Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Gulliver

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    58

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Gulliver

  1. Gulliver
    Go look up some Josh Sawyer quotes on enchantments. I am fairly positive he said that every item bonus can be added through enchantments and none of them are truly unique. God, I hope that isn't the case.
  2. Gulliver
    There's nothing worse for rpgs than streamlining classes. Might as well get rid of classes altogether. The only difference between a DA 2 mage and a DA 2 rogue is the animation.
  3. Gulliver
    With a bit of luck, this will drive away the SJWs for good.
  4. Gulliver
    No. Why would "good" be more challenging? Just make sure it's not like in BG 2, where you get one tenth of the xp and half the loot for taking the evil choice.
  5. Gulliver
    Levels are non-existent within the narrative? Seriousy? ... Levels are the difference between the killable-by-a-wolf peasant you generally start out as and the dragon-slaying half-god you end up as. Characters gaining power is clearly part of the story of any RPG. If you don't want to romance someone, you don't have to. Choices that do not have any effect mean nothing. All other characters gaining experience makes my choice of companions meaningless, as I can correct it at any time. Leaving certain characters on the sideline means nothing. In the end, the weakling who did nothing becomes a warrior of legendary skill simply by being labeled 'companion'. The end of NWN2, when all those characters I left behind somewhere between level five and ten showed up again being just as strong as my MC, was one of the most immersion breaking moments I've ever had in a RPG.
  6. Gulliver
    This reasoning is exactly what is ruining modern rpgs. Having "more choice" sometimes means having no choice. Making things more comfortable often makes them worse. Why not make every LI bisexual, restricting the player's choice here does not ADD anything to the game, it only takes away the choice of your LI, yes?
  7. Gulliver
    I very much dislike the Dragon Age concept. It led to random circle mages suddenly being level 35 just because you are. I'd be fine with non-party companions gaining some xp or only gaining xp for a limited amount of time. Something along the lines of: 1/2 XP for the first 2 levels during absence 1/4 XP for the next 2 levels during absence 0 XP after that
  8. Gulliver
    And how do you know there's anything supernatural in this setting? How do you know that that which you describe as "supernatural" is not subject to the laws of nature and above nature? Gods and magic are not necessarily supernatural. It is fully possible for them to exist in a materialistic universe. I see no reason not to include materialism as a philosophy.
  9. Gulliver
    It could also result in non-marital sex being widely accepted between humans and elves and frowned upon when it is only humans. Having a human companion at some point in their lives might be common for elves, since it does not endanger their conceiving an elven child later.
  10. Gulliver
    It is far from certain that something akin to blackpowder can even be made in a given fantasy world, just like electricity does not necessarily exist.
  11. Gulliver
    Said who?
  12. Gulliver
    Realism concerning the world and realism concerning gameplay are two entirely different things. It's not like it is part of the world that people are able to carry five truckloads of weapons and armor and ten tons of gold. One of the things about fantasy worlds is that humans are generally still humans. Being a female warrior is on average harder than being a male warrior, simply because of differences in raw strength, etc.. So in that regard, gender roles for humans are more or less inevitable. Not to the point of "Females can't be warriors.", of course, but certainly to the point of "Competing with male warriors is a rather hard thing to do for female warriors.". If you get rid of such differences, it'd be majorly confusing to even call such "humans" human.
  13. Gulliver
    @sparklecat: Do you find feeling empowered to be more important than realism and plausability?
  14. Gulliver
    Does anyone here truly want this game to be a power fantasy?
  15. Gulliver
    Baldur's Gate. Indeed, the closer to Baldur's Gate they are, the better. I very much disliked the portraits from IWD.
  16. Gulliver
    Don't forget they don't have to use their money for licensing costs and development of a console version.
  17. Gulliver
    That's exactly what institutionalised discrimination and oppression means. It means the social group that is discriminated against is not in a position of power, ie that the members of that group are not considered to be the social, legal, and intellectual equals of the dominant group; and that as a result, they are underrepresented in decision-making positions in society. This leads those discriminated against, and society on a whole, to suffer economically, intellectually, physically, and psychologically. What do you think is meant by institutionalised discrimination? Because saying "sure, institutional discrimination of women exists, but that's not why there are so few women in positions of power!" is a complete contradition in terms. If that is indeed what you mean, what then, I wonder, do you think the reason is why the very same groups that are subject to institutional discrimination happen to be those groups underrepresented in positions of power? Yet again: You're not listening. Please reread what I wrote.
  18. Gulliver
    @Joukehainen: You're not listening. At no point have I claimed that there is no such thing as discrimination against women. I have also not claimed that there is no such thing as institutional discrimination against women. What I have said is that it is not the opinion of a majority of society and scholars that any and all absence of women in positions of power can always be explained entirely by discrimination and oppression.
  19. Gulliver
    Your interpretation, not your opinion. Your interpretation as in "the interpretation you favor". The notion that any absence of women/... in positions of power is due to oppression and institutionalized discrimination is in no way accepted by a majority of scholars (except maybe by people in gender studies) or by a majority of society.
  20. Gulliver
    I didn't forget them^^. It's pretty much exactly what I meant by "certain administrative roles", in this case priesthood being (almost) exclusively female, with society as a whole being more or less egalitarian. ...did you read the "Archaeology" part? @Joukehainen: I am certain you're aware that your interpretation is neither the only one out there nor the only one who can field some data. I, for one, don't really care. @Grimlorn: 4/10
  21. Gulliver
    ... What Sykid said was correct. An absence from positions of power is, at face value, evidence of absence, nothing more. Everything beyond that requires interpretation and further evaluation. Define "inferiority". It can definitely be seen as evidence of an inferiority at reaching positions of power under the given circumstances. Please note that this is not necessarily "bad".
  22. Gulliver
    [Quote Your point being?
  23. Gulliver
    [Quote You do realize that having a female queen once in a while has nothing to do with having a female dominated society?
  24. Gulliver
    No. They could certainly have a city (or tribal village), especially one populated by non-humans, in which females fulfill certain administrative roles. An advanced human matriarchal society would be ridiculous. This hasn't happened once in the history of mankind and there's pretty obvious reasons for that.
  25. Gulliver
×
×
  • Create New...