Christliar

You do realize that allegory is a synonym for symbol and literary allegory is a *type* of symbolism. It isn't. There are clear differences between symbol, allegory, euphemism, metaphor etc. The short of it is that a symbol IS the idea or concept represented by it while allegory is an extended metaphor, is cheap (just ask Tolkien) and it represents something else that isn't it. It's somewhat more complicated than this, but this is the short version. This is all 18th century philosophy and that's how we rationalize the differences now.

All of the gods felt really shortsighted and kind of dumb (except Berath). I don't even get what they *do*. They don't answer prayers, don't create anything and don't involve themselves in the world. Except for Berath who actually has a domain that he keeps up to snuff, it's like a world governed by a bunch of Ao's from D&D, but it's not even that because they don't "govern" anything, they are just there for some stupid decision a bunch of people made 2000 years ago. So I don't think it's surprising that Hylea is all BIRDIES!! I think they all are a little unhinged. if they are supposed to be "symbols" for anything, that can't be right, because even in the real world a religious text or representation can't be a "symbol" for anything. ALL religious texts and representations are allegories and can NOT be symbols. Schiller already mused on this in the 18th century.

Props to Bioware for including multiple sexualities in their "romances". It really does help young LGB people come to terms with their sexuality, because it's nice to see that you aren't the only one and that you aren't some freak and a fluke of "nature". They also managed to include a transman (I think) in the game and be cool about it, so that's awesome too. With that said, however, it's still really creepy and voyeuristic (mainly due to fan service). Not that I dislike fan service, though. If it was in a different context I would never pass an opportunity to see Josephine's body or Iron Bull's muscled physique. The fan service itself isn't that bad, but Bioware always write it in a "wink to the camera" kind of way and it's really weird. I can go on forever trying to explain why Bioware's "romances" don't work, but many people have said why before me so I won't act like an echo chamber ;d. I don't think I can actually add anything worthwhile in this thread, since this topic has been done to death with everyone trying to find a solution to the "problem" of romances. I, however, can cite a decent example: Visas in KoToR 2 (props to Obsidian). It works mainly because you aren't actively trying to get in her pants or trying to choose the "right" dialogue options. She is the one who confesses her love to you, but not in a superficial "letz do eeet" kind of way (you never actually "do it" with her, either). She loves you because she sees a person who has suffered as much as she has, but also had the strength to continue on (like her). It's never actually made clear if that love is romantic and that's a bonus because there are many kinds of love outside of the romantic type. I don't know what else to say, really. Everything that has been said so far is valid - that you can have "deep and interesting" (for a lack of better words) companions without romances (duh) and it's true that it's a crutch for Bioware, but I think the majority of people here will agree that Bioware fail at many different types of writing and not only the romantic type. I don't want to sound hate-filled towards Bioware, though, since I never expected anything worthwhile from them, even though they managed to not pass even my nonexistent expectations by ruining Varric (the only character I like). Aaaand I'm continuing to sound hate-filled ;d I am not though and I'm going to stop writing about it. Anyway Visas... I'd like to hear you guys' opinions on her "romance" since I may have missed something that makes it not work. I'm sorry if she has been mentioned before, I just skimmed a couple of the last pages here.

That's not the weird part. The weird part is the level of obsession over the romances and the creepiness comes from a feeling that some people get some kind of inner satisfaction from the whole thing. The kind of satisfaction that goes beyond simple want of more roleplaying options in an RPG. It represents some deep personal issues and that is what sets most people's creep radar off. It's also a bit voyeuristic, but that's another discussion. (at least I think that's the case, I may be completely wrong, but something gives me the feeling I'm not far from the truth) I suppose I understand that games offer a way to explore ourselves and that's great. Sexuality and romantic relationships are a big part of life and I understand many people are uncertain of themselves and of those topics. I'm not trying to be judgmental about the whole thing, but I may be coming off as such. It's just that *that* level of obsession that is shown on these forums and Bioware's forums is what seems weird and bizarre to many people. Romances being horribly written is just part of the whole problem. (and, boy, are they *horribly* written (most of them))

I really have no idea why people are so obsessed with "romances". Ignoring the fact that they are always awful and creepy ( even P:T's which is one of the better tries) they get even more creepy when people gush over them like they do. Bioware's forums are literally infested with threads about romances and it rubs me the wrong way. The thing I don't get is the obsession itself, that is the most bizarre thing for me, but I digress. I really can't say if PoE will be better off without romances, because how can you quantify such a thing? It's like saying it will be better off without a murder mystery, but we don't have any way to know that. If the game calls for creepy wish fulfillment then sure, knock yourself out. KoToR 2 didn't have romances, but your companions did vie for your affections and Mira even turned you down which was awesome and showed that she is a person with her own desires and preferences and isn't just a puppet waiting for you to sweep her off her feet. Visas even confessed that she loved you, but she loved you for the right reasons and it didn't come off as sad. I think that's fine and it's normal for people to fall for you when you are a strong and capable person. You actively trying to get into their pants however, goes into a strange wish fulfillment territory which adds nothing to anything, but make your balls feel big (I suppose; I really have no idea what people get out of romancing characters in video games). The point I'm trying to painfully make is that sometimes romance in video games is acceptable and appropriate, but most of the time it isn't. It just comes off as weird and fan service-y and at the cost of being disconnected from the game just so it can smother you in its fan service-y blubbery rolls.

It'd be interesting, I think, if some form of shape-changing actually resulted in hybrid abilities that were the sort of splicing of your character's existing abilities and those of the animal. In other words, instead of "I'm a wolf now, so I can claw you," you might have something like Burning Hands merged with a claw attack. Maybe the wolf-form gets Flame Maul or something. That way, you're not just a wolf, but you're also not just a caster who happens to be shaped like a wolf for the time being, and happens to get a few benefits (usually HP/armor/speed/damage/attack-type) from that form. Instead of ability-for-ability conversions, it could even be tied to some subset of abilities, like a specialization or magic school. Divination? Your Wolf Form gets Divination Wolf Abilities. Destruction? Your Wolf Form gets Destruction Wolf Abilities. *shrug*. Those could even be further altered/customized via the progression of the Wolf Form ability, modifying feats, etc. I think if a Wizard or Mage (or any class, really), can simply get a single ability or spell that's something like ShapeChange, you should probably just get the benefits of that animal's physical form, and maybe retain your ability to cast some of your spells. But, if the ability to shapechange is a core component of a class, I'm a fan of the "something entirely new/unique" hybridization. Can't wait for more specifics of the Druids' Spiritshift, since it sounds like they're taking the hybridization approach, to some degree at least. Being able to transform into animals without much benefit always beguiled me. Here you are a being who can summon lightning storms, implore your deities for life saving healing, bend time and space to your will, your very music inspires extreme potency and competency, but you decide to change into a wolf which can bite and scratch, whoopdi-****ing-do. They have to find a reason for me to want to change into an animal (maybe not an animal? The plot thickens). Since WorstUsernameEver said they are going for anthropomorphic shapes, they have to answer these questions - What do I gain from turning into a werewolf/bear/flea/snake/hedgehog? Can I cast spells in these forms? If yes, why would I leave this form ever? If not, are the gains of this form juicy enough for me to want to be in it? How does the transformation happen - instantly or with some delay? How does this affect combat? Do i benefit the party as a whole by being in this form? Am I just a severely weakened version of some other class? If I'm as strong as them why would anyone pick any other class (I can turn into) ever? etc etc. I'm not really sure how they should go about this. As I said, I don't have a really good example of shape shifting done well, so it's kinda hard. I'm banging my head against the wall on this one and am drawing blanks ;d

It might have something to do with the fact that the ability is more in tune with assuming the spirit of the given animal (since you don't actually assume their entire physical form) and gaining some of its aspects and abilities? *shrug* Plus, you know, it kind of sets it apart from mere transformation magic. "Hi, I'm a druid." "Oh, hello, I'm a Mage. What do you do?" "Well, because I'm so attuned to nature, I can shapeshift into a bear." "Oh? That sounds a lot like my spell, called 'Shapeshift,' which allows me to also turn into a bear." "Yeah, but mine's totally different, because nature." "Hmmm... still sounds suspiciously like the same thing to m-" "*Bears the Mage to death*... What do YOU know?! u_u" The spell itself (Shapechange) was actually better, because you could change into ANYTHING except deities. It also didn't require you to throw away 10 levels into an honestly ****ty prestige class. I've never found shape shifting done good ever. WoW's was the best, because of the ease-of-transformation, but you still stood in one form for 90% of combat, because of your talents. It always seems that you just gimp yourself rather than being something useful or viable. I'm all for options so I'd LOVE a shape changing class in P:E, I just hope they can do it interestingly.

I think the other potential problem with something like immunity to magic weapons (or non-magic damage/weapons) is how broad that is. In a game in which you could feasibly have a party of non-mages, and no magic weapons, you're essentially at a brick wall. It's approaching the level of restriction at which a foe is susceptible to only a single type of attack. "You can only damage this thing with backstabs. I hope you have a Rogue, MUAHAHAHA!" Obviously that's more extreme, but it illustrates the extent of such restrictions, methinks. I think immunities (even when used sparingly) work best when they're against more specific forms of damage, rather than entire types. Even then, I still hold that it would be quite interesting if, say, a fire elemental was immune to fire damage, but that it could still be damaged/affected by something like a fireball (which explodes). You simply wouldn't be able to BURN the fire elemental, since you can't burn fire. Thus, if you have a party filled with fire mages, you're going to take a hit in effectiveness, versus a fight with a typical group of non-fire-immune foes, but forcefully throwing exploding magical balls (even of fire) still counts for something. What would be REALLY interesting (but admittedly hardly suited to a game like P:E -- probably only really suited for like a PnP campaign) would be if you could start so many fires in a smallish room with a flame/fire elemental inside, then flee the room and seal it off. Even though you aren't actually damaging the elemental, directly, with fire, your extreme amount of flames could burn all the oxygen in the room faster than it could seep in under doors, etc, and extinguish the fire elemental (or at least weaken it, if it's simply made out of molten/burning substance rather than being comprised entirely of flame). Anywho... simply put, I think it's best when you remove specific functions of tools from the equation, rather than entire tools (much less sets of tools). For the most part. It's fine to occasionally restrict a bit further, but I still think it should always keep in mind each classes'/roles ability to provide SOME effectiveness, even if it isn't via damage. Of course, in regard to non-magic immunity, I think P:E's lore rather supports the notion that everyone would have SOME means of combatting a foe, even if their physical weapons were extremely diminished in effectiveness, or even useless, what with its soul powers/magic. Yeah, I like that. I don't know what else I can add to this idea. I don't think fire elementals require oxygen since they draw their flame directly from the elemental plane of fire, but I get the gist of the overall idea :D It would be too much work though, since this isn't a point-and-click adventure game where you have to find extreme methods of dealing with situations. Other than that, yes to everything. P.S. You can actually burn fire ;d it creates plasma. (it's not that simple, of course, but the idea is the same)

I'm playing The Prophet modules for Neverwinter Nights and I have to say that it does quite a few good things with the difficulty and general pacing. You have to go into a mine to rescue some elf for such and such and this mine stretches into a spider kingdom in which he is found dead, Your main quest is done now and you can leave, but there are 4 extra tough bosses you can defeat (seriously tough, one is a cleric/mage with invisibility and regeneration and you are 5-6th lvl) who drop awesome loot. If you can defeat them all you perform a ritual to open even further into the temple where you fight an even harder boss with even more awesome loot. Also more importantly they were supported by lore. The whole rescue the elf thing went wrong because of those 4 bosses, because they just had to awaken centuries old Drow heroes. I find that level of exploration depth awesome and gives you incentive to explore while flinging everything the game has to offer at you (within reason, you can't have a 20th lvl demilich versus a 3rd lvl party) while remaining accessable to newer players. The 4 bosses were a mage who uses Stoneskin and Ice-based spells; A cleric/mage who uses invisibility the moment you attack her and casts every possible buff on herself and then summons a wight and a dire spider - she was the toughest of them all and I had to reload many times; A drider druid who was all about cc'ing your party with Entangle, Grease and healing himself, but I found he was the easiest of them all; and a Blackguard with a vampiric weapon who had massive hp and high AB and damage. The toughest boss was actually a previous party member of one of your companions who was turned into a drider with many spiders taking care of him. When you talk to him enough his previous party member attacks him and I think you can let him (the drider) kill him (your companion) and strike some sort of deal, but I'm not sure since I joined the fray immediately. All spiders attacked you and when you killed him he was resurrected by 4 orbs which you had to destroy. It was quite hectic and most importantly fun ;d Also awesome loot. I find these very hard optional encounters are the best, because they challenge you and give you incentive to explore. I think FF do this as well with the "weapons", but since I haven't played FF ever I can't tell from personal experience.

This is my fear, too. It could be avoided by not giving enemies any resistances until you get access to magical weapons, but eeehh.We need more information about P:E combat mechanics to make even the vaguest speculations.

This just seems like the normal D&D resistances, like undead being immune to sneak attacks and elementals being immune to their own element etc. ;d I'm 99% sure that P:E will have this. It works exactly like how you describe it, but sometimes more annoyingly especially for a rogue against an undead boss. ;d But that's *fine*, it adds variety and makes you focus on other characters.

You are quoting the wrong person :D I like pause and I don't think it really interferes that much with the flow. Micamo is the one you should be quoting ;d I also want to control everyone.

Again, I think you mistook my meaning partially. I wasn't intending overly specific feats and build-related things (although those aren't out of the question, really), but merely physical equipment properties that are circumstantially dynamic. A sword not causing bleeding against a given target hardly makes it useless, or demands that you switch weapons. Not to mention the fact that you'll control more than one character, unless you restrict yourself to a solo playthrough. AND you'll be fighting more than one foe, typically. If your Wizard's spells are suffering in effectiveness against a magically resistant enemy, this doesn't dictate that you MUST pull out a maul and go bash its face in or you lose. You can simply target a different foe, for normal OR even increased effect (weak-to-magic enemy), and have another character who's already not-using magic target that magically resistant foe. Anywho, I was only making examples to emphasize the importance of dynamic prompting of adaptation on the player's part. The specifics can be changed any way you'd like for all manner of reasons, but if things always work the same way all the time (this attack does more damage, this attack does less, etc.), then combat is hardly taking any advantage of dynamic factors. It helps when you use factors in pairs. If a specific piece of equipment yields 2 effects rather than just 1, then when 1 effect is nullified, the other remains. Or, if a fireball deals fire damage AND explosive-force damage, then you've got the opportunity for a foe who's resistant to fire but not to force, or vice versa. Only when you have multiple options to weigh are decisions really substantial. It is like you said. If all but one option is all but ineffective against a certain challenge, then you aren't really left with a choice, now are you... I suppose you are right. That does make you think which foe to attack with which character. I like it, it stops you from just controlling all 6 characters at once and overwhelming a single foe with everything you have. I don't think bosses should have those kinds of resistances though (unless they have reinforcements during the fight), it would make sense for them to be more powerful sure, but it simply removes 1 character (or 2 if your rogue is longsword speced) from the battle. Maybe not completely, but at least 1/2 of him/her.

I like the AI countering idea actually. That would add variety to your tactics and would keep the combat from getting boring, but that should be in addition to difficult encounters by themselves. Adaptive AI that functions instantly and in the moment (like a real person) would be the best. I have no knowledge of AI coding, but I would imagine that would be a nightmare to code, so I suppose it isn't a very realistic expectation. Ah, now I get it, but I don't think it would work very well and here's why: If P:E has something like weapon focus and weapon specialization like in D&D, that would severely gimp your character who's specialized in longswords with no way out, because the feats you've chosen are too specific. They can get around this by not including any types of specializations, but I think it's more fun to come up with interesting and viable builds for your character rather than having to constantly switch weapons which just adds unnecessary micromanagement and clutters your inventory. It frankly just adds another button for you to press automatically when you see someone resisting your longsword attacks. The difficulty comes from the AI itself, rather than any superfluous contrivances like "this sword deals this much damage, but oh wait! it's useless against this succubus, better get that spear out!". It just adds more layers of fluff rather than depth. Flexibility of mechanics adds depth that would allow both you and your enemies to adapt better and with more options.

I absolutely agree with you. Personally, I like the pause system, I was just curious how Micamo thought we'd have a tactical RPG with no pause. I said the IE games have horrible combat, because it's mostly based on luck and I don't like that. If I play my cards right I should be able to be in control of the battlefield without having to worry that my rogue will roll a 1 on his mass stun. I suppose that adds suspense, and we could still have it, but put a stat (for example WoW's hit rating) that will eliminate the chance of that happening if we so desire. But we've reaaaaally veered off-topic now ;d

Wouldn't removing the pause just make the game into a hack n slash in the vein of Diablo and Titan Quest? Just with more than 1 character? You wouldn't be able to control them all so well, unless they were controlled by the AI, but that defeats the purpose of having them besides the banter. Yes, I agree that IE games had horrible combat and I also agree that we shouldn't blindly copy everything from them, but how would you suggest we remove the pause and interface without making it a hack n slash, but worse?

So now we are going with the argumentum ad populum with determining if something is good or not? That's a fallacious argument and even if it wasn't, the number of sold copies of ME tells us nothing of the quality of its companions. It just tells us that it has sold however much copies.

Well, the first problem is a pacing issue. Pausing mid-combat is like getting up to go to the bathroom when you're watching a scary movie. When you've come back and sit down, all the tension is completely gone and the movie has to start over from scratch to get you worked up again. If you're repeatedly getting up and down or you have distractions (like the movie's playing in the background while you're fixing dinner and you're only looking at it occasionally) it's impossible for the movie to scare you no matter how skillfully crafted it is. The fundamental problem with RTwP is that it can't engage you on that sort of visceral level because these constant distractions from the action are baked into the core of the interface. Every time you pause, the excitement dissapates like the air from a popped balloon and the game has to start all over again from scratch to get you engaged again once you unpause. But you're gonna be pausing and unpausing pretty much constantly. (This, I suspect, is part of what happened to the combat in DA2: They recognized that the RTwP combats in DAO were excruciatingly slow, so they tried to spice it up by throwing in lots of weak enemies and gory explosions around everywhere. It... didn't work.) The second problem is one of interface. In the IE games you control your characters through clicking on hotbars. Torment made this issue even worse by introducing that stupid wheel thing. This kind of control schema isn't inherent to RTwP but it's the one Eternity seems to be moving forward with regardless. This type of control schema is simply unimmersive because it puts too many barriers between what you're thinking of doing and actually executing it. Compare how using your character's abilities works in D&D: You think of what you want to do, then you describe it to the DM, using your ability names as shorthand. So long as everyone at the table is familiar enough with the abilities that you can apply them without having to explain them and work out the math right there, it's fast, it's visceral, and it's extremely effective. This is why spells work so well: "Righteous Might. Quickened Divine Power. Extended Bull's Strength. Quickened Divine Favor. Alright, let's smash some faces." (It's also why I love ToB maneuvers and why I think 4E had at least half of a good idea with its consolidated Power system.) The constant design problem with D&D character abilities is to make them complicated enough to have varied, interesting uses and not get boring, but simple enough that they can be easily memorized and cleanly used at the table without breaking the flow of play. As a side note, compare the mouse+keyboard interface of Hotline Miami to the controller interface: Personally, I prefer the controller interface because smashing the stick in a direction feels like a much cleaner and better representation of what I'm about to do than jerking the mouse cursor around. The thing is you are controlling 5-6 characters at once and it would be impossible to tell them all what to do in a given round if you didn't have pause. Not only that, but pause gives you a reasonable ability to respond to unexpected events, like a sudden drop in health. I see where you are coming from, but it won't work in this type of game. It will only work if the combat is so slow paced that you wouldn't need pause, but that would be boring. Let's not talk of DA2, I still have nightmares ;d Also, unless they implement voice commands that work REALLY WELL, I don't see how you can get rid of the interface. Having a bazillion hotkeys mapped to your keyboard wouldn't solve your problem.

Negative. "I'd like the color of stop signs better if they were blue." -- Subjective value of the color of a stop sign. "The red of a stop sign provides great contrast with the typical surroundings of a stop sign, so that it is more easily noticed and can better do its job." -- Objective value of the color of a stop sign. Both are co-existing peacefully. So, the quality (or lack thereof) of a stop sign's color is BOTH subjective AND objective. If they were mutually exclusive, it could only be one or the other. In the case of this thread, "best" applies equally to both subjective ratings of companion properties AND objective ones. If you just want to know what people like about companions, for kicks, you don't ask "what makes them good?" If it was purely subjective, then the answer would be "Everything." The fact that they're literally useless in combat, even though you need combat effectiveness to make it through the game? Good. The fact that they're a talking belt? Totally good. The fact that they're a bad companion? You know what, since it's subjective, I'm gonna go with good, and it's correct, because subjectivity. So, yes, dropping "this is all just subjective anyway" in a discussion in which people have already proposed objective evaluations is like saying "that's great, but you're actually wrong and what you've pointed out is actually quite useless." It'd be like telling someone that a stop sign's ability to be seen actually has no bearing on the usefulness of a stop sign, but that hearing their opinion on the matter was lovely. It's just silly, to be honest. And that's all I'm going to say on the matter, since it's really not that complicated, and I'll not have people provoke clarification after clarification, then accuse me of somehow making a big deal out of this and derailing a thread when all I did was state a simple notion, then get antagonized about it. I wasn't judging anyone or criticizing anyone. I was quite simply pointing the existence of objective value in such a discussion as this one. I like the way you think. Yes, even in the arts there can be objectivity; I feel that people who say "it's all subjective" just can't express themselves fluently enough to actually present any valid arguments. It also defeats the whole purpose of a discussion and turns it into, like you said, a communal sharing of opinions. To add something on-topic which I forgot to mention last time: The companions should have some role or some significance to the overarching narrative. They should have a purpose beyond just existing to act as combat puppets and be disconnected from the story. Torment is absolutely marvelous in this regard, everyone there had a significance in the story. Kaelyn and Gann in MotB are nice examples too. Kaelyn's Crusade was ultimately tied to your success in retrieving your soul and Gann's dream walking is what helps you get the Mask. In MotB this connectivity is striking and extremely noticable, because the others (Safiya, Okku and One-of-Many) serve no purpose beyond filling party slots, not that they weren't interesting characters mind you, they just weren't important and in the end were overshadowed. Kreia and Visas in KotOR2 shine as well.

This seems like too much unnecessary micromanagement that would be annoying to deal with, rather than something that adds depth. Other than that I agree that difficulty should come from dynamic challenges. The AI should be increasingly smart on higher difficulties, maybe even gain additional abilities. You are also right that fights devolve into arithmetic too frequently, this is especially true in DA:O. I don't like the IE games' combat too, because, as I said, they are obnoxiously luck based than anything else. When I played Torment the combat, for me, was this jumbled mess in which I just stumbled upon and, being a mage, spammed most of my spells disorientedly. I want to see Obsidian take P:E in a different direction. JFSOCC was absolutely right when he, quite quickly, corrected me when he said that the combat should be fun and I wholeheartedly agree. It shouldn't be this boring wrapping around the good bits, it should compliment the story as well. But to get back to my original questions - how would we go about providing challenges to people who actively seek them? (namely me) We already mentioned smart AI and dynamic challenges which is a good start, but is it enough? What about fair rule systems? Should bosses, for example, cheat in this respect? Would this bring more challenges or just be annoying and unfair? Of course, not all encounters should break your back, the hard fights should be supported by lore. I'm sure I'm forgetting some questions, but at the moment that's it.

Since we aren't playing Kirby's Epic Yarn or Barbie's Horse Adventures I assumed failure is an option. Unless you are talking about failing the main quest, which while interesting, has no bearing on our current discussion. I'm talking strictly about combat and yes you should be able to fail. Or you are talking about being able to continue even if you fail in combat? That's... unorthodox and certainly interesting, but still it's a different discussion.

No, that's a bad question.The question is "How do I make combat fun and challenging both?" I just assumed that the fun is a given ;d But you are right, of course. I didn't phrase my question well enough, but it still stands though. Just a better one will be "How much combat potency should you lose, if you just tunnel vision for damage?" and "Should you lose any combat potency or should it be a viable tactic to just brute force your way through the whole ordeal?" I suppose a cheap answer would be "Just let players play how they want", but I think that should be reserved for the lowest difficulty.

I wanted to talk about the difficulty of P:E. I skimmed the first few pages and couldn't find a topic about it, so I decided to create one. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough, but here we go: I've been replaying DA:O on nightmare and couldn't help but notice how easy it is. When I played it for the first time I found it was more difficult than other games this generation, but that feeling went away when I got used to the mechanics. Now I just wail on the enemies and wait for them to die. That's not good combat. I know Obsidian is trying to capture the IE games, but those weren't *hard* per se, just obnoxiously luck based. I want to use tactics and all tools I have at my disposal. You should be punished for memorizing only damaging spells on your mage etc. The question is: How badly should you be punished? How difficult should the game be? How different should the experience be between normal and hard? How do you define difficulty in RPG's in general? Should anything be designed around luck? I have no idea where to even begin answering those questions, so I'll refrain from having an opinion before I read some of yours.

Yeah, I absolutely hate it when a debate springs up and someone throws down the "it's all subjective" card, it just seems like an easy way out of any argument. On-topic: Ehhh, it's a mess, to be honest. KotOR2's Kreia is the best of them all. But you are phrasing the question too restrictively, because not ALL of the characters in a given series or games are good. PS:T's Dak'kon is the most interesting of all the characters in that game, the others I only vaguely remember, although they all seem to represent some sort of torment, be it external (Ignus) or internal and that was awesome. Of all KotORs only Visas and Kreia are truly interesting, the others are all baggage. HK-47 is memorable, but he's just comic relief. NWN2 MotB has Kaelyn and Gann, the others are just there. All the other companions in NWN1 and 2 are boring and one-dimensional. Dragon Age: Origins' characters are one-note cardboard cutouts or have no personality at all (Wynne), so no winners there EDIT: Wait, no, I forgot Shale. She's the only semi-decent character there. DA2 has Varric, but that's it. In Mass Effect only Liara has a character arc, but it's too obvious that she's the pet project. I haven't played the other games, except a little of Baldur's gate 1 where the characters are really underdeveloped unless you have a mod. What more can I say, really. Bioware has bad writers, while Obsidian pour their souls in too few a characters in their games, but that's usually because they haven't the time to flesh them all out. What makes them good is their multi-faceted personalities or uniqueness. They also should have a character arc and not be static the whole game, you know, like a real person. They need to have something to prove that they are their own person and don't just exist to follow the protagonist or further his story. If they are unique (Kaelyn - celestial, Gann- Hagspawn, Visas - Miraluka Sith slave, etc.) their uniqueness should be explored and what sorts of challanges and advantages this comes with should be presented. Etc. etc. WHY a character is good isn't really rocket science, but it's hard writing one. I feel really cliche saying "multi-faceted personalities", but that's the easiest way to explain. I'd have to go through each character I think is good and say why to be able to present a more analyzed opinion.

Like everyone said there is simply too much wrong with the vanilla nwn2. Not that I didn't enjoy it when it came out considering nwn1 is my favorite game ever, but after playing MotB (yes, the only good nwn2) it felt shallow and dreary. Too much mindless trudging through hoops, horrible camera and controls, boring sidequests, illogical end boss, flat characters, uninspired locales, wasted potential, irritatingly stupid AI etc. The only good bits are the trial (wasted, again, because of the asspull that is the trial by combat) and the stronghold (it had awesome moments and it gave you many options). MotB on the other hand blew my mind, like Obsidian usually does. Safiya and Okku are kind of baggage, because they didn't really have anything to do with the main plot. Sure, Safiya is the Founder's spirit shard or whatever, but Safiya herself never does anything and her reasons for following you are "just because I don't have anything better to do". She just doesn't have a place in the narrative. I never used Okku that much and I sincerely don't know what he's supposed to contribute to the whole ordeal. For a bear spirit god he's certainly subtle and unmemorable and not once was it made a big deal that he's following you. The spirit eater mechanic is jarringly out of place with the rest of the gameplay. Storywise it makes sense, obviously, but gameplaywise it's just unnecessary. Gann and Kaelyn, ohhh boy. Kaelyn's devotion against everyone and everything she knew being a celestial truly inspired me and I really felt that she's doing the right thing. The hypocrisy and blatant cruelty of the gods somehow mirrored my own bad experiences with organized religion. The reveal of her preparation of another crusade was kinda rushed, I felt, but other than that spot on. Gann is a love-or-hate character, because he's narcissistic and cynical, but underneath that he is a good person who knows what he is worth and knows where respect is due. Not to aloof and distant gods whose sole interest is to compare penises and toying with mortals in a way to have the biggest one of them all, but to actions and character. I read somewhere that he was supposed to be bisexual, but due to executive meddling that was canceled. I felt it fit him, because of the aforementioned qualities he respects. I can not speak for One-of-Many, because I never recruited him, but some day I should. The only thing I didn't like about ALL characters (maybe without one-of-many) was the constant daddy and mommy issues. Not ONE character had a different stroke (maybe except one-of-many). Kaelyn with her grandfather, Gann with his mother, Safiya with her mother, Okku with his ancestors. The narrative structure was decently paced and you got to visit many unique places like the Skein and the Hag Coven, the City of Judgement, the shadow plane etc. They also felt like they belonged in the story, except the Wood Man. He didn't tell you anything that you couldn't have figured out and weren't blatantly told in the other places, especially by the Coven of Hags. Yeah, he helped you heal your spirit a bit, but that felt unnecessary. The ending was really rushed though, you step into the portal to the City of Judgement and lo! and behold the crusade is already underway and that was never truly explained, like they just waited there from when Kaelyn failed last time. I liked that you couldn't tear down the wall though, because for that first time you felt helpless in the grand schemes of the gods. You knew it was unjust, but you were powerless to stop it, like so many things in life. It also truly showed the divide between the power of the gods and of mortals. The thing to take away from MotB is the allegories you can make between real life and the events and characters in the game. Also the pointing out of flaws in reasoning of the established norm like the wall of the faithless. The things not to take is the dissonance between some characters and the story, like Safiya and Okku who had no place in the narrative. The spirit eater mechanic and the influence system which just felt meta-gamey. Micamo already ripped the OC a new one and it's spot on, so I don't have anything else to add. SoZ is neutral to me, it didn't really have anything to show and it didn't really have that much bad to be used as an example. I haven't played it all that much to give a more accurate summary of my thoughts, but I felt it did what it set out to do and that's fine. Although MotB is really, really awesome, the closer to perfection it got the more glaring the flaws became, but nothing is perfect. It was also heavily pushed down by the hand of executive meddling, but this time that isn't the case so I hope P:E can truly become what Obsidian want it to be and they always manage to amaze when they are at their best.