jezz555

really? why? Well it really depends on how we define the word class. What dos class really mean? Is it a combat style? A set of skills put together? A way of life? No other class is as narrowly described as the monk. It is the only one that is described both as a cultural phenomenon, a specific combat style, and a way of life. "Tibetan monks" that defend their homes using kung-fu is not a class. If we look at it from the lens of combat style, the class truly being described is a brawler/fighter. Monks are chosen as a class because they fight without weapons and use only "martial arts." Rogues aren't described this way (fights with daggers?), neither are rangers (fights with bows?), barbarians (fights with ... axes?) How is that any different than a boxer, or other type of martial artist? Why not just call them brawlers? The "monk class" also describes a certain personality that no other class truly does; that of an ascetic. Fighters aren't defined by their personalities. Rogues might be thieves, but not always. Etc, etc. And classes being defined as skill sets: barbarians rage, fighters are combat oriented, rogues mechaincally oriented, wizards magically oriented. What about monks? They're kung-fu oriented? Why not call them brawlers then? It's too awkward of a distinction between the monk and any of the other classes. We all quickly "get" what each class is and can think of a variety of ways to play those classes. With a variety of different personalities and motivations. Monks, though. It's hard to distinguish them and articulate them other than by considering them as a stereotypical generalization. They aren't just a class. Monks are the product of a philosophy fit into a combat style within a specific culture. No other class really is. It's difficult to articulate really. I'd have to sit and define class first. Then sketch out each class to fit within this definition and see how I can distinguish them. Then I would have to sit and think about monks as they fit within this class. From a distance, it just seems that monks are the most narrowly defined class, whereas other classes can play to a wider audience. It's really difficult to articulate. I just hope the devs think these distinctions through well enough and utilize one definition for the word "class" and define their classes by distinguishing between them through that lens. D&D, because it is a game that has evolved through each new edition has had its definitions diluted, corrupted and sometimes made backward-incompatible, has made convoluted descriptions that are difficult to understand. When starting a completely new IP and gameworld, we do not have to work with these adulterated definitions. We should be clear about what we mean. Edit: clarity A Monk is in the simplest of terms a martial artist, not necessarily a brawler because a brawler would imply a lack of technique, which would just be a fighter/barbarian who punches people. So a monk could be a boxer, a zulu stick-fighter a buddhist monk, a friar tuck sort of guy. Much like Bards(okay not that much like bards) monks were a specialist class. They were fairly specialized, and you were restricted when playing them, so a lot of people didn't, but it's always been up to you. A class is just an archetype, all the od&d classes with a few exceptions were basically attempts to categorize LOTR characters, that's why originally elf and dwarf were classes. There pretty narrow descriptions actually, but they have been changed over the years like you said.

It was never about liking or disliking art; it was about the sanctimonious attitude of some people with regards to artistic license and the moral browbeating that they felt was necessary to "correct" gaming. As an artist, the OP can depict Cadegund in any manner he sees fit, and the merits of his artistic work stand on their own. No one did anything of the sort. They simply wanted internal cohesion when it comes to combat gear in relation to class and setting, and everyone was fine with nudity/sexuality in general otherwise. And I agree OP can and should paint Cadegund or any muse he chooses in any way he sees fit, that's the point of art. I just found it hilarious that the very same people who were raging against the indignity of the change of the boobplate are now super-happy with the change. PS: It'd be funny if OP felt inspiration strike during this and was busy working on a bikinimail version right now haha Who's to say those people are super-happy with the change? I think it's more likely that people just didn't care that much then and don't care that much now. "Internal cohesion" has nothing to do with boob-plate, it would function exactly the same as regulate plate armor. if a blacksmith wanted to but boobs on a suit of armor, he would put boobs on a suit of armor, people were complaining because it's ridiculous to demand a change of something so minor for such stupid reasons, not because they cared that much one way or another. so chalk it up as whatever you'd like, the rest of us will be busy not caring.

What you can do in photo-shop is different from whats possible in game...I'm not saying it would be impossible to have portraits change or use text like in PST or something, but it's not easy, and it's not all that expressive either way. Look at some of Quantic Dreams' games, they pretty much lead the industry as far as facial animation is concerned and their characters come across as very emotive, but that kind of thing takes a lot of work and simply isn't feasible in a game like this. Your probably better off with just having good voice actors, who like you said, allow you to imagine the body language of the characters. Eh wha.. voice acting? Imoen conveys her feelings in text, and I imagine her "expression" myself (without any voice acting). Voice-Acting versus Making "Facial Expression" on a tiny portrait (like I did) requires less work, less polish, less time than voice acting. I'm sure it costs less to do as well. Also I want to go at the "Photoshop" argument but... *sigh* another time jezz I'm not knocking your PS skills man. I meant that voice acting is probably the best means of conveying emotion available to PE, more so than facial expressions.

Not any more. The characters in DA2 smirk, glare, etc. with excellence. And even with clunky expressions there's no reason to write the PC like they're an ignorant boob. Isometric view ringing any bells? Facial emotion may be more easily portrayed than it used to be but it's still very limited and takes a lot of work to get right, besides PE isn't exactly what you'd call an AAA game.

The more I think about it, the more I start to hate the fact that monks exist as a class in this game. really? why?

Female monks are actually pretty commonplace, the one in the 3e phb(possibly the most iconic monk image from dnd) is young and female, she's not bald but w/e, furthermore the monks in diablo 3 are essentially exactly as you described. I think there are a couple ways that this image could be more appealing to me. For one thing I would like it if he had a stronger looking face, because his body is mad buff, but his face is not similarly menacing. I would like to see more evidence of a monkish lifestyle, like a shaven head, meticulously drawn tattoos or patterned scars to represent self-discipline. While I think his clothing should be plain, I don't really like the whole-stitched together look of his pants (he's a monk not a hobo). And finally I've said this before on other threads, but I wouldn't mind if the monk was asian for once. The archetype of a monk is based more on shaolin monks than anything else, but I think they are rarely depicted as such because it seems too obvious. Ironically as a result asian monks are never really done, and you just end up with a bunch of kung-fu white guys. EDIT: To be clear, Chinese not Japanese. And I understand the arguments against it, but I think it's only ridiculous when monks are asian inspired but not asian, I would say just have him be a traveler from a far away land, or better yet an exile. European warrior monks might be cool, but they would be more like paladins/fighter/clerics than actual D&D monks imo. Assuming this is serious...what exactly is it about Forton that is sexy to you...?

1. If the game is trying to sell itself as mature it usually has at least one, usually two of them chucked in: Dragon Age Origins had sex, rape and racism all thrown in. The Witcher 2 also had sex, rape and racism. The Witcher had sex and racism in there, possibly rape but I cannot recall any point it may have done so. God of War trilogy had sex in it. Lollipop Chainsaw, well I doubt I have to explain that one. The new Tomb Raider has rape as 'character development'. Alpha Protocol has sex and rape in it (yes there is a potential rape sequence in there). Overlord 2 has sex in them. Mass Effect trilogy has sex and racism in them. Fahrenheit (Indigo Prophecy to you yanks) has sex in it. Skyrim deals with sex and racism (yes, even with it's barebones writing there is racism in there, such as that dealt with by the Khajiit). Arcanum has racism. So in short, sex is put in a shedload of games, most of which do not portray it maturely and use it as a marketing gimmick, and that rape is, surprising even to me, in a lot of games and usually handled poorly in them. 2. I never said anything about ignoring their existence, I said that they are usually put in as an attempt to look mature and gritty in a juvenile way, which they are. If they stem from the story naturally then fine, the mature way would be to deal with them realistically, but their inclusion does not equate maturity automatically as some seem to believe, and mature themes are neither restricted to them nor require them for all cases. In short, mature writing comes from how those things are handled, not by their automatic inclusion. 1. Several of the games you listed, the most relevant ones to the genre, were actually great games. So far as the ones that aren't relevant to the genre, I'll be honest, I can't be bothered to research whatever Lollipop Chainsaw is. As a mature community, backing a company known for their ability to effectively implement mature content, I think some arguments about implementing mature content in an immature way can simply go without saying. Comparing a game called "Lollipop Chainsaw" to a game like PE is a bit of a stretch, I think. I was also never arguing for inclusion of any one topic without surrounding storyline and context. I didn't say "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if there was someone being raped in every alley, and you had a -save the rape victims- minigame?" Of course not. Of course I think any mature subject should be handled maturely, if included. The issue here is, I trust Obsidian to do just that: Handle mature content maturely. 2. We are pretty much in agreement on this, then. Furthermore the new tomb raider doesn't have rape in it, that was just poor reporting. You might want to do better research.

What you can do in photo-shop is different from whats possible in game...I'm not saying it would be impossible to have portraits change or use text like in PST or something, but it's not easy, and it's not all that expressive either way. Look at some of Quantic Dreams' games, they pretty much lead the industry as far as facial animation is concerned and their characters come across as very emotive, but that kind of thing takes a lot of work and simply isn't feasible in a game like this. Your probably better off with just having good voice actors, who like you said, allow you to imagine the body language of the characters.

I skipped storm of zehir so sorry If I'm just repeating whats already been done but I don't see why you shouldn't be able to just use all of your party members conversational skills in dialogues, because it's not like your fighter who has the intimidate skill can't just barge in and intimidate the guy who your diplomatic mage is trying to coerce through other means. I think that's what should be done in PE

Actually given a limited budget, I'd argue to expense (money, developer resources) is a good reason to be very frugal in character development to ensure that the player gets the most "bang for their buck" (dodgy innuendo not intended, oo-er). But for my purposes I could see a story in which a group of people share a friendship and journey for that reason or a group forced together in a fellowship developing a camaraderie along the way without having there be a need for a romantic relationship to develop. Could it? Sure. Must it? No. I'm a big believer in the idea that romances need to work within the context of both the PC and the NPC and if the group gathered doesn't make sense to have a romance there's no reason to include such a thing. A character can be well drawn and realized in the game without being romanceable (and I think the reverse is true, although I know many who debate this). For the millionth time no one is saying the game has to have romances to be good. We are just advocating for them in games in general, this entire forum is essentially about wish-listing as we don't really have any details about the game yet, If they don't make it into the game fine, I'm not going to cry about it, but it would be nice if they did and that's all anyone was saying.

Fan-service? If a complete engaging, and mature story is fan-service, than sure, count me in. Your character can be a eunuch that's fine with me, just don't make mine one.

I like your fan art a lot better than the concept sketch tbh, I wasn't really feeling her character at first, but I think your picture really helps me to imagine the characters personality. Good job dude.

I really agree about the voice acting. As far as soundtrack is concerned though it would be cool if clint mansell did it, he usually does films, but I'm a big fan

Well then it's a good thing nobody was advocating for mature themes "just for the sake of them". Honestly this is such a straw man. I've been seeing that word floating around in several forums and I've been wondering what it means. (Please explain it to me if I'm misunderstanding it, jezz555 looks more like a straw man comment/input when I look at the wikipedia explanation to be honest... was that what you initially meant?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man I can't see anything in mcmanusaur's post that is straw man behavior (if he had quoted someone perhaps). Looks more like something to think about to me. It's not a term I like to use often, because some people don't know what it means and it makes me sound pretentious, but in essence, It means rebutting the argument you would like your opponent to have made rather than the one they actually made. No one was arguing for "mature themes just for the sake of them" and yet that was what mcmanusaur was arguing against, thus he was rebutting a strawman argument.

do they have bards in PE? I mean the arts were a big part of the renaissance era, so that could be cool.

This isn't really true at all for jrpgs, it's really only true of dark souls in fact, which ironically uses more western/european designs for it's gear than most other japanese games, and furthermore isn't really an rpg. Agreed. D&D often feels like someone just took every myth, culture and idea wihout any fitering process whatsoever, threw them in a big blender and hit the "puree" bottun. Such setting that try to mix everything often feel very "fake" to me. Like they are a product of some checkbox assembly process. D&D just gives you options, the filtering is up to you. I always created my own campaign settings for each adventure that, had a select group of monsters that fit together, the same doesn't really apply to PE because its not a PnP game, but you can pick and choose, your not just intended to throw like medusae and coatl's together...unless that's what you want to do.

This isn't an anime forum guys...

Well then it's a good thing nobody was advocating for mature themes "just for the sake of them". Honestly this is such a strawman.

Perfection is unatainalbe, but striving for perfection is a never-ending goal. The idea isn't that paladins are infallible. But character assasination and deliberate villifaction - when the writer cleary wants you to hate character X because he's part of a religious order - that is what I hate. That is not an attempt at greyness. It is quite simply "I hate this faction/religion and I will portray them in the most negative light possible." Also, people having differnt moral beliefs does not prove morals are not absolute. After all, if I belive that the earth is flat and you don't, that doenst make both of right. There is one reality, weather we recognize it or not. Altough talking about morality in extreme cases is ... iffy. Since it often means doing "immoral" things to do the moral thing. Is a logical action a moral one? One would say no. And yet a moral action might end up doing far more harm than good. But how can that make it moral to being with? One could write an entire book on this issue, since it's a rather huge topic. So let's not discuss it. It is poitnless, especially in the context of the game - we allready know there is no aligment system. You realize you've just compared science and philosophy...yeah I guess this really is pointless.

Somewhere in that whole ice-cream analogy I think I lost your point...what do the walnuts represent?

I do find that in Dragon Age and Mass Effect and other cinematic games, the opportunity to use just a facial expression or body language for communication is ignored. Another one that bugs me is that they have a voiced protagonist in these games, so they pretty much have no choice but to give the protagonist SOME personality, yet they don't take advantage of the opportunity to have the PC be a fully-realized character. I don't mean fully-dictated, I mean, fully-realized. They still have dialog like this: Tali: I am on my walkabout. (I forget the exact term she used, bear with me.) Shepard: I've never heard of this. Tali: Oh when my people reach a certain age, we leave and travel through the galaxy. We seek out valuable resources which determine our status when we return. Shepard: oh. Moving on. Instead of: Tali: I'm on my walkabout. Shepard: You think tracking the Geth will be of value to your people? Same information conveyed, half as many lines, and Shepard isn't portrayed as somebody who's never been outside of Podunk, Iowa. When the PC is unvoiced, you can get away with having their major contribution to conversation be an endless list of: 1. What's that? 2. How do I get there? 3. How many do you need? 4. I don't know what that is. 5. Tell me more. When the PC is voiced and animated, lists like that look and sound idiotic. It becomes vital to for the PC to deliver just as much characterization and information as the NPCs do. you realize these are technological limitations right? It's difficult to show facial expressions with current technology, it's not that they don't want to, it's that generally speaking they can't...

This is a pretty bizarre scenario, but I mean just weighing the options here. I get hot dark elf booty and the opportunity to save more lives if I save the prisoner, and literally nothing if I save the family. Furthermore the family is sleeping upstairs and will likely die a quiet painless death, from smoke-inhalation where as the dark elf in her locked prison cell will likely be cooked to death and die in agony. Not much of a choice really. Furthermore the dark elf could reform herself, and given her possible combat ability, and clear sexual prowess, she could likely aid me in saving more innocents in the future, done and done.

The Resident Evil movie series is full of gore and yet their target audience seems to be 13 years old, "mature themes" do not a mature story make. The only two reasons why a story would need these explicit adult only themes is either to create setting or as a plot device. Resident Evil's target audience, is not 13yr olds, if it was the movies would be rated pg13 not rated R, that's just common sense. Now I grant you that they are pretty bad movies, but you're confusing maturity with coherent and well-told narrative. A story could be crappy and mature, or well told and immature, Maturity does not automatically a good story make, but that was never my point. My point was that Maturity adds realism, and provides freedom for the artist to create, which can often make for a better overall story and can't really hurt, (provided you have faith in Obsidian's ability to tell a story). I could also offer you a thousand example's of stories that contain mature themes, and yet are poorly constructed, but they would be equally irrelevant for the reasons I've stated. Resident Evil would still suck if it had no gore, in fact it would probably suck more, who are you to say what is necessary in a story and why? Shouldn't the storytellers be deciding that? Your not the first one to have made this argument, but it remains spotty and ill-concieved. We all know that rape is bad, I don't think anyone on here was claiming otherwise, the inclusion of rape in games is in no way intended to be an affirmation of the act itself and I'm not sure why you would even imply such a thing. The reason for having rape in games, is because it exists in the real world, more so in the middle ages and the idea behind a role playing game is immersion

the ouroboros symbol was not invented by either Obsidian or Bethesda,so I think they are pretty safe.

Without naming any names I'm confused by the fact that some people here seem to think that the inclusion of "mature themes" which is to say sexism, racism, sex, ect. actually take away from the maturity of a game, and then attempt to flip it around and call into question the maturity of those who enjoy realistic and mature settings. These things are typically omitted from games and other media for the express purpose of making them kid friendly, perhaps on occasion they are added to a narrative to make it more "gritty" but I'd rather that than feel like I'm playing a Disney movie. I for one have always had a base disgust for anything to do with censorship, and all I really ask is that obsidian does what they think is best, not what's socially acceptable, or kid friendly. Maturity to me, means a realistic world, were nothing is held back, and that's what I hope to see.