Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


9 Neutral

About BTA51

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator
    (1) Prestidigitator
  1. I don't like CO-OP in any games, and NWN:s RP-servers is the only RP-game I have enjoyed any kind of multiplayer in. I want a good single-player game, that's the only thing I'm interested in.
  2. Agree. I usually don't even use the high level stuff I find just because they're ugly and unrealistic. I keep the same starting weapons and armour through the whole game because they often look the most realistic. Would be nice if PE didn't make me do this.
  3. The middle ages range from 500-1500 A.D., the game is said to be set in the equivalent of the late middle ages. Firearms were both devloped and used in this historical period, but they were pretty crappy.
  4. I'm pretty sure that putting in the expansion as a possible add-on will make a lot of people add that to their pledge.
  5. More classes, races, customization and companions is more or less the only things I'm interested in. But I don't want them put in there just for sake of more content. They have to be well balanced and good written.
  6. I want to be able to choose within certain parameters. I don't want to be able to change the NPC's class, their "style of fighting" (like if they're a fighter that fights dexterously in a light armour with a single-handed weapon, I don't want to be able to put them in full plate with a two-handed sword and make them my tank), or anything else defining to that character. I like however to be able to choose skills within these categories, like choose between Dodge and Weapon focus in DnD for example. If there are several "prestige classes" to choose between later that all fit the character, I'd like to be able to choose between these. To sum it up, I wan't to be able to customize my companions to fit my tactics, but not to change them into another other character.
  7. All games are political. "Traditional values" are not any less political than "modern values". A game without (for example) gay-romance and where all relationships follow a heteronormative line is as political as a game challenging "traditional values". I agree that it's boring when a game shoves political ideas down your throat and forces you to take a certain stance in game, but that's not exclusive for left-wing ideas. Why is for example the economical system in all games some type of market-economy? Why are both women and men stereotypically pictured in so many games? And so on. I personally like it when political and social issues are in a game, as long as were not forced to pick a certain side. Beeing forced into something usually breaks your plans for your character and makes bad RP. Also; this is a fantasy-game, not real life. The world in this game doesn't have to be a copy of our world. Heterosexuality doesn't have to be the norm i PE just because it is IRL. Historically, heterosexuality in our own world has not been as normative as it is today and homosexuality has not always been looked down on. Greek soldiers were for example often encouraged to have homosexual relationsships because it was belived to strenghten the group and make the soldiers more willing to fight to the death with their comrades. So in a way, acceptance for homosexuality is a lot more "traditional" than heteronormativity. I would so buy this game!
  8. Nice! The magic system sounds even better than D&D:S to me, it seems logical that higher level spells can't be spammed while lower level are easy to cast. Hopefully it changes with level too, so that lvl 3 spells first require preparation but when you're casting lvl 6 spells they are easy (or something like that).
  9. I prefer it like in BG2. I like turn-based combat, but I don't want to micro manage every character's every turn like in ToEE. I do want the ability to do it however in the more tricky fights. Magic wise I like to be able to choose between vancian and how the sorcerer worked in BG2, it added more tactics to the game when you had to choose between high-level spells and flexibility. DA:O and DA2:s combat systems are horrible and extremly dumbed down, I only play those games for the RP and would skip combat altogether if I could.
  10. I agree completely! An RPG that forces you to pick a certain side is usually a bad RPG.
  11. Wow, seems like there is a hole in the market to be filled Obsidan. Only 1 person against so far and 73 for! It would be cool if we could pick what kind of class our character comes from too, like Dragon Age: Origins had a little of with different backgrounds for different races and subraces. Also NPC:s would react differently depending on your class-background; maybe for example it's easier for a nobleman to persuade another nobleman than for a simple pesant och day-labourer.
  12. I've read a lot about etnic conflicts within the game which I think sound interesting, but it's also something that almost every RPG contains. Something we see a lot more seldom is conficts between classes. Not classes as in rangers vs. wizards, but as in serfs vs. their nobles and workes vs. manufacutry owners. Pesant-revolts against taxes, serfdom and the nobilitys privileges, skilled and unskilled workes revolting i the cities, conflicts within the manufacturies that should start to pop up now historically and so on. I think it would be very interesting if these things were explored. If you look at the historical period that this game is supposed so be similar as (late Middle ages), these conflicts were very common. Merchants not directly tied to land were starting to grow as a powerful class and were starting to demand political rights and question the nobilitys privileges, taxations increased which led to armed revolts on the country side, more and more people lost their land and a class of landless, travelling day-labourers started to appear, revolting artisans in the cities, political ideologies were taking root, and so on. I think there's a lot of potential in this.
  • Create New...