Heresiarch

Calling copyright infringement piracy or theft is kinda stale. I suggest we call it sodomy, rape or murder to shame them evil bastards into sympathy for the video game industry. Because that's how it works, right? Now, the only entities really hurt by copyright infringement are the publishers. That is if we disregard all the weird conjectures how piracy increases the purchase price of games and the like. I mean, if you think that the moment piracy is gone, the publishers will just go on and decrease prices to make customers happy instead of writing out fat bonus checks for the CEO and upper management, you might be living in a parallel universe. And the publishes aren't getting any sympathy from me, because the richer they get the more EA they become. So I tend to think of piracy as a wealth redistribution system. It certainly is not going to make the industry collapse. It hadn't done so before and is unlikely to ever pose a threat to anything else other than publisher's profits despite all fuzz they rise about the issue. And the fact that I can play whatever I want for free never stopped me from buying games.

Well, I would say queueing is pretty tedious. Not to mention that it rarely works in real time games So you've put down half a dozen way points for your thief to slip past the enemy ranks unnoticed and do some backstabbing, just as your front line team mates go in for the charge. But half way through some stray guard notices one of your warriors and the enemy charges first. Spells fly around, swords clash, mayhem ensues... while your rogue waltzed down the way points although this kind of discretion is not required any more. Bonus points if you were too busy to cancel the chain of way points and order him to attack instead. But anyway you'll be very unhappy about placing you witty chained actions for nothing. And that's what happens most of the time. I would put all my eggs in AI basket and tactics like in DAO, where you could actually tell what your team mates do in different situations without having the pause the game every time and issue commands manually.

I really wish elves, dwarves, orcs and other Tolkien legacy race would have seized to exist by now. I got nothing against professor's works, I must have read LoTR like 5 times back in the days, not to mention Silmarillion and al the other good stuff he's put so much hard work into. But it is his take on the fantasy world, there's no need to rip off parts of it just to be popular and immerse the player faster into your own fantasy universe. That's just cheap.

I would think that Skyrim parody of RPG romance would get the point across, but I suppose it's just not meant to be. Romance as a side quest or as something you do at your leisure just doesn't work. It feels artificial. Your romance choice should come with rewards and handicaps. Just because people are egoistic bitches (regardless of gender, mind you) and they don't care how many peasants are being eaten by an evil dragon this very instant and want you to hold on a minute and sort things out. Maybe even fling a cast iron pot at you in anger. Or a stone with a sling. Bottom line, people are not cardboard figures and romances should not be limited to simply choosing the right words. Neither they have to be the same way: you woo someone, say what they want to hear, and then happily enjoy the fruit of your hard labour. I would say cost argument are petty, nothing more than a way to justify distaste for romance. You could say the same thing about pretty much every game element. As I've argued before, then let's cut out most of the classes, since they are cost prohibitive too, and spend this money on something everyone can enjoy. Like exploding helicopters in the background.

Actually, I am all for pre-generated "random" stuff as long as it does not screw you up too bad. There should be a balance between good and bad events. Answering the question about self-control and envy for other players, that's not it. I don't care if other player cheat or even butter up their DVD and eat it for breakfast. But I do want to be unable to change certain things with save/load scamming. First, because it's inherently broken as a by-product of the whole save/load mechanic. Second, as a player I want to know that something (not explicitly scripted) is actually beyond my control. So if something bad happens, it doesn't mean that I (as a player, not as a character) screwed up and have to suffer the consequences for being such an idiot. It's just that **** happens and life is a bitch even in video games. Think about how your apprentices in Planar Sphere could fail a dangerous project badly. So you could take a greater risk for a greater reward. Now, if you just stay in the sphere the whole time, wait until they are done, and save/load unless you get exactly what you want, it kinda kills the experience. The mere possibility of doing it does, actually. So I would say pre-generated random events are a great idea whether an optional feature or not.

Vampires don't have to be lovecraftian (whatever that means, since I can't remember any instance of undead creatures in Lovecraft's writing). They just need the whole old-fashioned bloodsucking walking dead air about them that made the vampires in the first place. The whole idea of vampires living within the society, paying taxes and whatever is absolutely ridiculous if you take into account that those guys are revenants, arising from the grave only to feed. So no glittering skin, no very human-like appearance (they are dead), no cravings other than bloodlust and you're pretty much set with a nice old-school vampire.

I pray that for once we have an RPG that does not follow good vs. bad dichotomy. Since "bad" is not only subjective in many instances (I won't delve on it too much, but if you look at the non-lethal approach in Dishonored, for instance, I would say that it is much, much more evil than murdering those poor bastards), but also boils down to kicking the dog most of the time. So you end up with a normal "good-guy" approach and a stupid-evil one. There is a crapload of normative ethical theories out there, so you can easily envision an approach to morality different from the one we have in contemporary society. How about using a utilitarian approach? Some kind of strict deontology? Virtue ethics, which quite popular in middle ages, by the way? Ethical egoism? Speaking of the latter, I would love to see something similar to the way Kreia teaches dark side in KOTOR 2. If you go out of your way to help everyone you see, people will rely too much on help of others and won't be able to take care of themselves in a selfish society. Her theory made a great deal of sense and actually drove my character to the dark side. And I would really love to see more stuff like this.

Arcanum anybody? Seems to me like one of the very few games, where crafting actually made a difference instead of being an inferior alternative to looting and buying stuff in shops. Same goes for Witcher, where craftable-only potions are an integral part of combat. New Vegas had good recipes, but after a while hunting for scraps to make the stuff and keeping track of what you need became too tedious. While it may be more of an interface flaw, it still damaged the experience a lot. Seems like the take-home is that crafting first and foremost should be useful. When devs add a pattern or crafting ingredients, they want to make sure that it will make a difference and that it will look attractive to the player. Crafting should not necessarily be easy, but it sure as hell should be rewarding. There aren't too many enthusiasts who would engage in crafting just for the sake of crafting itself.

It's Project Eternity, not some Dawn of War II. All these cover, lighting, and terrain modifiers are worthless for all practical purposes in an RPG, so there is no point in adding them in just for the heck of it. Getting shot at by an archer? Loose LoS and let your mage blast his arse with a fireball or run up to him and kick his butt yourself. As simple as that.

Well, being a fighter is not like being a street fighter, but pretty much the same as being a warrior. Being a ranger is nothing like a park ranger, but a lot like being a tracker. Being a monk is far from being a Benedictine monk, but pretty much the same as being a shaolin monk. All the while being a paladin is very unlike anything that has ever been called by that name. This is no surprise, since the word itself translates as 'courtier' and has no relation to religion at all. So we end up with a silly concept and an unfitting name. PE will change both of this facts, what's more to desire?

Let's face it, guys, the whole concept of DnD paladins is pretty stupid. With abundance of chaotic and evil gods around, it makes no sense what-so-ever to make a class of faithful warriors, devoted solely to the worship of good. And the whole anti-paladin blackguard concept is outright disgusting. There is no good explanation how they even come to think that the whole lawful-good only paladin thing would be a good idea. Now, all of a sudden, your paladins have to be DnD-style to qualify as paladins. No, they don't. A paladin is just a high-born knight and palatinus is nothing, but a high military rank in Byzantium. You don't have to worship gods or lay on hands every now and then to be one. So yes, I like how paladins are supposed to look like in PE very much.

Another thing about class diversity I would like to bring up is that they really should be less about what the player wants and more about what the world has to offer. I realize many people want, say, a shaolin monk or a samurai or a ninja, but guess what, just like there were none in ancient Rome, there could be none in any kind of a fantasy setting. Moreover, they are more likely to be absent than present. If the devs stuff them into the setting just to be there for them Japanese fighter films or anime lovers, it looks nothing but lame and artificial. Even if they try to justify it somehow. A side effect of such fanservice cramming as large overlap between classes. You have a fighter, a slightly different fighter a.k.a. monk, another slightly different fighter a.k.a. barbarian, and yet another different fighter a.k.a. paladin. All the difference here (talking DnD, not PE, obviously) is that paladin can cast some pretty lame spells, and the other two make up for gear restriction with special abilities, which does not bring anything to the table in terms of gameplay. Now, as much as I hate mumorpegers (mostly because I envy those people who can play them hours straight for years and years), there is one thing a good MMORPG nails: classes have to be dynamic and gameplay should feel different for each class. Not so much in single player RPGs, granted, but this rule should hold for them too. Otherwise why would you even waste your time to make other classes apart from the three basic ones? I can understand bringing, say, seven classes to the table with three being core ones (fighter, mage, rogue), another three are combinations (figher/mage, rogue/mage, etc) and the last one sort of a jack of all trades. This kind of approach doesn't bring much to roleplay experience, since the difference is all in mechanics, but at least at makes a good deal of sense. In PE I can see how ciphers are different from mages with all their psyonics stuff. Not sure I can say the same for chanters, since mages and priests are generally the same if you take away heals. Heck, I can even see how paladins could work out better as members of a militant order (which was redundant in DnD, where a humble cleric of Ilmater could sport a war hammer and full plate). But monks? And worst of all barbarians?..

I have a problem with that. Not with your personal preference, but with propensity to reduce classes to the sum of numbered statistics. When I choose a class and all I get for description is "this class gets +x to AC, high BAB, low THAC0", I get sad and ask if we can play some other game instead. Preferably that involves less math and more RP. If I play a warrior in a tabletop and say that I want my character to kick the person running away under the knee, I expect the knee to pop and that person to fall to the ground (after applicable to-hit rolls or whatnot). Hearing that I can't do that, because there is no such move in the rules, but instead my character performs an attack with +x bonus for flanking, -y penalty for targeting and running and inflicts z points of damage. In the end all you can do about that character is get him better gear to capitalise on his high stats. Which seems incredibly boring compared to the extent of micromanagement spellcasters and other characters with special abilities can employ.

Call me old-fashioned, but to me a fighter who has "abilities" is already not a pure fighter, regardless of what name you give the class. Well, maybe a few abilities like shield-bashing and spinning to hit a few foes at once (for less dmg) or whatnot. By abilities I don't mean Diablo-style abilities, but rather physical abilities like stuns, counters, feints, taking the blade and so on. If the the fighter's options go only as deep as fighting or not fighting, you might as well do without the class.

I think what really defines a class is it's modus operandi in combat. Like getting surrounded by five thugs in a dark alley. A fighter just pulls out his sword and makes short work of them using his abilities (not just swinging his sword repeatedly at each and every one). A mage casts some distracting or misdirecting spell to give himself time and then kills them with fireball, acidball or Greater Curse of Bubonic Plague, slaughtering everyone in hundred meter radius. A rogue will make use of his throwing daggers to clear an opening and get away... or just lose LOS to circle them, attack from behind and kill off the remaining thugs. A cypher may use his abilities to make the enemies hesitate, start thinking that the whole robbing-this-particular-person business was not such a good idea to start with. Or simply scare them out of their minds with horrible phantoms. But it becomes tricky when it comes to artificial classes. What is a barbarian? Lightly armoured fighter with a big weapon filled with rage and bloodlust? Well, he's still a fighter ultimately. just with slightly different abilities. What is a monk? Fighter without any weapons or armour, using his extensive combat training to be deadly and untouchable? Well, it's Hollywood. Even if you're a nimble ninja and a master of chi, going barehanded against armed opponent is always a bad idea. I don't think there's any martial arts that does not teach weapon usage. But anyway, a monk is still a fighter without armour and weapons, compensating it with out-of-the-blue bonus to stats he misses out on. What is a paladin? Well, I probably should not even go into that, because I hate the DnD representation of the class so much. In the end classes can be differentiated into those which makes actual sense and those included by popular demand. It is not inherently bad, but I would prefer more content with less classes (class-specific dialogues, quests, whatnot) than more classes with less content. I think NWN2 clearly demonstrated why the whole over 9000 classes thing is such a bad idea.

Beat 'em bloody, trip em' naked and let 'em run around? Oh, I see where's the fun in that. I think I would still prefer chopping off heads. Like in a situation where a merchant saw you trying to steal from him and you run him through with a sword, before he tries something funny. Much more old-school. And leave non-lethal takedowns to special cases, where plot requires them. It is no Dishonored 2 after all.

It's about foci, isn't it? Like a granddad's watch for time spells, box of matches for fire-based goodness and a little boogie dance for agility buffs? I think I would pass that opportunity. Although it would be fun, if casting is diversified between classes. Like a short prayer for paladins (more along the line of "Deus vult" rather than reciting the Seven Penitential Psalms), who can't spend their whole day waving hands and singing incantations for practical reasons, a period of concentration for cyphers, practical gestures for mages (not quite full-contact magic, but not random hand waving either), and prayer-recital and more majestic gestures for priests.

I would actually like something of a Witcher-style potion system to be introduced. Not the same effects, of course, but adding various enhancements from weak and long-lasting to powerful yet short-lived. Coupled with a toxicity meter, they give you the opportunity to make tactical use of your potions instead of using them as OH, SHI~ buttons. Do you want a faster stamina regeneration rate for the whole battle? Gulp this, add some to your toxicity bar. Do you refer powerful spell enhancement for quite a few offensive spells you are prepared to cast? There you go, don't spill a drop. But you won't be getting any potions until the end of the battle, unless you ant to drop down with cramps from poisoning. Most importantly, potions shouldn't just copy spell effects. Otherwise, they become uninteresting.

I never liked player crafting mechanics in SP RPGs. They tend to be tedious, time consuming, and possible money cheats. Visiting various types of crafters to use the exotic materials you looted is fine, but having your character make some iron mail by hand seems quite a bit off. Alchemy is the only exception in those titles, where it actually does something. Like Witcher 1, for instance, or... or Witcher 1. Did I already mention Witcher 1? Because pretty much everywhere else alchemy was made a dubious affair at best and a source or instant health/mana supply at worst.

I don't quote the whole post, because I feel like the only disagreement we have apart from semantics is priorities. You believe that romance, camaraderie and other relationship stuff is secondary in PE, while I would trade more side quests, flashier graphics, bigger huge cities, and better what-have-yous for more party character content in the game any day. It doesn't need to be romance necessarily, it just has to remind me why I care. And romance for one thing is pretty good at it. But priorities and other personal likes and dislikes aren't really worth arguing about. There is no contradiction in some people preferring cappuccino, while others like their coffee black. All the same it would not be right to cut down on milk only to provide bigger portions for everyone.

Well, a role-play game isn't a story, it's an experience. If the experience is bad by design, it does not excuse the developer. No matter how much Bioware screams bloody murder about their artistic integrity, they managed to spoil the whole series by having an ending so bad, it can be criticised for hours. I am speaking valid criticism here. They failed to deliver the experience to the majority of players and it doesn't matter of their story is flawed by design. Being flawed is all that matters. Romance is a part of human relationships. An integral part, I would say, even though I am no big fan of it. Not having it is like not having friendship, camaraderie or any other common type of relationship. Saying that it's prohibitively expensive to make it good is not a good argument against it. It makes you choices and gameplay more substantial, and I (along with many other players) would prefer a shorter, but more engaging experience to an insipid, but long one. Now, about the point that you can make perfectly fine games with and without it, it is true, of course. If it is a Tom Clancy shooter about tough military men or another iteration of Max Payne, who is so self-absorbed (while swimming in drugs and alcohol and murdering countless numbers of bad guys) that he doesn't notice anything else around, romance does not really belong there. So avoiding it completely is perfectly fine, maybe, adding it would even be detrimental to the experience. Hell, maybe even Planescape Torment would have been totally fine without Annah romance, although it does add quite a bit of depth. But if it is a story about an average person having no romance in it is artificial. What is he a complete psychopath? Has he a severe post traumatic stress disorder? He can't really be all-right if he behaves like that. Mind you, I'm nor saying you can't play a character like this. But having the only option to play such an emotionally challenged individual does take away from the experience.

* sigh * Yes, having no bananas is exactly like having no moral choices, because it takes away from the experience. Re-read your post, forensically, and try to tease out a few micrograms of sense. No? Me neither. ... If you like dating sims then come out and say it, don't dress it up in terms of moral choices and immersion. Feh. Yes, writing stupid thing, while saying that you opponent makes no sense, is exactly like having an argument. Because I suppose this kind of behaviour comes with a gratifying feeling of false superiority. As for the dating sims, I have already explained the difference. If you paid attention to what I was saying instead of trying to look witty and well-worded, you would have known it too. Now, while having buildings on fire is nice and everything, how many times per day do you face deep moral choice? Except behaving like a gentleman vs. going about an argument all ignorant baboon-style, I mean. More along the line of pulling someone out of the fire. The answer is not so often. So if everyone around you in a video game is a damsel in distress and you get to save one each time (or pet only one dog or punish only one robber or only one whatever) it becomes stale and repetitive. I already know that I am a good guy here, because I helped the weak and the poor and thoroughly murdered every evil bastard I came across. Having more orphans to save or villains to kill looses its charm half the way into the game. Romance (or friendship and other similar stuff), on the other hand, makes you build a connection with the character. Then all the choices about that character become quite a bit more difficult. It doesn't really matter how many you have. Do you save Madison Saint-James or disarm the bombs? Wouldn't be so hard a choice if you never had extensive dialogues with her. Doesn't even matter if she ended up in your bed or hitting you on the head. How about Merrill selling you out and siding with demons, while saying that she likes you and all, but not that much? If you had a romance with her, you would be all the more inclined to give Merrill the boot. Devs just need to go a way from the preconception of romance as a way to get sex and treat it as a form of strong and potentially convoluted (and totally ****ed up at times) relationship.

Well, PE's symbol is the Ouroboros, while TES Online sports... three very hungry snakes, eating each other at the same pace, evidently. The only issue I sense is someone pointing out to Bethesda that their TES Online symbol is extremely stupid.

So does having no evil/morally ambiguous options. Having no option to do anything bad detracts from the experience of doing something good, in my opinion. You might not believe me, but that's exactly my point. When I suggested removing the evil options I was being obviously sarcastic. Or so I thought. But yes, having no romance is exactly like having no moral choices, because it takes away from the experience. Hence, you can't simply leave this stuff to modders. Nude skins is what they are good at, not romance.