Hormalakh

Thanks! Didn't know! I'd still like them to try to reutilize as many components as they can to make the crafting trees as deep as possible.

Yeah I agree. I don't think dumb ogres should be able to understand the fact that they're being kited. Or maybe they do, but they aren't sure what to do about it. Ultimately you probably could kite them even if they kept changing their targets. But a dragon or something smarter should know better than to keep kiting you. similarly, a moronic goblin might not know to call his friends while patrolling down the hallway, but I would hope a hobgoblin would know that it shouldn't ever attack a party all by his lonesome. Zelda did this with its goblins in skyward sword... see 4:30. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbeoRK9r07Y&feature=youtu.be&t=4m30s

@Jive5k Yeah, I agree. As long as things are properly thought through, I don't have a problem. Being sensitive to others' cultures and how we portray them is obviously not what OEI is known for, and as gamers we shouldn't be promoting games that have thoughtless design when being inspired by these cultures. @Sophos - Apologies for the misunderstanding. I think we agree for the most part. I just don't think that this is meant to be a medieval European-styled fantasy. There will likely be multiple cultures within those areas. It will not really resemble Earth in the historical OR geographical/anthropological sense. Will wait to see more from developers though.

Of course, but it's heavily inspired by Late Medieval Europe, so blatantly East Asian elements still feel out of place. Now, that may not be a problem if there's a good explanation for it, but otherwise... It would seem like I disagree, but I completely agree with you. I don't have any issue with it being any certain culture as long as it's described correctly. But saying that a certain lore item or culture should be a certain way because "duh this is Europe" is not a reasoned argument for this game. At the same time, if we are to take from other cultures as our inspirations and incorporate them into the game, we have to be cognizant of our biases. Be it Irish influences, German, or Asian. I'm tired of stereotypes and poorly researched games.

It's not Europe nor is it medieval. Per the discussions here, we should change Sagani too. And the Vailians can't be Afro-italians. The time period is meant to be in the 1400's.

I think this is because the team for this game is going to be kept as small as possible.

Yeh and what crap DNF came out to be... I don't imagine they will wait forever because after all, waiting too long would mean that they're losing out on revenue.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...sorry I couldn't help it. I couldn't stop laughing. :D Thanks for that. Pika pee. Watch this and understand... http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6406-Think-of-the-Children

The job of any good production manager is to set deadlines. Everyone will hate him for it at first, and it's a thankless job, but someone's got to do it. I would just rather they push the deadline back now and deal with the moaning and groaning now as opposed to later. Waiting 15 months or waiting 18 months is still waiting. But waiting 3 months and having the game now doesn't go over so well with most people.

Not sure if ...

So then his skills should include persuasion. What do you mean when you say "martial artist?" Are you talking about kung fu, judo, tae kwan do, etc. Why not boxing, capoiera, sambo, systema (russian martial arts), pankration (Greek martial arts), krav maga, wrestling, and a whole lot of other martial art types? Fencing is considered a martial art. Why only martial arts as they are narrowly known from a cultural perspective? You see when we think of "kung fu" or "karate" as THE martial art, we have been biased to this way of thinking due to the hollywood-ization of these martial arts. If all the martial arts that I described are possible styles for our "monk" then why not call him a brawler? Why put your class in a certain fighting pose that screams "Chinese martial arts!" when speaking about martial arts? We have already culturally-constrained our class to that of "chinese martial arts." This bothers me. It doesn't fit the prototypical definition of a class. Culturally constraining a class might be fine when we haven't discussed subtypes or cultures of a race (as D&D didn't when it first came out). But when the game itself specifically has cultures and subtypes as a mechanic in the game, we cannot define all "monk martial arts" as narrowly as we have. If you want to call him a martial artist philosopher, I'm fine with that. But the devs and everyone else should know that our world contains hundreds of different martial arts, all highly influenced by their cultures. As long as they realize this and keep this in mind, and multiple martial arts styles are used, all dependent upon the "monk's" cultural background, I don't have a problem with it. although, then I would wonder why we wouldn't call him a brawler instead and even limit our classes less because we can have philosopher brawlers and non-philosopher brawlers.

really? why? Well it really depends on how we define the word class. What dos class really mean? Is it a combat style? A set of skills put together? A way of life? No other class is as narrowly described as the monk. It is the only one that is described both as a cultural phenomenon, a specific combat style, and a way of life. "Tibetan monks" that defend their homes using kung-fu is not a class. If we look at it from the lens of combat style, the class truly being described is a brawler/fighter. Monks are chosen as a class because they fight without weapons and use only "martial arts." Rogues aren't described this way (fights with daggers?), neither are rangers (fights with bows?), barbarians (fights with ... axes?) How is that any different than a boxer, or other type of martial artist? Why not just call them brawlers? The "monk class" also describes a certain personality that no other class truly does; that of an ascetic. Fighters aren't defined by their personalities. Rogues might be thieves, but not always. Etc, etc. And classes being defined as skill sets: barbarians rage, fighters are combat oriented, rogues mechaincally oriented, wizards magically oriented. What about monks? They're kung-fu oriented? Why not call them brawlers then? It's too awkward of a distinction between the monk and any of the other classes. We all quickly "get" what each class is and can think of a variety of ways to play those classes. With a variety of different personalities and motivations. Monks, though. It's hard to distinguish them and articulate them other than by considering them as a stereotypical generalization. They aren't just a class. Monks are the product of a philosophy fit into a combat style within a specific culture. No other class really is. It's difficult to articulate really. I'd have to sit and define class first. Then sketch out each class to fit within this definition and see how I can distinguish them. Then I would have to sit and think about monks as they fit within this class. From a distance, it just seems that monks are the most narrowly defined class, whereas other classes can play to a wider audience. It's really difficult to articulate. I just hope the devs think these distinctions through well enough and utilize one definition for the word "class" and define their classes by distinguishing between them through that lens. D&D, because it is a game that has evolved through each new edition has had its definitions diluted, corrupted and sometimes made backward-incompatible, has made convoluted descriptions that are difficult to understand. When starting a completely new IP and gameworld, we do not have to work with these adulterated definitions. We should be clear about what we mean. Edit: clarity

The more I think about it, the more I start to hate the fact that monks exist as a class in this game.

I'm with you! Let me go take off my fur miniskirt.

Haha. Yes I came to the same conclusion that it'd be a lot to think about. But crafting in itself is a lot to think about, what is the most effective method? Copying all the other crafting systems out there and make it a trade? Or an ability that you need in combat situations? Hard-locked to locations? (Kingdoms of Amalur has alchemist sets at houses, and a blacksmith you can go to). The only thing I disliked about KoA was that I had 20 items I couldn't use because I was constantly missing 1 component. I haven't gotten very far in Arcanum but I felt it likewise there, I imagine the same thing happening for me in that game. Dang man you were just playing BG1 last week. You're going through all the games aren't you? I don't know much about KoA, but yeah I had something of a similar feeling with Arcanum. I want components to be reusable for different items. Saltpeter is like that in Arcanum, it is very useful for a lot of explosive items.

lol yeah they do. I thought he was talking about Wasteland 1/2 at first, but apparently no.

Interesting idea. I would consider wizards as enchanters "crafting magic." Fighters perhaps as weapon/armor repairers. Rogues as alchemists. Rangers as ammo crafting.... well the more I write these out, the more I realize there really shouldn't be crafting skills tied to any particular class except for perhaps "thematically tied crafting" like poisons for rogues, and enchanting for wizards. I'm not sure. This should probably be thought through though (thot thru tho).

Don't worry; they've already said that "maturty does not always equal being serious" and there will be humorous bits in the game. This was excellent. Thank you for sharing. You're welcome I really recommend everyone to watch the Extra Credits videos. Some of them are a little contrived at parts, but there's a lot of interesting commentary there.

As someone who quotes Kerghan, I have respect for you already But yeah, I agree. I don't necessarily care much to force "difficult" battles on other players, but I would like a variety of AI for the enemy, just so players have to think more than trying the same old strategy over and over again during combat. Combat isn't supposed to be grindy in this game, so it'll be nice to try more AIs.

Fixed it for you. Regardless of what you think you are, you still have prejudices and biases like everyone else in the world. This isn't a medieval simulator. Why don't you have issues with Sagani then? She's not "European." Whether people like it or not, the world will continue to be diverse and multiculturalism will continue to occur. Deal with it. To continue to think of our fantasy worlds as "white-only" worlds and to decry worlds that do not fit this model to be "immersion breaking" is just another way to be neo-racist. Medieval Europe, which this game isn't, wasn't filled with only "white people." Renaissance Europe had plenty of mixing with Middle Eastern/Asian/African cultures, and diverse people lived in those locales. People of different colors traveled the world then, and they travel the world now. ---------------- In regards to Forton and his being a monk and how he looks, this argument really stems into how we see "monks" as a class. There was a thread several weeks ago where this was discussed and people came to all sorts of different conclusions. It was weird for most people to describe any class based solely on one narrow interpretation of the word monk. I think a lot of the disagreement with Forton still stems from that.

Abstraction isn't a by-product of computer processing power. It has to do with what we as players/devs think is important in making the game fun, interesting, or unique. Abstractions are quite common in all aspects of play (and even in other parts of life) and as long as they don't take the player out of the immersive feeling, then they shouldn't really make much of a difference. Would you be OK with your fighters being able to backstab/sneak attack as a bonus, but your rogues being able to get a higher bonus if they did a backstab/sneak attack? If not, why? How is it any less of an abstraction to think of "fighters" (which is in itself an abstraction - we don't really classify anyone in the world as either a fighter or a rogue) as those able to deal the most damage? Wizards can deal high amounts of damage. So can barbarians. Yet, we don't have problems with them and don't think of them as "DPS lame-os." Those classes are also abstractions. This does not mean that the thief will necessarily do more damage with a dagger than what a sword would do (absolute increase in damage), but there is a bonus there that increases the damage relatively higher for a rogue than a fighter. A thief wielding a dagger might do 1-4 damage, but 5-10 backstab damage. While a fighter holding a sword might do 1-10 damage, while backstabbing can cause 3-14 damage.

I think what everyone is trying to convey here is that we all wish for an engaging narrative, one filled with human thoughts and emotions. We wish to be able to identify with our characters and the story and to come away from it knowing something more about ourselves. Sometimes an engaging narrative uses "melodrama," and sometimes it is done with a well-written dialogue tree. In any case, the story must be gripping and engaging. "How to show narrative through game mechanics" "Games enriching lives" "Game mechanics as a metaphor" - Very interesting take

Following along in this discussion, I'd really like different enemies to have varying levels of AI, dependent upon a stat like their intelligence. I don't mind pulling or kiting one or two enemy types, but I don't want it to be a playstyle for the whole game. Similarly, I don' think anyone here would disagree that having varying levels of difficulty when dealing with enemies can always be fun. Having to change strategies because of a different AI is fun.

I would actually like to see the rogue as being the one who is detected with difficulty during a battle. The rogue should be able to stay in shadows during combat to be most effective, regardless of how the actual damage is dealt over time. Perhaps instead of actually damaging opponents, they can be best utilized as enemy disablers, in that they can poison or sap enemies out of battle. They would be a good class in disabling that lone patrolling orc before it calls its friends to battle. -------------- How about making the rogue's possible skill sets wider in depth AND range? What else can rogues do other than backstab, sneak attack? Sap. Poison. Disable. Set traps. Etc. These are all combat capabilities and perhaps thieves could either know a little about all of them (jack of all trades) or specialize in a certain rogue-field. Poison master. Assasin (sneakattack master). Traps Master. Sapper. ----------------- This idea that because in real-life everyone can perform a "sneak-attack" or climb or do any other action while certain classes are locked out is, as I said before, an abstraction. The point is that certain classes should become masters in these skills and are more focused on these aspects. Perhaps a fighter can bacakstab enemies, but maybe rogues have spent a lifetime working on the best methods used in backstabbing people. These are as I've said before, abstractions of a relaity, to make the players quickly understand the skills specialized by any certain class. While I understand the argument that melee fighters are masters in combat, perhaps it can be explained that most fighter training emphasizes fighting your enemies as they face you; while fighters can get a limited bonus to attacking from behind, the rogue has mastered his fighting techniques as those that rely mainly on attacking from behind/shadows. Thus they get a higher bonus to these "backstabs." Just some thoughts....

There has got to be a way to show magic effects without cluttering up the screen, somehow... because I also don't like the constant cluttering of the screen. The design people have got to know of innovative ways to deal with this. Make it beautiful, but make it visible so that it actually performs well on its dual roles of being aesthetically pleasing and providing tactical information.