jezz555

I agree. My answer to the question quoted below is that it'd make perfect sense if said barbarian/ranger was forced to forgo using obsolete armour if circumstance demanded it. That'd make the world more believable. Exactly and it shows a sense of progression culturally as well as level wise: Thug the Barbarian, after adventuring in the Civilised lands has adapted and learnt the techniques used there rather than remaining static and unchanging. If my western character travelled to the east I would expect him to adapt to the culture there, much like how the crusaders changed their style f dress while in the Holy Land. Differing outfits help to differentiate characters though for aesthetic purposes, and as far as realism is concerned all of your party is not necessarily going to want to wear plate mail all the time. Hide armor may protect less, but I assume it would also be lighter, quieter, and more agile, easier to get in and out of, as well as less stifling depending on the climate, and less expensive for the poorer members of your party.

To quote myself from this thread: That's a fair point and I agree with you. But I would say there is a difference between something that's iconic and something that's cliche, if that makes any sense. Elves, Dwarves, dragons ect. I would say are fantasy icons, not fantasy cliches. A cliche version would be magicky effeminate elves, drunk bearded dwarves and gold hoarding evil dragons. Not that theirs anything wrong with these cliches (who doesn't love tolkein?) but a more original take on this would be say, tough, barbarian, magick hating elves, magical, beardless, dwarves, and kind giving dragons which sounds pretty dumb to be fair, but it would be an original take on some fantasy icons as opposed to the cliche, which again is fine too, I'm just saying.

Way to be condescending. I don't see why exactly you are supposed to have any competence to decide what I and other people should make rituals of. I do that whenever I want to. For some it's a ritual to watch the newest episode of their favourite TV show, for some it's opening up a new game they've always waited for, for some it's putting in a CD in stereo, for some it's team-stuff at the beginning of a football match, for some it's eating the same things on a certain day. You don't know what connection people have to the things they have rituals for - maybe there are emotions involved, maybe memories, maybe a single point in life where you have control - I could go on. Quit being such a baby. Not everyone has to be the same - people are different. Accept that. Otherwise I refer to my Avatar. Jesus I was joking about the baby bit you don't have to jump down my throat, I just said I didn't know why people got so uptight about spoilers, I would rather you had attempted to explain your position instead of just yelling at me.

I wish he would play it while it can still influence the development proces...i like arcanum...

Honestly none I can really think of. Not to say that everything in PE has to be original, but most cliches are bad, and I would prefer PE surprise me with something that hasn't been done before.

I am very much with you on this, as much as I do actually like bioware's games (or used to) and as much as I like getting cool evil guy options and red eyes and stuff, I find it pretty stupid how their games have to judge every action you make. If you ask me it should be up to the player to decide what is good an evil, not the company who makes the game. The whole good/evil morality bar, started out as something cool but has become a real step backwards in gaming imo. I would much prefer it if you just did things and people acted accordingly based on their own unique morality as opposed to having two rigid and explosively stereotypical roles that each and every person has to fall into. I recall with some degree of bitterness how you couldn't even do things of the opposing morality if you wanted to in ME, because then you would gain the wrong points and eventually lose dialogue options, it just limits player choice and spontaneity.

sure you can...I'm just raising a counter argument, you can do whatever you want. You correcting me on the time period in which the game is set is welcome, but you've really only served to back up my point, as you said the average life expectancy is 69 so at sixty you have less than a decade of estimated life left in you. TL;DR the life expectancy was shorter, that's not a myth, and the snippy tone that I imagine your post was meant to be read in was unnecessary.Furthermore, as anyone familiar with the military, boxing, mma or any other combat-esque occupation can attest, realistically your period of effectiveness in a combat scenario is limited, especially in a time when medical knowledge was primitive(remember obsidian said theirs little in the way of healing magic), people in these positions generally retire young. If you are constantly getting wounded and then healing after combat, chances are your going to end up more than a little brain damaged and beat up by the end of your career, just look at rocky. You could start off as a blacksmith or someone with a non-combat profession, but you would still have acquired skills, they would just be non-combat skills, thus as I said you would not be a blank slate. Now granted it's just a game and Obsidian doesn't have to enslave themselves to realism, but that's a question of realism in games, and an entirely different thread. I'm not saying you can't have this opinion, go ahead, I'm telling you why most games start you off young, and why I personally think that's wise.

I gotta say, it would be cool and fairly original if you and your party could ride horses, when travelling through large areas, I'm a sucker for mounts in games.

okay I think he gets the point here

Its not that its odd for an older person to suddenly start adventuring, thats fine. What's odd is that someone of an advanced age wouldn't have picked up some more training and skills by then. A first level character is a novice warrior, not just a new one, you explicitly lack training and skill when you begin. Furthermore as I'm sure many on here can attest, it is far easier to learn new things when you're young and spry as opposed to old and arthritic.Finally people in the middle ages didn't live that long, so if you are sixty you're literally knocking on heavens door.

Romance(if implemented) has always been optional, the argument here is really more functionality vs less functionality, and I think the preferred choice is pretty obvious, unless you're the kind of person who is just grossed out by human intimacy.

It is the weakest of armors to be fair, and leather used for armor would probably be as thick and hardened as possible and probably padded and reinforced, so the boot comparison isn't really valid. Still though, point taken, leather armor is dumb.

I wouldn't mind voice acted description and strictly basics dialogue

for mentioning DA:O? no, for mentioning Buffy...

I always hear people say stuff like this, stop being such a baby, It's just a game, play it or don't. I don't see why everything has to be such a ritual.

still can't tell if serious...

The reason most games start you off young is that your supposed to get your character as a clean slate and if he is only lvl 1 at age 40 or something people are going to wonder why their guy was just farting around for 40 years until he finally decided to get some fighter training. So approximately 20 is the youngest he could be, to be fresh but still have some combat ability. I think I mentioned this in another thread but I would really like it if your character physically aged throughout the story and this was reflected in your portrait or dialogue or something.Therefore if your guy started out as a clean slate at 20, you could end the game at like 60 or something and really feel like you were playing through your guys life and like you had grown up along with him and really accomplished something when you finally reached the end of the game.

I would say, have a lot of loot, but definitely a few unique and story driven Items, because I do really love it when I can find a legendary sword, or item that has some awesome history to it. But yeah, mundane gear should be more common to emphasize the rareness of magical items and make you really appreciate the few you do get.

I'm assuming this thread isn't meant seriously but, it really wouldn't surprise me if it was, given the PC police that have essentially crawled out of the woodwork to decry the rampant bigotry of video games on this forum. On the off chance that this is serious...no.

...wtf?

people always mention it because it is the bottom of the barrel, absolute worst, and by mentioning it (with disgust) they can give the developers (if they read this) some of an idea about what people like / don't like I guess but I'd rather just pretend it never happened. I swear Stephanie Meyer single-handedly ruined the reputation of an entire sub-genre(actually two) with one series.

Rat-men have been done before, I am a huge warhammer fan and the skaven are cool and all, but I don't really want to see another rat-man race and I would rather the anthropomorphic animal races be kept to a minimum because well... like Leif said, furries ruin everything.

What? Have I missed something? 16th century technology level would give us loads of books. I really hope there are books because, well, the written word is as elementary for the world as it gets. As much faith I have in Obsidian - there are some things that should not be tried to circumvent. No books would mean a gigantic hole in the world that had to be filled with another equally "technological revolution". I mean the printing presses were one of the greatest technological achievements ever. A total game-changer. The same thing goes for the lore: Don't try to reinvent a philosophical, because that seems silly very fast for anyone who's into philosophy and literature. There are so many concepts in our world that we can borrow from without making it too obvious. It's basically the same discussion with "historical" weaponry and armour. Fantasy armour is silly, so are artificial concepts to make something "innovating" ...wtf?

Yeah I say keep them interesting, and definitely throw some loot in there so I don't just feel like I'm wasting time.

...probably the road to hell. I would rather if tech was anathema to arcane magic like it was in Arcanum, were guns don't need to be magical because...well there guns. This way you could have guns that were very powerful and balance them with swords/medieval weapons by saying they couldn't be enchanted. Furthermore I'm not really a fan of ridiculous-amount-of-barrels-type guns but to each his own I suppose. Delterius made a fair (if pendantic) point. the game is meant to be like late renaissance era or something, at a time when they would have had guns. You might not like them, but they will most likely be presented as period accurate given the technological progression evident in the world. I don;t think they are just going to toss a bunch of guns into the dark ages, because, yeah, that wouldn't go well.