Dream

I always play as me and then meta-game a little on the last playthrough before a sequel (kinda hard not to really).

Your MAIN POINT was to say that those characters are "unrealistic" while using a character from a story that contained an equally "unrealistic" character as an example of an apparently good character. Just answer the question of what's the difference between River's/Buffy's powers (and the explanations for them) and Daenerys' from a "realism" standpoint.

I think they're both good, personally. What I want to know is how River or Buffy are anymore incongruous with the real world than Daenerys since you're using GoT as an example of "good" fantasy and Firefly as an example of "bad." All three characters have their powers explained by a certain fantastic element (hell, River is the most "realistic" of the three).

So genetic engineering is out for you, but "the blood of a dragon" is a-okay? On top of that you're claiming to hate a certain individuals work without even knowing the most basic things about it; classy.

And that's different from the movie describing how River is a hyper lethal telepathic killing machine engineering by the top scientists of a galaxy spanning government how? Or Buffy being described as a Slayer? Edit: And just for fun: "Through a variety of techniques (e.g. martial training, meditation, ritualistic evocation, mortification of the flesh), some individuals are able to draw upon the energy of their soul to accomplish extraordinary feats. These abilities range from the mundanely superhuman to the explosively magical." Superhuman? You. Don't. Say.

So realism versus, what's the word, it starts with an F. Oh yea. Fantasy. no realistic fantasy vs. unrealistic fantasy. < seriously. Realistic fantasy is a bit of an oxymoron though isn't it. For all the "realism" that song of ice and fire had, walking into funeral pyres still seemed a bit unrealistic (but maybe I've been hanging out with the wrong crowd). I guess all the raping and politics made up for that, right? Beside that, how is River an unrealistic character? There are plenty of martial arts around the world that focus on small extremely athletic fighters (River) taking down much larger and more brutish opponents (Brien). Sure they may not allow said fighter to go 1v100 against armed psychopaths, but beating insurmountable odds is kind of a staple of fantasy (unless you want the PC to get beaten and raped the first time she encounters more than 3 bandits).

So realism versus, what's the word, it starts with an F. Oh yea. Fantasy.

I think one ending with multiple ways to achieve it works best (such as PS:T). Otherwise you end up with **** like Mass Effect where the council you saved from the Reapers (and who knew everything you knew) are as oblivious and full of denial as a bunch of strangers who've never heard of the Reapers. Unless if they aren't planning on making a sequel/xpac, then go crazy.

Which is EXACTLY what I have been saying from the very start... In my defense you did quote me to start this exchange ^^. I was referring to the OP implying that if a medieval fantasy setting doesn't have sexism then it's automatically unrealistic (and bad).

I've never advocated that level of "reality" for anything, the flashlight thing was just an easy example. But whatever. If Obsidian wanted to have a difficulty option for bathroom breaks as well as eating and drinking, they're free to do so. In my previous post I made a point that I don't want it to actually be pitch black. I do, however, like there to be a difference from "daylight outside" to "deep underground cavern." That's the atmosphere part. If everything is going to be brightly lit, imo one may as well just adventure in outdoor spaces and have it be 12noon all the time rather than unexplored, mysterious, deep caverns ala the "endless dungeon." Like I said before - have it so you CAN play without needing to use torches or light spells if you want (like very bright moonlight, perhaps), but also where extra light sources make things brighter/more colorful in a further radius or whatever. Easy, Normal, Hard, Nightmare, "**** for Real." As for your description of light; that sounds about right, my bad for misunderstanding you earlier. Variable levels of light and all that would be fun, but no Doom 3 (that ****ing flashlight).

Did I say that? No, I didn't. Of course it isn't. And by extension rape doesn't automatically make something raw and poignant. Adding it in just to have it there doesn't give your story some sort cred; it just makes you a try hard. Those examples pretty much read like the definition of "dark and edgy." However, yes, if it actually serves a purpose then go for it (especially so in historical fiction since, you know, **** did happen), but don't throw the **** in just to show how hard your story is (which is pretty much what every video game ever with rape in it did, and most modern movies and books). You've posted that comic strip about 10'000 times, I think we all know it by now, and I've agreed with you on that beforehand, but it seems to me that you dismiss everything serious and dark to be automatically pseudo-intellectual and angsty. It's like being anti-everything for the sake of being anti. Art is (to a big extent) the breaking of existing barriers and that's easier done with serious things that are often not reflected upon, because they are so serious and stuck in our heads. Also, why is Blow's statement pretentious. I think by fictional he talks about constructs, he means how constructed and surreal the concept of money is. Also, why shouldn't he drive a green car for 150'000 pounds? Just because he doesn't like money or because he thinks it's unreal? I don't see how this is in any way hypocritcal or pretentious. It's so good though (and true). Also every time I've posted it has been in response to pseudo-intellectual, angsty, bull****. You're not breaking any barriers by making your work about "mature and realistic" themes because that's pretty much what every art/film/whatever school grad has been doing for the past 2 decades. All it is is a bunch of hipsters trying to show off how totally raw they are. Come up with a good story and write it; if it calls for "dark" themes then whatever, but don't add them in if it doesn't (and, by extension, don't assume that to be "real" it HAS to call for them). As for why Blow's statements are pretentious; it's because if he really thought money wasn't real (or actually gave a **** about the environment) he would have gotten a beater for under 10k and given the other 140+ to charity.

So in your opinion, PS:T wasn't a fun game? It was just art? It dealt with mature and realistic themes. Some (all?) of those ideas/factions are actual philosophical beliefs that people have. It didn't have rape and sexism in it just to have it. This entire thread can be summarized as "Sexism: we should have it because the lack of it makes games unrealistic and bad." If story calls for a rape or sexism or racism or whatever, sure, go for it, but don't simply add the **** in because it's "dramatic."

Are you saying that Caesar's Legion is a 'bad' faction and not a faction that is equally as legitimate as the alternative à la what the Witcher games present? How the **** is not bad?

The point is atmosphere (if you walked into a dark cave, you're going to need a flashlight, right?) Yea, and if I had just rested for 8 hours I'd need to take a piss, right? Atmosphere and all that.

Seconded, it may not be realistic, but this is one of those area's where gameplay comes first. Gameplay should come before realism in all areas.

I guess that making an "emotionally raw and poignant story" is impossible without rape, right? And rape is ALWAYS used in a gratuitous way to make something "dark and edgy," name one time it wasn't (and casual references like Reavers raping people to death don't count). This is isn't about anti-intellectualism, it's about rape/racism/homophobia/other "mature and realistic" themes not being the only way to tell a good story. Not everything has some hidden agenda; some people just like to have fun and don't want to sacrifice that fun for the sake of "art." Also Jonathan Blow is a pretentious douche bag because he says **** like “It just drives home how fictional money is” and "I’ve never liked money, really" while driving a $150,000 "green car."

Well, personally, I want P:E to be a fun video game and not the next champion of the "games are art" crowd; leave that **** to pretentious indie developer douche bags like Jonathan Blow.

Lets toss rape in there as well because, you know, it's realistic.

Oh, realism.

Look at SWTOR and tell me VO is cheap. It's not that easy; there's a reason VOs exist and every company doesn't just get the staff to do it.

I'll agree with you there. Key lines from important characters (or even bit ones) should be voiced ("what can change the nature of a man?"). As for the rest of it, text is the way to go; both for budget and greater depth concerns.

Even with the EC/dlc the ending still makes **** all sense. Why did the ENTIRE first game even happen if the Citadel was King Reaper? Why did Sovereign even need to exist?

They caused me to re-evaluate my pre-ordering of BW games.

As long as it isn't pitch black then whatever; probably just going to crank the gamma up anyway if it's obnoxious.

Can you imaging walking around talking to people to find out if they have anything interesting to say? How boring and tedious and time-consuming! Wouldn't it be much more convenient if they had, like, a ! hovering above them so you'd know who to talk to? And hey, even better, they could mark the quest objective on the map and put a little arrow on the screen so you could go straight there without having to waste all that time exploring! Even more convenient, and you'd be even more certain of missing nothing! Anyway, from the interview linked above, it appears torches and other light sources are already in, so presumably also darkness. So looks like you'll be disappointed on this point at least. You can always wait until someone mods darkness out, naturally, or mods the loot-highlighting-key in (if that's not already there). You can't design dungeons that are as complex as Watcher's Keep or Durlag's Tower if you have pitch black darkness everywhere unless you want your players to have a ****ing aneurism; I'd rather have complex and intricate dungeons than realistic light sources, but that's me. As for the interview; hopefully they're just talking about having dynamic lighting and shadows (while having "total" darkness still appear like a greyed out fog of war), and not Doom 3 levels of absolute "can't see ****" darkness.