PrimeJunta

The anticipation is killing me.

@OP: I agree with most of those. Storm of Zehir though did have a conversation system that does more or less what you describe—characters get lines depending on their characteristics (class, stats, skills), and you can switch freely between them in dialog. I loved it. I didn't manage to finish IWD2 (er, yet), though. It wore me down. There's way too much filler and too many trash mobs; fighting the same enemies over and over again isn't fun, it's a chore. Many of the levels are also repetitive and rather bland in design; it doesn't have IWD 1's atmosphere nor variety, which are the main reasons I enjoyed playing that.

Every hardcore gamer were new gamer.So we couldn't ingore them. They'll find P:E when they're good and ready, just like they found the IE games. Not everything has to cater to everybody.

I tried to think of a clear videogame counterpart, but couldn't because video games are generally speaking so bad in this respect. What I'm getting at is, does your definition of 'sexualization' include objectification, or does it also encompass sexual characters who are not objectified? The reason I'm asking is that I think there's a chance we're talking at cross-purposes here. I think it's pretty obvious that supporting sexual objectification of women is an anti-feminist position, whereas supporting portrayal of women as sexual beings without objectifying them is not (necessarily). If your definition of 'sexualization' includes objectification but BruceVC's doesn't, then you're disagreeing about semantics rather than substance. (What I do find puzzling about BruceVC's position is that he enthusiastically supports BioWarean romances which are, in fact, obviously objectifying, yet he identifies as a feminist.) (Edit: also, Hiro, on this topic I'm in pretty close agreement with you. I wasn't trying to change the topic or pick apart your position.)

@Hiro, could you be more specific about what you mean by 'sexualization?' For example, would you include characters like Catwoman as played by Michelle Pfeiffer in Batman Returns?

@Darji: that would be seriously OT, and given the moderation on this thread I don't think that would be a great idea. Objectification and cRPG romance is still on-topic, so let's stick to that rather than deconstructing Thunderf00t's rantings, shall we?

Haha, you're linking to a Thunderf00t video to support your argument? ROFL

There's actually an interesting tangent here, and also some terminological confusion. What Sarkeesian and other sensible people are objecting to is objectification: portraying women as objects you want to possess rather than subjects you want to be. The term "sexualization" is usually used about children: characters you would not usually—and, most people agree, should not—consider in sexual terms. I.e. "sexualization of [adult] women" is kind of nonsensical. Objectification OTOH is an issue, and in fact one reason I dislike romance-as-minigame is that it is intrinsically objectifying, since it turns your "LI" into a prize to be won. ("What about teh menz?!?" I hear you ask. Objectification of men is not as toxic as objectification of women simply because it's far less pervasive. Popular culture objectifies women constantly, everywhere, all the time, whereas it objectifies men only rarely. I'd even argue that objectification wouldn't be a problem at all if it wasn't the default way of portraying one particular gender. If pop culture was a more or less even mix of subjects and objects irrespective of gender, it would not make life difficult for one particular group of people the way it does now.) SJW out.

Darji, word of advice. Hitting on women you see in the street (a) doesn't work and (b) is rude, and many if not most women consider it harassment. Don't do it. If you have any kind of social life, you'll get the chance to talk to lots of women in all kinds of contexts. You'll find out pretty quickly if you hit it off. And, as I said earlier, IME appearance is only a fairly small component of that chemistry. Fixating on it, however, is a great way to close yourself off to people.

@bronzepoem I don't think P:E is made for new gamers.

Most hotdogs are so vile that the only way I can eat them is by smothering them in onion, pickle, mustard and ketchup. A nice Currywurst now, though...

No. It's conceivable they'll add them for some other reason though.

I'd expect the built-in difficulty settings are enough to get it to be enjoyable soloable even if you're not as hardcore as Stun.

Agree about FO2's start. I recently replayed it after several years, and really had to grit my teeth to get to the point where it started to be fun. I didn't think JE's start was bad at all, as such things go. If you found it not to your taste, it's probably not worth bothering with the game. I liked it though; in fact it's IMO BioWare's best game all-around. Light-hearted, consistent and cool visuals, good-enough gameplay, atmospheric, nice twists to the story, very true to its theme, humor that's actually funny, and no glaring flaws. It's a shame they started taking themselves so very seriously since then, which kinda ruins it. And... I hated, hated, hated ToEE's start. But that's mostly because levels 1-3 of D&D are terribad unless you cheat, and ToEE doesn't cheat. I loved it once past the point of "one unlucky die roll and you're dead."

Nothing. Other than really good total conversions, I only enjoy mods when they fix obvious problems with the game (KOTOR 2 Restoration, Wesp's VtM:B mod, Gothic 3 community mod etc). I fervently hope P:E won't need them.

I sometimes think that the most underused monster in fantasy cRPG's is the human.

Damn straight. If you have to have orcs, at least let them unionize.

Maybe he's a backer and will do it for free?

I want Arnold Schwartzenegger to voice everybody. Everybody!

@Stun now I want to play that game.

That's because IWD2 had kill XP. PoE doesn't. They'd have to adjust the XP rewards for objectives. Doubt they'll do that.

I gotta ask... do you guys equate "conventionally attractive" with "someone I'm physically attracted to?" Asking 'cuz it doesn't work that way for me, at least. I've been physically attracted to a quite a lot of women over the years, and only some of them have been conventionally attractive. Conversely, I know a quite a few women who are conventionally attractive but who I'm not physically attracted to. Chemistry is complicated IMO, and appearance is a fairly small component of it.

Not as romantic interests, I think. As ogresses, witches, evil stepmothers, and what have you, certainly.

Hard to argue with spending resources on good stuff instead of bad stuff. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent, but you did say that "giant chunks of the resources for features they DO like must be diverted... to pay for the implementation of optional gimmicks... like Romances." I was taking issue with "optional," and perhaps also "gimmicks." Because as a general matter I like "optional" and sometimes "gimmicks" can be nice little additions too. E.g. the hacking and lockpicking minigames in FO:NV. Definitely gimmicks you could just as well replace with a skill check, but I felt they did add a nice bit of flavor without turning into a chore.

That would be tragic.