the dialogue option. Hmm? Good point, that is. The only thing I'll say there is that you have to be careful, also, not to design the game, all the while saying "I have to make sure the characters never provide insight into a certain strategy or action that the player never would have thought of on his own." Because, they're characters in the game world, and they know a lot more than you, sitting at your computer, do, about it. But, I do see the potential problem, with this specific example. It's a fine line, it is. I just personally prefer if the game gives me tools and let's me use them freely and come up with my own ways to deal with a situation, rather than have it spelled out for me. Just being informed that there is a assasin with a crossbow that will probably attack you once you go into the courtyard already tells you enough. You already know "protection from missiles" can probably protect you. You know he's an archer, so he'll probably be on the higher level, searching for a better vantage point. You can avoid heh courtyard, send your own team to sweep the area for him, cast invisibiltiy, use protection from missiles, etc ,etc. Maybe you can even be a duplicious bastard and contact that assasin and hire him to double-cross the person who initally hired him. OR contact the group he is trying to frame and let them handle him. Multiple viable ways to deal with the problem that one can do with just using backgroudn information, without it being telegraphed. At the same time, discussing the plan with your team sounds great, but doing that automaticly reveals all possible plans given how a conversation works. It's a double-edged sword.

Funny you should mention it because I actually liked DNF.. I mean, it was OK. There was no way it could have lived up to the hpye no matter what they did, and compared to all other FPS games on the market, it was average to above-average. While there design decisions one could argue about (regenrating health, likited guns, etc..), none of them are intrinsicly bad, since many games use the same mechanics. It's more of a matter of expectations.

I hear what you are saying but for me Romance\Sex should be part of the overall game design. This becomes very subjective because for some the RPG experience is really about questing, exploring and being able to make certain choices. I understand thats what they want and expect but me I want deeper party interaction I think you misunderstand a bit. Game should be designed as a lving, breating world. Which means the subject of love is bound to pop up. Maybe you can come across a lovers quarrel..or help a young man woo the woman of his dreams. But I personally think that it's unnecessary for the PC to be the center focus or romances, like some sex god/godess, and bumping uglies being the final goal. I noticed how some games end up feeling cheaper because of it... it almost starts feeling like a harem anime. Woo all the girls. Plow their field. Collect cards. You know what would be funny? For the player to have the option to court every single woman in the game. And ALL of them reject him. (and vice-versa for the opposite sex) Not to be pedantic, but there are hunderds of trilions of humans in 40K, they die in the millions and more are born each day. So sex is alive and well in 40K and so is love. It's just in the background, behind the curtains, happening among civilians and people who generally aren't currently fighting against eldtritch horrors and have hte luxury and time to fall in love. And given SM's are ALWAYS fighting and most of 40K is about them...yeah, not much time or opportuntiy for love, even among more normal soldiers.

That's quite normal. Different games (and books and all kinds of medias and things) satisfy us in different ways. You don't play Duke Nukem for deep plot and character, just like you don't play Secret of Monkey Island for fast action. Same days you feel liek blasting s*** up with minimal thought involved. Sometimes you want something deeper. Sometimes you want to escape to a different world. Just like sometimes you got a craving for something fruity/sweet, or maybe something very specific. In general, trying to generalize and trying to find a single unifying factor for why you like X - it's doomed to fail, becasue there isn't one.

What a stupid argumnet. The AI is never a match for a human in ANY free-form type of game. I could easily say that IE games had monsters, demons and dragons because humans were no match. Difficulty is not the reason aliens were there. To even insinuate it was is redicolous. The basic plot is defined at the earliest stages ofh te game. @Ffordsoon And I do disagrre. Strongly. It's like you and me played a compeltely different game, sicne there isn't a single thing I can agree with you. Incoherent art desing? Crysis 2 better? Seriously? Is this the inverted reality in the Twilight Zone?

300 anti-gay? With all of those muscled, oily men grunting and running around? That move was a like a buffet for gays.

I know some peopel are saying that romances are part of real life. They are. But romances have their time and place. The game will cover a period of several months unless I'm mistaken. Does the PC have to experience romance during those few months? Life is long, there's a lot of things to do and love talks while you're running for your life from Eldritch horrors really feels out of place. Dunno. It can be doen good, it can be done bad, but if there wasn't any I certanly wouldn't feel like the game world was missing something. It's not like love doesn't exist in the world - it's just thath the PC or party NPC's have other things on their mind in that specific time frame.

I liked Elanee.... I feel people have been taking things out of context and misrepresenting her character. That said I don't care about romances in a RGP. They are a nice extra, but utterly and completely unnecessary IMHO. Love is a big part of love, but there are many types/forms of love. Romantic love is only one of them.

Trashman personally I'm finding your interminable debates very entertaining so please don't stop this discussion, its anything but boring. The audience does have a different perspective on things, true... I do belive you were suposed to (to conform to the Internet Posting Standard) post something like this tough:

Human are in the end creatrues of reason AND emotions. Appealing to cold, inpartial justice sounds fine on paper - expect the concept of justice is quite subjective. Not to mention that if using cold logic, there is no reason to spare those people either. Alternatively, if you consider life in prison to be a worse punishment than death, wouldn't it then be more mercyfull to kill them? Either way, this is one of those debates that go nowhere, make no one happy and sway no one. And ultimatively depressing to boot. We should discuss happier things.

We're technicly already there up to a point. Always were. Expressing oppenly oppinions that are unpopular follows quick punishment. Society tends to pressure people, one way or another, to conform.

Crap. I was sure it was actually the story told by a still-living Spartan. That's why I simply stated it was historically 100% accurate, instead of inquiring as to the actual practices of the Spartants of old. I dunno how it was possible to miss that bit of sarcasm, but you did it. In large battles you fight in formations. Meaning you have your own guys from the left and right and behind. So not really. Only when the formation breaks. Also, just because you are an adventurer, doesn't mean you will be fighing 1-on-1. You may (and probably will be) outnumbered. Not to mention that dodging weapons in RL is bloody difficult (unless you fall back), making parrying or armor your prime defense. Ya know, if you just continue ranting about me on and on, I will just stop responding to you completely. Hearing "you dont' understand my point, and are wrong" for the 50'th time is getting boring.

Nah, killing is basicly making SURE a guy like that will never do anything like that again. It also serves as an example. And I frankly don't think scum like that deserve ot have their food and bed and TV and other crap provided by the money from honest folk - including the family and friends of the victims.

Isn't that true for ANY group? Extermist and negative and loud people stick out more. Preconceptions exist and are everywhere.

Death penalty only for clear cut cases. The legal system can be wrong, but if you caught on cammera and with dozens of witnesses or your bloody murder spree, then the likelyhood of a mistake is so infitesimaly small, it's irrelevant. Execution is not expensive - the legal system is. And regardless what the sentance is - death or life in prison - the convicted can appeal again and again wand waste moeny and resoruces. So no, execution is NOT more expensive than letting someone rot in the jail. It just that people seem to forget that anyone can appeal. The problem is that the guy didn't actually do anything - other than decorate his basement as a torture chamber. So while he's definately for the "keep an eye on him" list, you can't really throw him in jail for something he might do.

If you ask me "sapience" is just another way of saiying "thinks like a human" and is there mostly to make us feel so great and special. But that's beside the point. The point is that thare are humans woh would acts completey disinterested. Tehre were tribes that would use the remian fo hte dead for decoration..like a necklace made out of ears of slain enemies and such. Amn cannibal tribes it was common. So you could pretty much strut trough the middle of their village with a severed human head as your codiece and no one would bat an eyelash. Or are you telling me they are liek cows and not truly sapient? My whole point is that the reaction (or lack thereoff) would depend entirely on the person/monster in question. And frankly I'd rather more effort be given to monsters ACT and fight intelligently rather than them noticing I carry a shiny item...altough that would be nice too.

Have I ever said that everyone has to wear plate? I don't think so. My point is that if you want the best protection, you get plate. Nothin else should provide the same level of protection. Not even close. Especially not chainmail bikini's. They are a stupid idea for multiple reasons - the least of which being visual.

On the other hand, imagining the mighty Adeptus Astartes, superhuman defenders of the Imperium, with their comparatively tiny, shrunken nutsacks dangling uselessly between thighs bigger than my waist does fill me with malicious satisfaction. It totally should be canon. Well actually.... it's probably the other way around. Their members are proportionally bigger. Not exactly the proper place to discuss the effects of being violated by a space marine (as per Slaneeshi Chaos Space marines), but the results are "man of steel, woman of cleenex". That said... If Bio were to do their usual stuff in a 40K RPG, the backlash would make DA2 and ME3 look like a insignificant fart.

Thing is though, you're an adventurer and a traveller, not a foot soldier...you might have to swim, you might have to climb, you might have to squeeze through a small gap, you have to carry your armour everywhere you go, you'd have to sit down in it to eat since there is nowhere to put it and it would be awkward to take off and put on, you don't have a squire to carry your stuff,(probably) you don't have wagons(probably) I don't really see the point in plate armour in these situations...the fact that games tend to have you fighting all the time and don't simulate all aspects of life leads to unrealistic choices working the best. That's not to say you couldn't have a breastplate though...and I reckon having some that are form fitting and some that aren't would be best...keep everyone happy . if there is plenty of armour types that don't all look the same, and no ultimate "best" armour then it's up to the player if they want the team in uniform or not. I take it you never worse armor, because if you did, you'd know that if you were to go swimming you wouldnt' wear ANY. Chainmail - so common to adventurers - is almost as heavy as plate and twice as uncomfortable, as it puts a lot more pressure/weight on the spine. Leater, when wet, becomes heavy. If you have to climb, anything other than leather will slow you down - even tough you can climb in full plate. You can sit in it and move without a problem - it was made for a full range of motion in mind. Squeezing trough tight spots? Dunno man. But all of those examples are VERY situational and unlikely. Plate is difficult to carrry, but so is chainmail. Plate take the longest to put on, but when are you really in such a hurry? If you want to talk realism, adventurers wouldn't even travel without horses

I have no idea what's all this about, but for some reason it feels funny.

Dunno man. Running over old ladies and butchering children while laughing maniacly seems creepy to me. Especially given the fidelity the games have these days. Any average player has a body-count of millions, and has eradicated entire species during his gaming career.

I can guarantee you that that's not the case, because that's the topic that was brought up numerous times among some 40K nuts and there was absolutely no evidence to support it.