Barothmuk

Of course, hence my use of the word 'inspired'. I am curious though, how far must a fictional culture stray from its original influence for it to be deemed accpetable in your eyes? Most staple designs in the fantasy genre (monsters, weapons, armour, clothing etc) are just slight modifications of their historical source material. Personally I hope those clothes were not reflective of the aumaua culture. They were pretty generic. I can't recall why but I have been led to believe both orlans and aumaua are the more 'isolated' of the the races. Meaning they're the groups with the least interracial interaction.

As someone who was one of the 9 people who voted barbarian in the poll mentioned in the OP this is something that is relevant to my interests. I too hope that Obsidian doesn't stick too closely to the common stereotyping of "barbarian = Conan" and instead looks for other sources of inspiration. Two ideas the OP put forth that I really liked were the language thing and the faction thing. Speaking of which I know Obsidian has hinted at a faction system of sorts but do we actually know if languages will be a skill/mechanic? I'm hoping so.

A common speculation (or perhaps hope) I have seen on the forums is that the aumaua race will be inspired by the varying Polynesian cultures of the Pacific. This is likely because they're a coastal/islander people and "aumaua" sort of sounds like Maoi and Maori. Personally I'd be strongly in favour of this being an influence. The cultures of Polynesia are rich and something that have virtually been left untouched by most fantasy settings so any inspiration taken from them would likely be something fresh. To add a topic of discussion to the thread, would you want the aumaua to be inspired by Polynesian cultures? If not what type of cultural inspiration would you like to see?

Except up until Dragon Age 2 it was never mentioned in the lore. Yes it was the original design (in the original design they also had tails) but in the actual game it was never depicted nor mentioned. Having massive horns and grey skin doesn't seem like the type of thing you'd forget to mention in the multiple codex entries. Regardless, I'm not a fan of the horned design.

[Obviously subject to change and will ultimately depend on the game's lore/setting and what I deem fits the PC more] If the aumaua are orcish or if I can play a Baphomet looking god-like I'll probably roll barbarian, if not maybe a cipher orlan.

I personally don't mind the design. It can certainly use some significant tweaks but over all it fits a vision that I'd prefer. My only fear is further down the line it might develop into something more outlandish to make them more "distinct". By that I mean when you look at elves, dwarves and humans they're all largely similar aside from a few subtle yet distinct differences (elves have pointed ears and are more lithe, dwarves are short and stocky etc) however when a 'new' race is added devs feel the need to make them standout more and be more visually distinct so they'll make them something ridiculous like half fish or something. E.g. Dragon Age. The original qunari design was that they were simply large, muscular humans, with odd coloured eyes, white hair and darker skin. Unfotunately the devs thought this wasn't "distinct" enough so they turned them into giant goat people. My personal preference for the aumaua would be something like this : Mostly human in shape and complexion however still subtley 'different'.

"Normal or weak" probably isn't the best choice of words but it fits the general style I (and perhaps others) happen to prefer. As the game progresses the PC should become more skilled in their given field yes, but it's preferable that it remains within reason. There are skilled swordsman in real life who could certainly flog a noob like me but that does not mean they're now suddenly god-tier beings. They are simply more skilled than most in their particular area of specialization. Sweet Jesus H **** no.

I hate the player-character being some ridiculously overpowered, uber badarse, demi-god. I'd rather keep them as grounded as possible.

Those were very good links. Thanks. What stood out was this: I'm glad they at least have a base idea of the main cultures languages. I hate trying to find a lore appropriate name for my character only to find out that there's no logical namining consistency.

One of my favourite thing about the works of Tolkien is the depth of lore that went into constructing his fictional languages. Sadly (for me) fictional languages (or at least reference to them) seem to be largely ignored in many of the modern RPGs of late. Now I'm not necessarily advocating Obsidian construct an entirely new language/languages (I assume that's expensive), all I want is reference to other languages being part of the lore, occasionally being mentioned during the game and perhaps even being a part of gameplay. E.g. A thing that bothered me about the Dragon Age games was that the languages of the other nation states was barely touched on. Yes, we had Qunari (that was good) and a few elven phrases here and there but the languages of the other countries was neither mentioned nor acknowledged. Another thing often ignored of late is the use of language as a skill. Look back to Daggerfall where the player could learn orcish, nymph, elvish, giantish, harpy etc. Now in modern TES games the language gap isn't even mentioned. Also aphabets. Alphabets are cool.

... Really? The ME games repeatedly went out of their way to show you just how freaking awesome the PC is and by extention just how freaking awesome humans are. I could see their Lovecraftian influences when they first introduced the Reapers in ME1 but after that they went in the most unLovecraft direction possible.

God I'm sick of this trend of deep, complex stories, with realistic portrayals of politics, human motives and characters always being dismissed by people who haven't read them because they've heard from a second hand source that they contain sex. Ugh.

I absolutely hate this suggestion. There's nothing that irks me more then the game trying to make out that my PC is the greatest, most powerful, most handsome, most sexually competent (wo)man in the world. Others may play these games with a hyper idealized, self-insert PC for the sole purpose of gratifying their clearly fragile ego; I on the other hand like to craft a variety of characters with varying degrees of skills, weaknesses and human faults who ultimately are nothing more than reasonably 'normal' people in exceptional circumstances. The moment the cast of characters starts trying to beat me off by saying how wonderfully amazing my big-eared little orlan is at everything is the moment I snap the disc.

Based on my moral compass? Indeed I do. What New Vegas did right in my opinion is to not create a clear cut good faction. The NCR is rather grey. But if the choice is to aid the NCR, Mr. House, go it on my own or assist Caesar's Legion, then I am faced with three grey choices and no fourth. Well of course there's going to be choices that you yourself deem "morally wrong" (I myself found most of the 'paragon' options in the Mass Effect series to be morally abhorrent) however that does not stop them from falling into the category of "morally grey". To be morally grey all the choice/faction needs to have is legitimate, understandable goals and motivations. Now although you may not agree with the goals or motivations of Caesar's Legion that does not stop them from being a "grey" faction. I myself actually sided with the Legion.

Are you saying that Caesar's Legion is a 'bad' faction and not a faction that is equally as legitimate as the alternative à la what the Witcher games present?

When most people are a child they see the world in black and white terms. They do 'good' actions because they have been told these are the socially acceptable 'good' actions and will presumably reap 'good rewards'. Bad actions are avoided because they have been told that these actions are bad and will presumably lead to negative results and/or punishments. When you're a little older however you realize that things aren't as clear-cut as you were originally lead to believe. You discover that in some instances some previously socially condemned action is (in your now thought out opinion) more moral then what is upheld as the 'right' course of action by others. You also discover things like what you consider morally wrong are actually embraced and seen as morally upright by others. Then there's other situations where an action that you may deem morally wrong actually wields a better net result/pay-off to the thing that you would deem 'morally right'. Which then makes you consider ideas such as: is it the action itself that determines the moral judgement of the action (deontology) or is it the consequences it brings (consequentialism). Ultimately, what one should learn from these contemplations is that morality is subjective and what is morally good and morally evil differs from person to person, culture to culture, worldview to world view etc. To bring it back to your original question "gray morality" in games (such as the Witcher) is valued because it doesn't take a child like approach to morality and instead forces the player to consider more complex adult moral themes (such as the aforementioned deontological ethics vs. consequentialist ethics) which as a result increases the intellectual enjoyment of the game, allows a variety of perspectives/roleplaying opportunities and finally it emulates the real "moral grayness" of real life. Fortunately for us (or at least me) Obsidian excels at crafting morally grey stories. Could you provide an example of a New Vegas purely good/evil moral dilemma?

You mean the people who want us to go caving in a full suit of plate?No he means the fictional people who are nothing more than a strawman. Personally I (an advocate of "realistic" armour designs) think [most] of the already established PE armour designs have been perfect. E.g. Edair

From what I've read they're people who like to dress up as humanoid-animals and in some instances have sex with one another. Not my thing but so long as they're not harming anyone I don't see the big deal.

I'll never understand the contempt for "furries". Personally I have no issue with anthropomorphic animal races per se, however in a setting such as PE's I'd rather they be closer in appearance to the animal in which they're derived rather than just humans with an animal head. E.g. The khajiit and argonians of Morrowind with their digitigrade stances are preferable to their later plantigrade incarnations.

What forums have you been hanging around on? Everywhere I've seen the overwhelming majority play a stupid-good lawful-good, idealized self-insert. If you dare make a choice that does not conform to their black and white morality you're met with hatred and vitriol.

I clicked on this thread expecting ****ty fan art. I was pleasantly suprised. Clearly he would rather she have a bucket on her head.

Absolutely not. I can't possibly know what the community wants as the community wants many different things. That's why I never directly or indirectly said nor implied my preferences are indicative of the wants of the community. Only you have been making such broad assumptions. E.g. I'd think this is pretty obvious but "realistic" practical armour need not even equal plate armour.

That does not mean such designs are what is ideal to fans of those games. I've been a fan of those games for many years but I've always been fervently against big paudrons, boob plates and skin tight everything. Also requesting a more "realistic" aesthetic =/= wanting a medieval life simulator. What a subsection of the community does isn't a representative of the wants of the whole community. Especially when it's the modding community. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Again you assume people didn't like these games despite the armour design choices. Personal experience isn't a particularly valid source. Your opinion is not even the majority in this thread so I don't thinks it's wise to make that assumption. Besides, I too like "cool designs", I just don't think big pauldrons, boob plates or skin tight armour are cool. Instead I prefer practical designs that serve a functional purpose and accurately provide an insight into the culture and environment in which the armour was crafted. In my eyes, showing that level of attention to detail and world-building is cool. It's amusing because that's the armour I was thinking of when I said "except for 1 or 2 characters". I've also always found Sauron's armour to be the worst in the films.

I hope not. I prefer orcs being mountain people. Besides, the aumaua give the oppotunity for something new and different. I actually really like the pseudo-tiki coastal society many fans have conjured up.

And we all know Project Eternity's trying to appeal to the mainstream masses. The LotR trilogy is one of the most well known high fantasy settings and it's costume and armour design are exceptionally practical and realistic (except for only 1 or 2 characters). Or are you telling me your imersion was broken the entire time because the armour designs weren't retarded enough?