JFSOCC

Looks ambitious, but I'd think it would be cool if the game expected a bit more from the player, so in that sense I like what I am seeing

like his work, but I'm getting a good vibe from Justin Bell, most of what he's said gives me confidence that he is the right guy for the job.

Love the update, love the writing style, but that last image... corridor hell?

Edit: Nvm, shouldn't feed the trolls.

Having to walk back for half an hour of gametime straight to get back to your questgiver to accept your reward is bad pacing, and in that case, it shouldn't be a problem to speed it up a bit.

teleportation as quick-travel option. If you're going to make me go back and forth between places, it would be nice if you could unlock teleportation circles or something like that. could be a mini-quest per map.

It does disprove your assertion. If people in a much more extreme situation remain pacified and docile, allowing themselves to be murdered, then people in a less severe situation (slavery, as opposed to extermination) would too. In ancient Sparta, one of the largest (as a percentage of the overall population) slave states, the helots revolted constantly; the militarization of the spartan state was due primarily to the constant threat of slave revolts. It was also one of the reasons the spartan army rarely campaigned far from Sparta's borders from long periods. I mailed this to my friend, who has a masters in history (Focusing on military history), specializing in the Ancient Greek world, currently going for his Ph.D. (His thesis was about the professionalisation of Greek armies.) This is what he had to say:

it'd be a combination of a self-insert persona, with differences based on what I'd like to be rather than what I am.

i've been playing Badurs Gate Enhanced Edition, Flawed but fun.

*Nar Shaddaa flashbacks* Kreia framed it slightly differently, but I knew that this would resonate with some of us

I would enjoy free-play after story end. provided there are things to do.

srsly. I hope this was a troll thread. It Kinda sorta was. But it got away from me and the discussion became interesting.

You could average it over several encounters, so that it's more gradual. that should compensate for statistical anomaly.

I haven't played the witcher, but grey to me means unclear, mostly. opaque. Different people have different views on what it wrong or right, and I wont have a game dictate it's views to me. Besides the fact that the characterization decreases when you force someone to act within the confines of "neutral good" or "chaotic evil" is that people simply don't usually get confronted with choices that are so clear. If I give money to a beggar, I might to that because I think it's the right thing to do. Someone is in need and I'm helping him. Someone else might argue that giving money to a beggar will ultimately keep him dependent on donations and prevent the beggar from overcoming the predicament he finds himself in. Both arguments have some truth to it. So can you tell me, without a shadow of a doubt, which is the moral choice?

I agree, and if you do make the player specialize, then the player should have access to all types of weapons right from the start. (it makes no sense to invest in a weapon skill of a weapon you haven't seen yet, after all)

I guess I shouldn't be so dismissive about Shakespeare. I guess I was wrong.

More of a brunette fan myself, but damn yes, this is the message I hope the world will one day get: Welfare states work well. Low crime, low income disparity, high education, high pay, great health (low infant death rates, high life-expectancy) And a fairly robust economy.In other words, everything that you would want for a high quality of life. and all it takes is high tax rates. who knew?

Not a great fan either. (blasphemy! I hear my high-school English teacher say)His prose maybe considered the be the greatest, but if you have to make characters who are evil because they are jewish or black, then you're not just racist, but also not very good at characterization. His Kings are noble (mostly) Shylock (the jew) is bad, because he is a usurer. (because why not use stereotypes) In Titus there is this famous line "Ten thousand worse than ever yet I did Would I perform if I might have my will. If one good deed in all my life I did, I do repent it from my very soul." Said by a moor (black man) why, because he was black and thus evil. And then there is people saying "oh, but racism was normal back then!" "think of the times" But as much as the racism bothers me, that's not what disqualifies his works from greatness for me. It's the fact that he uses one-dimensional characters in the first place. I mean, how one-dimensional can you get?

Well, I didn't win the lottery, so no last minute pay-pal 10k donation from me.

Like with any literary genre there is pulp and there is quality.

I finally watched 1984. I don't think it will surprise anyone when I say it's a downer.

Historians are coming to the conclusion that slavery cost more than it was worth. It's actually cheaper to have wage workers (payslaves) because you don't have to take care of them. Also the picture we have of slavery is distorted, in some societies, slaves had similar lives as what we would refer to as a middle class. there was even some upward mobility. (though, yes, obviously they were still slaves) interestingly enough, there are more slaves today than at any point before in human history.

Alright Opinionated piece coming up. which you could vehemently disagree with. I don't want to be a negative bastard, but some of the authors mentioned are awful, and I dismiss their popularity on the idea that those who like them haven't read proper quality fantasy. I mean, Feist, really? Over the top, linear, plot driven drivel, deus ex up the wazoo, non-existent character arcs, completely unbelievable, mary sue. Ugh. I'm in 2 minds about George RR Martin. I read the first 3 chapters of game of thrones, I thought the writing was awful, clichéd. then I watched the TV series, and after the intial 8 or so episodes, I started to enjoy myself. So maybe I should have kept reading. Stephen P. Donaldson is another of those "popular" artists which I think suck. Pretentious, plot driven(if you're recognising a theme, yes, plot driven is bad and common) unrelatable protagonist, interspersed with bad poetry. Terry Goodkind. ALL the flaws! How this man managed to rack up a fanbase is beyond me. There are others which I dislike but at least those are due to preference, Ian C esselmont is one I don't enjoy, but I at least like the way he is different, his characters are strong and memorable, and he breaks convention nicely where he can get away with it. Tolkien too, I love his world-building ability, he tells a great story, but he doesn't tell it well. Now I have read quite a bit of fantasy I've read a lot of crap fantasy. (I read the entire Magic the Gathering series. it's what got me into fantasy) some of it I even enjoyed. (hey, I was young!) But if you enjoy good fantasy with at least some literary value, I recommend Patrick Rothfuss, Peter V Brett, Robin Hobb,(don't bother with the liveship books) Trudi Cannavan,(don't bother with the age of the five books) and to a lesser extent Jaqueline Carey. (too much sex in her books for me, but otherwise solid) And I'm going to shoe-horn in James Clavell, who wrote a great historical fiction book five times. (Tai-Pan, Noble House, Gai-Jin, Shogun, King Rat)

I don't need to be godlike awesome, but I do want the protagonist to matter more than his help. And I want to see that in the gameplay.

the commandos games alloyed you to look at the map from 4 angles, and they were isometric (no?)