Sylvanpyxie

In terms of the name? I prefer Ranger. It just seems more respectful of their abilities as a whole, not just the tracking and killing of animals, but skills that grant them a greater understanding of their surroundings and greater chances of survival. It's a pretty inconsequential thing, really, but I definitely prefer Ranger.

I can list a number of games I truly love, but it would be an insanely long list and I wouldn't want to inflict any more endless posts on you lovely people... The one thing every game I love has in common is the ability to capture my imagination. In Role-Playing Games it's easier for me to immerse myself in the setting, because there's always so much more definition to the world. When I first played Baldur's Gate I was captured immediately by the game and it's setting. There was so much lore that I didn't know, so much history for me to learn, so much intrigue and mystery that I just couldn't help but get caught up in it. I found myself so deeply pulled in that my imagination caught fire and, for the first time in my little life, I didn't see a "Player Character"... I saw a person. A little, tiny, pixelated person, someone who had her own hopes, her own dreams and beliefs. She became so different from who I was and I got the experience this rich, beautiful world in a completely different way. I could see her, my little character, like this perfect picture fixed in my mind. I could see her long hair and her practical robes blowing in the breeze, hear the rattling of potion bottles and the trudging of feet as she explored boggy swamps and dusky tombs. It was an incredible experience, being able to so easily imagine these fine details in this grand adventure. My imagination just got worse the more games I played, eventually I was taking the most simple games and turning them into these huge endless stories. I remember when I went back to play Dungeon Keeper for a second time and I just became overwhelmed by the smallest things. I could so easily imagine myself in the life of a poor little Imp, constantly toiling away to build the ultimate dungeon for my Evil Mistress and all her minions. I could practically see the disgust on the beautiful faces of the Fairies as they were forced to share lodgings with the unclean, extremely gassy, Bile Demons. I could feel the seething hatred of the Vampires as they finally reached their limits and attacked their rival researchers, the Warlocks. I couldn't possibly define exactly what it is that causes me to love these games the way I do, but - The common thread between all my favourite games is the sheer creativity that they inspire in me. The endless possibilities that capture my mind and the untold stories that set fire to my imagination. It's a truly wonderful thing when a game offers you a world that just pulls you in and never lets you go. 'Course, that's just me, always getting lost in my own head.

Oh good god. I would rather break my eardrums with rusty knives than listen to that again. Don't me wrong, talking swords are awesome (I actually like Enserric the Grey from Hordes of the Underdark)... But Lilacor? Lilacor was a step too far. A step. Too. Far. For quotes themselves... I think it depends on how the quote is delivered. I like witty one-liners as much as the next girl, but when they're delivered in a whiny, grating and almost intolerable voice? They wear on me quite quickly and I find myself wishing I had chosen a more mellow voice set. 'Course, that's just me. I'd rather hear them used sparingly and to full effect, as apposed to every other mouse-click.

On this whole "Combat XP topic" - I don't understand the mentality that one specific option should yield more experience than any other. As a Player, I like to get involved with my character and build up their personality as much as possible - I myself am disconnected from my decisions and I instead make my choices based on what my character would consider to be the "wisest" course of action. I don't understand why I should be penalized for that... If I have a Rogue that wants to sneak past a load of crazy Barbarians in order to steal their treasure, why does she deserve less experience than someone else? If I have a crazy Barbarian that wants to kill an entire camp of sneaky Rogues in order to steal their treasure, why does she deserve more experience? Why does one of my characters deserve more experience than the other? Why should one character be punished and denied more experience, simply because she approaches a difficult scenario with a different solution? Is there actually a valid reason that my character experience should be dictated by what the Developers consider to be the "best" solution? I don't like the idea of being punished simply because I choose to play my characters differently.... It honestly seems like a selfish concept to me.

Casavir and Elanee always seemed kind of bland to me, I kind of agree. Well... No, bland is the wrong word - They weren't entirely bland just maybe kind of... Meek? Look at Bishop in comparison, he was so forward with his philosophy, so up in arms when you were protecting the weak. I didn't like him, personally, but his philosophy made a twisted kind of sense to me and him constantly berating my abilities was hard to ignore. He was constantly mocking me and I eventually got baited into proving that I was stronger than he thought I was. His opinions influenced how I began to behave. That only happened because Bishop was such a loud mouthed little git, he was so ready for a fight and so quick to mock me that it was just impossible to ignore his challenge. Every single character eventually got in your face and challenged you on something eventually. Casavir and Elanee never did this, the only thing Casavir and Elanee did was show disapproval at your actions - They never really challenged you, they never shoved their righteous thinking in your face and they never shouted so loud that your eardrums ruptured. For me, personally, Casavir and Elanee weren't bland. They were just overshadowed by much more powerful characters. It takes a lot for me to look at a character and find utterly no redeeming qualities, the only time this has really happened is with Alistair in Dragon Age Origins - I kept looking to see what his character was and I just found... Nothing. Just one liners and terrible ones at that. He was kind and caring in that idealistic "everything will be fine" kind of a way - The romantic naivety that everything will be fine assuming you strive to be a good person. It was really kind of.... I dunno. I don't have a word. There was just nothing that seemed to balance the shallow ideals that Alistair had, it was disappointing. I really.. I just didn't connect with Alistair at all.

I feel that an important thing to consider with romantic content is the progression of a Player/NPC relationship. I don't just want to be thrown into the romantic deep end, I want to feel the gradual build up of a relationship between myself and the character in question. I'm one of those people that feels like romantic interactions from the start are a little.... Odd. It's not that it's not great to flirt with a character you like, but I have to wonder how you can actually like a character that you only met five minutes ago? You know hardly anything about a character, yet you're more than welcome to flirt and engage in romantic interactions? This works in some ways - if i'm playing a Foxy Rogue I wouldn't be offended at the opportunity to be a shameless flirt - but for serious romantic content? It just makes no sense to me. I don't just want to be shoved into a romance. I want to be given the opportunity to appreciate their character before I'm overwhelmed by romantic interactions - I want to understand their beliefs, I want to gain their trust and earn their friendship. I want to know them, and then - maybe - I want to push a few of their buttons, just to see how they respond. How they respond will give me even more understanding into their character, and then I can truly know if I want to pursue a romance, or if they'll even be interested in one. I think it's vital, this period of platonic camaraderie, if you don't have this chance to learn about a character, if you aren't given this opportunity to understand who they are, then you might discover you're ill-suited to each other further down the line and then what? You might discover that this Dashing Rogue loves to murder small children, something you might have known if you hadn't gone all love-sick over him, something you might have known if you'd just slowed down and learnt more about him. This is the most important thing to me, this realistic and gradual build up of a relationship. It helps me to connect with a character, it helps me decide if I'm truly interested in their company or if I would prefer to leave them behind. The content itself can be as heart-breakingly tragic as it likes. It can be sappy happy rainbows for all I could care. As long as the relationship between me and the character feels real, as long as the character feels real, then I will be emotionally invested in anything that the writers throw at me - whether it leads to emotional turmoil or elation. Of course, that's just my opinion on it and other people might disagree but - The character and the relationship itself are what matter to me at this point, because I trust that Obsidian will make the content utterly incredible and emotionally spectacular.

Gannayev from Mask of the Betrayer - I liked how he hid his emotions and personal problems behind a curtain of arrogance and wit, I liked Atton from The Sith Lords for much the same reason. He was also fairly unique, both in terms of his powers and in terms of his race, and I found it quite fascinating. I appreciated his sense of humour, the banter he would engage me in and I enjoyed his character thoroughly - His intelligence, his arrogance, his wit and all the flaws that went with him. His dislike for his unknown parents and, to be perfectly honest, tottering around the Sunken City with his mother wailing like a banshee then discovering how deeply she had been tormented by her kin.. It was one of the more memorable experiences of my gaming life. Bishop from Neverwinter Nights 2 - I liked him, yet I didn't like him. I like that he constantly questioned my actions, I liked his logical approach to weakness and strength and I liked how it all made a twisted kind of sense. I went into Neverwinter Nights 2 with a character that was totally set in her beliefs and yet, by the time I had reached the end of the game, all of her experiences and all of Bishop's personal input began to make her, and me, doubt a few things. I love that a character can make me doubt my choices, I love that a character, no matter how spiteful or evil they may appear, can cause me to stop and truly assess what I'm doing and yet... That's exactly what I hate about him. I hate that he caused so much hesitation, so much contemplation and so much blooming doubt. Kreia from The Sith Lords - For much the same reasons as Bishop. I didn't trust Kreia, not even a little tiny bit. I didn't trust her intentions or her blatantly hidden agenda, I didn't trust a single thing that she said to me and yet... The woman made sense. Bishop challenged everything I believed in and it was a very aggressive challenge that completely lacked in finesse, but my experience with Kreia was so different. Our philosophies matched up, we saw things with the same eyes and, while we disagreed on some things, more often than not we were in agreement. That made it so much harder for me, since we agreed on so many topics, I found it difficult to challenge the views that I disagreed with. Unlike Bishop, Kreia had a foothold and that made the doubt so much harder for me to handle. She was a brilliant character and our similarities were disturbing. I don't know if she'd actually count, but Shandra Jerro from Neverwinter Nights 2 was a big one for me as well - I didn't like having to lumber some no-named Farm-girl everywhere with me, I found it really irritating that I couldn't just dump her somewhere, but I needed her so I played nice and pretended to care in order to further my own agenda. It's something I do quite a lot - play nice with characters I'm not particularly interested in simply to achieve an ultimate goal - so I didn't think too much about it. I just wasn't all that interested in Shandra's existence and when her death came along I was completely unmoved. That is.. Until I stopped to think about it. To me, Shandra was the kind of character you rarely look twice at, but when I began to look at her more closely, at our conversations and the time we spent together, I started to feel utterly terrible for using her the way I did. Looking back, I realized things about Shandra's character that I had never noticed. She was brave, refusing to sit on the side lines while some pretty heavy bad-guy stuff was going down. She was caring, being one of the few companions that seemed to show genuine concern over my well-being, despite the fact my existence practically ruined her life. I realized that Shandra truly cared about my character and she ultimately sacrificed herself to prove it. Despite how easily I had overlooked her, Shandra became one of my all time favourite characters, she had the courage to stand up and fight for what she cared about when most other people would run away screaming. In the end, she truly had an impact on me. Valen Shadowbreath from Hordes of the Underdark would probably have to be the last one - My first experience with Valen was questionable, my perception of his character was skewed when I first encountered him. He was rude, showed no faith and regularly questioned my intentions. He assumed I had some hidden agenda, that I didn't care about the people that I was trying save and that really pissed me off. If I had the option, I probably would have left him behind, but I needed a Fighter and he ended up tagging along. I couldn't have imagined that Valen would completely change my opinions of him, but in the end he did. It wasn't that I began to warm up to his character, it was more the fact that his character warmed up to me. Valen constantly questioned my motives and prodded me for some kind of sign of impending betrayal, it was really irritating, but eventually he stopped and began to trust me. He started to appreciate my help and admit that he wouldn't have been able to do half the stuff we had achieved together. He let his barriers down and showed me less of the hard, icy General of the Rebel Armies and more of the squishy, humourous and kind-hearted Valen that was underneath. It felt like a very natural progression of a Player/NPC relationship, evolving from stand-offish professionalism into a begruding respect and eventually ended up being a great friendship. He was a brilliant character and the progression of the interactions was handled perfectly. I also want to give honourable mentions to the Kobold Bard Deekin Scalesinger from Shadows of the Undrentide and Hordes of the Underdark - His innocent and idealistic view of the world is adorable and makes him appear almost naive, but Deekin holds hidden wisdom and understanding of the prejudices that he and his kind will always have to endure, no matter how much they might try to change. Despite all the things that could put him down, Deekin always gets back up and keeps fighting not only for his own place in the world but also a place for all his kobold kin. Sorry for killing you with so many words but there you go - My personal favourite characters and why I like them (or loathe them.. Grr, Bishop!) so much.

I'm not saying they need to remain static. While there should always be core characteristics that remain unchanged(in my opinion), it's perfectly fine for characters to evolve in a natural manner that is suitable for their character. However, I have a problem when the only thing that causes a character to change is the Player. I shouldn't be the only person in the known universe that can cause people to completely change their views on life, I shouldn't be the only thing around that can "fix" all their problems. I firmly believe that a character can find it's own "atonement" or evolve in a perfectly natural manner simply from the events they experience in their travels - I don't believe they should change simply on the word of the Player. A few words of encouragement here or there from the Player, when the character themselves begins to see things in a new light, is all well and good. But the Players having the power practically beat someone over the head with the Stick of Change is something that I dislike, greatly.

Things I could do without.... Flawed Party-Characters that the Player needs to "fix". I absolutely love flawed characters. Angry bastards, bitter cynics, self-absorbed gits, clumsy screw-ups. I like characters that have their own problems, their own failings, characters that make mistakes and have their own views on life, no matter how cynical those views might be. Characters that have experienced things that have made them who they are, things that might be truly and utterly terrible. Who am I to come along and suddenly make everything "better"? I really don't need or want the power to "fix" everybody and/or solve all their problems. I hate it.

Amazing, full bodied, facial hair. I love a man that can sport a big, bushy, irresistible beard.

That's the problem a lot of people have though - Romance isn't "just another relationship", not anymore. It has become so important, so all encompassing and piled with so many expectations that it now tends to overshadow all other forms of Player/NPC relationships and that's why so many people have problems with it. Bioware games are an excellent example, though not the only example, of this - Romance receives more content and, while it might be strictly "romantic content", it's still an unfair distribution of character interaction (they've even linked serious character evolution to their romantic dialogues on occasion). Romances aren't more important than any other form of relationship. They don't mean more than friendships or rivalries, they aren't worth more than platonic love or blatant antagonism. All relationships are different, but they're all equally wonderful and they all deserve the same treatment. Yet somehow romances rise above this, they're held in the highest regard and given the greatest treatment - bonus conversations, more content, more interaction - they are given everything that grants them a greater sum of content, more content than any other form of relationship. It's unfair no matter how you look at it, and a lot of people have a problem with it (rightly so). This hasn't always been the case - though from my experience, Baldur's Gate 2 also offered a great deal more content to romantically involved characters than it did to platonic relationships - but it's the modern expectation that people now apply to romance. It's become important, it somehow deserves more and the people that choose to pursue it, for some reason or another, seem to believe that's perfectly okay. It isn't - No one should be deprived any major character interactions or character evolution simply because they choose not to pursue a romance. If the relationships were fair and well balanced then I imagine a lot of people would simply go about their business, choosing to pursue the relationships that they would prefer - whether it's a romantic relationship with a Sexy Paladin or an unhealthy love of Bloody Giblets. But things aren't balanced, they aren't fair. Friendships, rivalries, bloody giblet obsessions and all other relationships often suffer at the hands of romance and a lot of people understandably have a problem with that. I understand that it's a topic that will never reach an agreement, but I think it's vital that people try to understand each other on this - Both sides have perfectly valid arguments for, and against, romantic inclusions. It's the reason I try to keep open-minded about it.

So were Traynor and Cortez, they still count. They aren't companions either. And that's perfectly fine, but with a limited number of companions available I'm of the opinion that too many "options" could cause romances to become overbearing to interactions. In and of itself it might be too damaging, despite the small number of companions that we will be receiving, four potential romantic options might not become too overbearing - Assuming that it's handled with a delicate hand and not the clumsy oafish writing techniques that "Anti-Romancers" are afraid of. I myself am not in the "Anti-Romancer" camp, I sit quite firmly on the fence, trying to see the positives and negatives - Options can be a huge positive, offering opportunity to the more picky players. But it can easily become a negative, especially if it's coupled with other failings. Romance itself requires a very delicate balance, but the expectations of romance coupled with the reasonable number of four options could quite easily be the downfall of character interactions and integrity. As I said though, this is my view and we're not so much in agreement - I just hope you can understand how precarious the balance is. Edit: Don't take this the wrong way or anything, but I have to admit that I find it quite funny how you used Baldur's Gate 2 as an example, considering not only the insanely large number of available followers, but the fact there weren't really any "options". Not for Lady-Players at least. *Grin* Hawke's Sibling. Bethany or Carver.

Kaidan, Ashley, Liara - Three in Mass Effect. Jacob, Jack, Miranda, Thane, Garrus, Tali, Kelly (Plus Liara in Lair of the Shadowbroker, or Kaidan/Ashley carrying over) - Seven(/eight/nine/ten) in Mass Effect 2. Ashley, Kaidan, Liara, Garrus, Tali, Miranda, Jack, Kelly, Traynor, Cortez (Thane and Jacob were neglected or ended) - Ten(/twelve) in Mass Effect 3. The number escalated dramatically. The quality declined rapidly. So just over half were romantic options. Overbearing, overwhelming, unnecessary. At least, in my opinion.

In terms of the more subjective side of the argument it all boils down to the Players - What some people might find charming and intriguing others might find dull in comparison and this isn't something that will be changed. There will always be people that enjoy a character like Grobnar Gnomehands and there will always be those that hate him, no matter how hard you try to make him pleasing. I wouldn't like to see the formula for character design change in an attempt to please the masses. It would be a futile endeavour that would have the same results - Some Players interested, others not. No sense changing something that, in my opinion, isn't broken. Leaving the subjective round about nature of the character personality argument behind, I would like to share my experiences and opinions on the memorability of characters: I find it difficult to assess companions as good/bad, memorable or not. I tend to try and keep things in the perspective of my character as much as possible, and this includes character interaction. Obviously as a Player I have favourite characters - Grobnar Gnomehands for one - but that doesn't mean I'm going to be gluing myself to them for the majority of the game every time I play, simply because my character might not share my opinion. Maybe it's just that I like to immerse myself so deeply in the personality of my own character, but I always find myself quite heavily impacted by the characters of the games I play and they all end up sticking in my mind, for both their good and bad qualities. The only characters that really fade into my memory are the ones that are so poorly written that they have almost no redeeming qualities, but even then one of my characters will inevitably become compatible and I'll end up dragging them around anyway. As a Player - I disliked Bishop and his self-absorbed egotistically mocking nature and yet, despite my hatred of him, I can enjoy his character. Not because he's a Hot Ranger, not because he's an awesome badass, but because when I look at him through the eyes of my character I managed to find a depth and complexity that I wouldn't have seen. It's a unique experience, uncovering a certain sense of joy from a character I loath and, no matter how much I want to disregard him as a character, I find it impossible to forget him. I've always felt that bias against characters is the result of Player knowledge, disregarding a character that the Player dislikes, no matter how much they might add to the experience. When I pick up an RPG I try to leave my Player opinions at the door, I get the most enjoyment when I allow my characters to lead me and they often lead me to a different cast of characters each time. I always end up making the characters "fit" and, no matter how much I dislike them, I still seem to enjoy their company in the end. I can understand why some people would go out of their way to avoid characters they dislike, but speaking for myself, I consider every character to memorable (though admittedly, it's not always in a good way).

Holy Mother of God, you mean... You'd have to change? Forgive me if I don't find this quite as horrifying as you seem to. So, I have this Cheeky Little Minx of a Rogue and she is head over heels for this Gorgeous Self-Righteous Paladin, obviously our Gorgeous Paladin friend is disgusted by my Rogue's constant lying, cheating, stealing and backstabbing and he has decided, despite my Rogue's best efforts, that their relationship will remain purely professional. My little Rogue, who is so completely smitten with this sexy hunk of Paladin, has realised her only option is to try and change her ways - less lies, less stealing, less cheating and generally trying to be a better person. Our Paladin buddy notices the change in her and, despite the odd wicked streak that my Minx still displays, he tries to be more supportive of her attempts at atonement and redemption, becoming more friendly and developing a good relationship with her. It's not really quite as game-breaking as you seem to think, sometimes to get the things that you want you - The Player - need to change. It's not "Out of Character" and it's not wiping her slate clean, it's simple character evolution - Her experiences changing her perspective, giving her the inspiration to change. I don't have to do it, of course, but if my little Minx truly cared for her Gorgeous Paladin friend then she would make the effort to gain his affections. If it's so much trouble for you to conform your character to the ideals of your potential Love Interest then maybe you don't actually deserve the love and respect of the Love Interest anyway. Now that I've gotten that off my chest: There is never going to be enough romantic options to please everyone, heck there won't even be enough options to please the majority of Players. We're too varied, we're too different and our expectations differ. So I have to ask - Where does it stop? Two options? Three? Four? Five? Ten? Twenty? Heck, just let us suck-face with every NPC in the game, then no one can complain that they couldn't get it on with their favourite NPC in the game, whether it was the Gorgeous Paladin Companion or the Sexy Barmaid in Random Inn Number 22. There are limits to what the writers can do, and there are limits to how much "romance" a game can endure before it becomes overwhelming. I for one do not want to worry that every time my Rogue bends down to loot a chest she's going to be jumped by her entire Band of Adventurers. I don't want to enter a conversation with my companions only to have overbearing Romantic Dialogue shoved down my throat - We see enough of it in Bioware games, among others, and whether you believe that level of romance is "acceptable" or not is irrelevant because is still damages character interactions. First it's "Politically Correct Number of Love Interests" then it's "I wanted to romance a <Very Specific Character Archetype>" then the next thing you know there's romantic context in every single conversation you have, every character in your Band of Brothers is trying to pull off your pants and then the characters become so all encompassed by Romantic Expectations that there's no real characterization left. The expectations won't falter, the demands won't end and we end up with another game promoting "Character Interaction" when in actuality the only "Interaction" you'll get is the romantic drivel that will get poured down your throat. No, these "expectations" don't apply to everyone that's posted in these threads, I know that, and I mean no offense but this kind of Player Entitlement doesn't stop, and it is exactly why I'm so completely and utterly, pant-wettingly terrified of the idea of Romance in this Project.

As much as I loved Minsc I would be quite disappointed if a character even remotely similar to him was in this game. Not only because it would feel like a rehash, but I honestly believe that his character was quite shallow in comparison to other comic reliefs that I've seen in games. Minsc wasn't a very deep character and, no matter how much I had enjoyed his antics when I was younger, I always felt that he existed as a joke and nothing more. I'm hoping that the writers can create a brilliant cast of characters with many different aspects to their personalities, a deep and complex range of beliefs and each of them entirely unique in their own way. There's nothing wrong with having a comic relief character, but I would be utterly horrified if the character remained completely one dimensional and existed simply to get a few cheap laughs. So for me, personally, I would rather not have a rehash of Minsc. I would prefer Obsidian to approach a "comic relief" with fresh ideas and try to make all the characters as deep, complex and engaging as possible without relying on too may cheap laughs. That's just me though.

I always try to create a different personality for each play-through. I like shaping my characters as they progress through the game and experience more of the world, and all of the emotions that go with a life of adventure. I like to see them evolve as they experience more trauma, causing their personalities to shift and their beliefs to change. Sometimes I end up with a character similar to myself, but they usually only share one or two of my traits - If I make a religious and honourable character they will have my ideals, but little else of me. If I create a charming and self-centered rogue they will usually have my sarcasm, but little else. There's a dash of me in every character at one time or another in their virtual little lives, but overall I like to keep my characters as original as I can.

I'm not going lie, I haven't read the entirety of this thread yet but I would like to say that I really am hoping to see a certain level of sexism in the game. As long as there's a way to counter it, and there always should be, both genders should be viewed differently by different characters and cultures. If there's a character in a quest line that has been rather built up to be a sexist pig, then I fully expect that character to treat me like he would any other woman. Whether he leers at me, tries some extremely terrible chat up lines(or some really smooth chat up lines) or laughs at my fully plated Fighter, claiming she's "playing at war", I would expect him to try something and I would be bitterly disappointed if he didn't. If I encounter a stalwart, gentlemanly warrior and I drop him on his arse in combat, I would fully expect him to gracefully concede, perhaps even admit that I fight better than most men he's faced. Men shouldn't be exempt of this either, if a culture is dominated by feminine power I would fully expect a Male Player character to be treated with mirth or disdain, warrior women laughing at how pitiful he must be in combat and claiming his large sword is compensating for something, and he should have the option to challenge their beliefs and prove his worth, and the worth of men in general. If a Male Player engages in dialogue with a wanton housewife I would fully expect for her to respond differently to him if he's a man, whether she drops a few subtle hints at being "so lonely" or practically throws herself onto the poor man, the conversation should differ depending on your gender. Each character is different and each of them have their own personalities, beliefs and opinions. A lecherous pig should respond poorly to a Female Player, an amazon woman should respond poorly to a Male Player. The characters should dictate the responses and certain characters should behave differently depending on your gender. Characterization shouldn't be forsaken for the sake of political correctness. That being said, there obviously needs to be the option for the Player to retaliate in kind. I have no problem with lecherous pigs or bigoted idiots in my computer games, but I need to have the option to retaliate and put them all down a peg. Dragon Age Origins had a certain degree of sexism in it and when I was playing through the Human Noble and City Elf origins I always had the option to make sexist pigs eat their words. I could curb-stomp them into a gooey red paste and that was, quite frankly, one of the most fulfilling parts of the game. This should always be an option, a Player should never be "put down" without having the opportunity to grind someone into dust. Overall, I like having a certain level of sexism, aimed at both genders equally. I think it opens up more avenues for characterization and helps writers maintain consistent characters overall. Though there obviously needs to be options available for the Player to retaliate against sexist comments, I honestly believe that political correctness should not stand in the way of story-telling. Still, everyone's opinion is different and this is just mine.

Raymond E Feist. If only for his convoluted plots and the level of equality that his characters maintained(at least in the books I've read), both in terms of power and importance, not a single one of them really raising above the others and each of them maintaining their own flaws. Also, since I can't stop at just one, I have to mention George RR Martin and his Song of Ice and Fire series, his political plot lines are both complicated and utterly brilliant. His characters also hold the same sort of depth, complexity and dimension as Feist's, each one of them playing their own part in the grander scheme of things, each carrying their own burdens and each of them growing as people through-out the course of the series.

I can understand why some people might prefer to have a fully voice game, or even partially voiced game, but I love to read and I love to let my imagination run wild with the dialogue in the game. I disliked the voices in Neverwinter Nights 2 because I felt as though the voice actors didn't quite capture the personality of the characters as well as my imagination could have. Maybe it's just because I read so much and my imagination likes to run on overdrive, but I much prefer the opportunity to imprint my own reactions upon the dialogue. I can't do that with a lot of voiced lines, and I find that it truly restricts my enjoyment of a game. A voice actor will never be able to live up to the expectations of my imagination. It also doesn't help that, in my personal experience, an over abundance of voiced characters tends to leave far less dialogue content as a whole. Whether that's because of resource restrictions and the cost of voice actors, or simply because of lazy writers, I don't know. But I much prefer to have as little voiced dialogue as possible, especially if it gives me not only a large number of dialogue options, but also a larger in-depth view of the characters. Of course, that's just me, and other people will obviously prefer to have as much voiced as possible, but for me, personally, voice actors will never be able to compare to the emotion and the depth of my own imagination.

Well. Fighter, Ranger, Rogue and Barbarian always seem to be the same thing from game to game and, while Obsidian might do something different with them, it's pretty much going to be the same stuff as it always is - Hit stuff with axes, hit stuff with arrows, hit stuff with daggers, hit stuff with axes while really angry. There's not a lot that you can do to break the mold with those classes, so I'm not very interested in hearing more. And while Wizards, Ciphers and Paladins have a little more lee-way... I'm definitely most interested in seeing what they do with Monks, Priests and Chanters, since we have little to no information in how they're going to work.

Word games. Guessing games. Riddles. Mazes. Sequences. Sliding tiles - It's not the type of puzzle matters to me, it's about how difficult it is to complete. A puzzle just isn't fun for me if I can just breeze through it with barely a single thought. Dragon Age Origins had a few riddles and word games and a physical puzzle that required moving around your party characters and I found them all to be lacking. They were either overridden by a character stat(dex/int or persuasion) or they were just downright easy. The riddles were the worst. Disregarding the fact that the riddles themselves were extremely simple - The multiple choice dialogue offered you no room for error, since the answer was proudly displayed with neon lights. Sure, you technically could pick the wrong answer, but the "wrong" choices were so extremely far fetched that it would be hard for anyone not to pick out the correct, and obvious, answer in a heartbeat. Honestly, I swept through the riddles in that game with barely a break in my stride, and that was so extremely disappointing that I almost stopped playing. The Physical Puzzle, by popular opinion, is supposedly the "hardest" in Dragon Age Origins, requiring you to move around your party characters to push down the correct buttons in the correct order. It required me to pause for a moment and assess the buttons, but that was all it took, a short pause and I flew past the puzzle with barely a backward glance. I found the sequence itself so simple to figure out that I practically had it memorized after my first run, and I discovered on a later play-through that it wasn't randomized, needless to say the entire thing was wasted on me. A lot of puzzles recently have just been jumped up "connect the dots" or the most simple riddles possible with obvious answers in the dialogue responses. I don't see the point of including puzzles if they're not going to be the least bit challenging. I love to be challenged, it's where most of my fun comes from, whether it's by combat or by mazes, puzzles or word games. While I know that the combat will be as challenging as I like, I worry that puzzles will continue to disappoint me with bland and straightforward messes that can barely be considered "puzzles". The last puzzle to make me stop, think and even take notes, was "Hells" from Mask of the Betrayer - A word/guessing game in the Sunken City. It wasn't even complicated, all you had to do was guess, in the correct order, which 4 Hells the man was thinking of, if you get too many wrong guesses you lose. Simple. Utterly simple. You guess once for a starting point and you work from there - Discarding some names and attempting to arrange the rest in the correct order. Hells was one of the most fun "mini-games" I've ever played and all it took was a single NPC in a tiny room. Puzzles don't need to be complicated, but I really do think they need to be challenging. Anything from riddles and word games to sequences and mazes, it should all be challenging, fun, and incorporated in a seamless manner. Although I hope that this Project will produce a good sum of puzzles that will make me curse liberally and chew through many pencils, I don't think riddles and puzzles should be a "requirement" for advancement - There should always be multiple solutions to a problem, even if one of those solutions is making a Riddler choke on his giblets, no one should ever be forced to pursue a course of action they don't want to. Duh. All just my opinion mind you.

I usually start games out with a Cleric, so it would usually be Priest.. That being said, a lot of more modern games I've been playing as a Mage so I might end up as a Wizard. I've also begun replaying a lot of older games as a Bard and I'm enjoying that a heck of a lot, so I might end up going Chanter. I will be playing a Cleric, Chanter or Wizard, but it's quite up in the air at the moment... I just don't know which one it will be. Chanter definitely sounds the most interesting at the moment, we'll see if any of the others peak my interest when more information is released.

I'm sorry.. I can't help but feel you've missed the entire point I was making with that particular argument. Unwelcome advances are not my concern, blatant disregard for consistent characterization is. If a character has shown a complete lack of empathy and an interest in nothing but the blissful feeling of bloody giblets rubbing against his skin then his priority should not be to disrobe a woman and make sweet love to her like the classiest gentleman in the known universe. He should be more interested in where he'll get the giblets for his next bath. Being a Player Character should not allow me to change a character like that by will of the Gods. This guy thrives on violence, he lives for death, he has utterly no remorse and a blatant disregard for the suffering of others, I should not have the power to wipe his slate clean and turn him into the living embodiment of the suave and sophisticated James Bond. If the first Baldur's Gate game had included romance, should I have had the ability to bed the mad mage Xzar? Should that have been an option? Sure he likes to brutally murder people in the most inventive ways, and he's a complete nutter obsessed with violence, murder and death, but dammit! He was sexy in those robes! No. I'm sorry, but the power of "wuv" should not entitle the Player to change the very basic foundations of a character just for the opportunity to establish a romantic relationship. I'm sorry if this post seems a little aggressive, it's not meant to be, i'm just trying to make my original point as clear as possible - I'm also sorry if I wasn't entirely clear in the post that you were reviewing, I get quite carried away sometimes. I hope I've managed to clear it up for you a little bit. *Embarrassed* @Lurky: Your post earlier on the expectations that "many people" place upon romances was brilliant. The "infatuation period" of dialogue is something that I personally abhor, which i'm sure everybody knows by now *blush*, but it was nice to hear such an eloquent view point on the topic. While I understand the expectations of others, they honestly make me quite uneasy. Romance so easily becomes a dominant force in character interaction and I fear that it will easily intrude on other relationships, but I also feel that if it remains too subtle it might appear nothing more than idle flirtation(not that I mind idle flirtation) and of course if romance is excluded all together it might prevent some truly brilliant relationships from forming. It's a very delicate balance and, as you said earlier, it would be extremely difficult to get it just *perfect*.

I will be quite blunt in my admission - I've felt more emotional turmoil from the loss of a Level 10 Knight in Dungeon Keeper than I ever felt about anything in Dragon Age Origins. Though that might have been due to the sheer amount of gold I invested... who knows. Bioware have tended towards a flare of melodrama in recent years and, instead of receiving the emotional impact that was intended, I often find myself with the giggles. Which is terrible really, because some of the concepts are quite excellent. The last plot-line that made me feel emotional turmoil in a game was probably Shandra Jerro's death in Neverwinter Nights 2, and even that had quite a delayed reaction. I had to stop and think on it, I needed the emotional input of a distraught Grobnar Gnomehands to wake me from my emotionless state of shock. After I finally hit the realization that Shandra was dead, I began to replay our conversations in my mind.. I came to realize that Shandra hadn't just respected me, as the other companions did, she had trusted me and cared for me deeply enough to sacrifice her own life to save mine. It wasn't the voice acting that had caused my complete emotional breakdown, it was the character itself that caused me to hate myself so much. Shandra was just a poor little farm girl who had been dragged into a war that none of us could really be expected to win, yet she mustered her courage and refused to be left out of the fight. She demanded that you allow her to help. Such bravery from such an inconsequential character was quite humbling, really, and the more I thought about her the worse I felt. This little no named character that had been tagging along, bugging me with questions and generally irritating the ever living Hell out of me had, in retrospect, become a well of never ending emotional distress. I had considered her beneath my notice, but in actuality she was probably more brave, kind and compassionate than my character could ever hope to be, she had genuinely worried for my safety and fought for my life at the risk of her own. She was probably one of the strongest characters in the entire game - To me at least - and her death had a huge impact on me. Everyone is different, but it's really the characters that cause me to feel any semblance of emotional distress. The familiarity and the attachment, the blind trust that occurs between Player and Party, it's my safety blanket. If that safety blanket is ripped away from me I will curl into a ball and cry until the pain stops - Heck, familiarity and blind trust is probably what made me so attached to that Level 10 Knight. When an insignificant character like Isolde comes up to me, screaming bloody murder and trying her damnedest to pull an emotional response from the cold, empty blackness that is my heart, I just end up with the giggles... However, if one of my own party was begging me to stop? I'd be genuinely torn up inside. The major characters are my weakness, the more I see of them the more attached I become. They're my true emotional investment and the key to my particular brand of truly soul destroying turmoil.