PrimeJunta

BG2 had lots of things going for it, but ironclad plotting, moral subtleties, and believably written characters are not among them.

I think you may have misunderstood what he meant when he said that. "Stroking ego" means the character is designed around reacting to things that the player does. It doesn't necessarily connote wish fulfillment heroics. I hope so. I wasn't thinking of exactly wish-fulfilment heroics, though. I think one recurring theme in MCA's characters is that for them, you are, always were, or become, the center of their universe in some way. All of the PS:T companions (except Nordom, perhaps?) are like this. It's true for Kreia, and becomes or can become true (depending on your actions) for all or most the other KOTOR II party members. Except maybe that floating torture droid from Nar Shaddaa. While these characters aren't about wish fulfilment, they most definitely are about ego-stroking in more or less obvious ways. I would like characters with a bit more independence about them. I liked Boone, Arcady, and Veronica more than Cass from FO:NV, for example, largely because Cass was just sitting there drinking waiting to be rescued (from herself), whereas the other three had an actual agenda they were pursuing from the start.

@BruceVC, you need to get out more. Srsly

Slightly tangential, but... I seem to recall from one of my BG2 playthroughs that that one bard (blade?) was totes trying to get into Aerie's panties after I told her I wasn't buying whatever it was she was selling. (IIRC he eventually did, too.) The execution was embarrassingly bad (as all of the PC/NPC interaction in that game) but it was a good idea.

@Lephys, I do get what you're saying, both before about the general point, and now, when you're objecting to my sidetrack. I agree with you about the former. However, since you're apparently not interested in addressing the latter but instead just keep reiterating what you said about the former, this isn't going anywhere, and I'm going to drop it.

Upper-class white, of course. That's the easiest setting; I'll work my way up from there.

I understand developers like them because they give useful information about how players play the game. As a player I don't care either way.

Interesting idea. I wouldn't say no to a "hide ALL the numbers" mode. That would focus attention on in-game rather than metagame matters. It would be an interesting experience to play the game that way, for sure. Not so sure I'd like it more than my default "show ALL the numbers" preference, but I'd certainly give it a spin.

Multiplayer also adds constraints to the gameplay itself. It's not something you can just tack on. It has implications for all other systems and components in the game, from the UI to gameplay features to content. If it's in, you have to keep in mind it's in with everything else, and sometimes maybe do things in a way that's less than optimal for a single-player game. It's similar in this way to, say, controller support -- another feature I'd rather do without. Example: consider those interactive vignettes. "You stand before a waterfall with a pool" etc. How do you handle that in a multiplayer game? Which player gets the screen? What do the other players do while the one with the screen is pondering on it? If all the players get it, what do we do with options that fundamentally alter the scene? For example, what if one of the options is "[strength] Lever away the loose boulder, collapsing the cave on the inhabitants." How do you keep this synchronized across multiple players? And that's just one, relatively minor (although extremely cool IMO) game feature. The whole thing would be like that, from the story, to the dialog system, to combat, to player/environment interaction, to the quest system. If you integrate it to the game, it will dilute the single-player experience. If you don't (e.g. make a separate PvP "arena" mode), you might as well make a separate game. So, bad idea all around. Like full voice, or console ports, or controller support, this is a feature that would make the game actively worse, by diluting the core areas where it's strong, without adding much of value at all.

@Lephys, this is a bit of a tangent but I think it's an interesting tangent. I get what you're saying, but I still don't think you get what I'm saying. Because even the second example misses the mark. What I'm saying is something like this: (1) One of the attractive, defining characteristics of cRPG's is that they allow multiple approaches to meeting challenges (combat or otherwise). (2) In cRPG's, a major determining factor of meeting a challenge or failing it is how good your character is at some activity (skill, combat proficiency, spell, etc.) (3) Therefore, any trait that strengthens one skill/ability/whatever at the expense of another is inherently attractive: because of point (1), you're likely to be able to work around the weakness in the weakened characteristic, and because of (2), you're likely to get a major advantage from strengthening the strong one. Illustration - the Good Natured perk in Fallout: New Vegas. On the face of it, this is balanced: you trade off combat skills in favor of non-combat skills, and the game has scads of opportunities for combat, and scads of opportunities to use non-combat skills. Yet this is an inherently attractive trait. Why? Because you only need one good combat skill, whereas you get a lot of mileage out of even moderate levels in many non-combat skills. So I'm effectively trading off 5 points in one skill I want (the combat skill I want to build up), to get 25 points spread between 5 skills I do want (Barter, Medicine, Science, Repair, Speech). That's a net gain of 20 points. Even if you're building a combat machine with two built-up combat skills, you're gaining 15 points. Which is basically a free level (if you've maxed INT like you should). And it's a free level in the early part of the game, when levels actually count for something.

guns crossbows fireballs pirates

I never even got through that quiz because I didn't even recognize most of the titles. Kept clicking and clicking until I got bored with 33 more comparisons to go.

It was? I clearly have good taste, having recognized it's crap even without that piece of information.

Way overcooked for my blood. Almost enough to put me off steampunk altogether.

Maybe we can finally put this to rest. JES around 26:35: "Don't even think of putting a controller with it."

:sigh: I never said you think of the 1800's. I said the 18th century, i.e. the 1700's. I also never used you as an example of anything. I only brought your name up because someone was confusing you and Kveldulf, and I wanted to correct that mistake. Now, is there anything else you wanted, or can we get back on topic?

@Adhin, you said: After which I politely corrected you. You, for some reason, refused to admit your mistake but instead tried to weasel out of it by arguing that what 'the colonial era' means is somehow a matter of opinion. If you no longer think of the 18th century when someone mentions the colonial age, then that's great, you've learned something from this. I don't see why you're pretending you never thought it to start with, when it's right there in the above quote. Nor do I see why you're accusing me of yelling at you, when anyone can read this thread and note that the bluntest I got was "bluntly put, you're wrong."

The official explanation is that the Kickstarter was too successful. Kickstarter doesn't allow you to change the date after the funding period has started. They already said during the Kickstarter that with the expanded funding they wouldn't be able to make the April, 2014 date.

"Genuineness" has nothing to do with it. That's the gamism/simulationism discussion which is another matter entirely. The problem with unbalanced traits -- or any unbalanced features -- is that because they're obviously better, they become fake choices or pseudo-choices. There's no reason not to pick them. It's the same thing as with dump or pump stats. There's simply no reason not to pump STR and dump CHA as a D&D fighter, or pump INT and dump STR as a wizard. That makes those apparent choices non-choices. Like going into a race on the Nürnburgring and being give a choice between a Porsche 911 and a Volkswagen Beetle. I recently got into FO:NV. It's a prime example of this sort of thing (like all the Fallouts; in fact there's clearly some effort there to make the traits a little less unbalanced, but even so). There are lots of traits you can pick on chargen, but you only get to pick two. However, some of those traits are so obviously advantageous compared to the others that there's really little point to those others. Similarly, under S.P.E.C.I.A.L there is no reason not to pump INT, since what you can do is determined by your skill points, and your skill points are determined by your INT. That's bad design. If you have attributes or traits to choose from, there should be good reasons to choose any one of the options being offered. If it was up to me, I would've dropped all of the "mechanics-affecting" traits from FO:NV, and left only the "fun" ones, and I would've made all the "fun" perks available at level-up traits you can only take on chargen. So drop Skilled, Four-Eyes, Trigger Discipline, Small Frame and what have you, but make Ladies' Man, Confirmed Bachelor traits instead of perks, and put in more like Wild Wasteland etc. Or, alternatively, make chargen all about traits and backgrounds, à la Arcanum or Numenera, de-emphasizing direct allocation of stats. TL;DR: Why even have choices that are obviously worse than other choices? It would be stupid to pick them.

Right-o, Lephys. Next time, please just concede the point right away and save everyone a lot of trouble and some aggravation. Like so: "You're right, PrimeJunta, that swords-vs-maces trait was a poor example. Let me think of another one..." That said, I will point out that you're still pointedly ignoring may main point. Namely, that what you dismiss as "only ... the specific cRPG designs [i'm] thinking of" are, in fact, general cRPG designs. A swords-vs-maces trait is munchkiny because things like a wide variety of enemies, a wide variety of ways with which to defeat them, and a wide variety of equipment to acquire naturally dilute the downside of the perk, while leaving the upside untouched. These are not specific designs, but general ones. I did point out that it would be possible to produce a specific design in which the perk would not be munchkiny, but these would not be typical of cRPG's in general. Capeesh?

Two words: Dark Sun.

Quite, but if you're willing to accept a world permanently frozen at a 1000 CE level of technology, why is a world permanently frozen at 1400 CE or 1500 CE level of technology harder to accept? (Personally, I actively dislike "timeless" fantasy. I much prefer fantasy that incorporates change.)

Since nobody's posted an actual timeline... ~800: Earliest known formula for gunpowder (China) ~1100: Earliest known depiction of hand cannon (metal gunpowder weapon firing projectiles, China) ~1200: Earliest surviving hand cannon (China) ~1250: First use of firearms in warfare in Europe (as siege artillery on the Iberian peninsula) 1300's: Hand cannon becomes widespread in Europe 1400's: Matchlocks replace hand cannon 1453: Constaninople falls to Mehmed the Conqueror; regarded by many by first major battle decided by gunpowder weapons (used to breach the walls) ~1500: Rifling invented 1500's: Wheellocks start to displace matchlocks, both used side by side. Infantry firearms used at beginning of engagements, most fighting still hand to hand. Crossbows largely displaced by firearms. 1600's: Flintlocks start to displace wheellocks; ranks of musketeers start to displace pike formations as base infantry organization 1683: Battle of Vienna. Beautiful mix of weaponry here, from Ottoman mounted archers (Sipahi), to ranks of musketeers on both sides, pikemen, heavy artillery, and of course cavalry. The engagement was decided by cavalry actions, including the biggest cavalry charge in European history. Very bloody and hand-to-hand. 1700-1721: Great Northern War. By now, firearms were the primary weapons in use, but Charles XII had lots of pikemen too and used them to great effect. From there on out, firearms dominated. Pikemen were replaced by bayonetted muskets. Smoothbore weapons weren't fully displaced by rifled ones until the 19th century when manufacturing techniques had improved to the point that rifled barrels could be mass-produced. There were lots of wars fought where one side didn't have firearms, but those were rather one-sided affairs; as Belloc put it, "whatever happens, we have got / the Maxim gun, and they have not." In other words, gunpowder weapons coexisted with bows, crossbows, swords, maces, and what have you, for about a thousand years, give or take a couple hundred years, depending on if you count the early part where they were curiosities and the late part which were more massacres than battles. That's a good deal longer than the part of the European Middle Ages where there weren't any gunpowder weapons.

A first-person sandbox RPG would be entirely unsuitable for a kickstarter. Budget would have to be 20-40M for that sort of thing to be worthwhile. If they do another kickstarter, they'd be foolish not to use the engine built for PoE, so whatever the genre or style, it would be an isometric, party-based RPG. If they do do it, I really hope they'll go with a genuinely fresh setting, i.e. not pseudo-medieval Western tradfantasy, space opera, nor post-apoc; all of those are getting really threadbare, no matter what twists you put in them. Steampunk and cyberpunk are a little fresher, but not all that much. I'd hope for something genuinely new. I like this setting, for example.

Arcanum's backgrounds were actually, for the most part, pretty good. Min-maxed builds actually made you miss the mins as well as enjoy the maxes. It's a shame the rest of it was so completely out of whack, especially the ludicrously overpowered magic.