Malekith

If i never read a line about that idiot never again i would be more than happy. If anything i would prefer he had less screen time. Largest amount of named characters doesn't mean much when all sould the same. Jordan must had a random Aes Sendai name generator installed in his computer. I read the books back to back. until book 5-6 it was fine, if too wordy without reason, a flaw Erikson shares in his latter books. But books 7-10 bleed into one another, and i don't remember where ends one and starts the other. And when i stoped and asked myself what happened in the whole mess, i couldn't come with a good answer. The situation was the ****ing same as 3 books before. The only thing that changes were the locations of some people,more Aes Sendai groups(that are all the same) introdused, but the plot was completely stale. The 2 annoying girls traveled in a circus for 2 books without reason other than for other characters to catch up in the plot. Perin search for his wife who is kidnaped for god knows how many pages for the same reason. The only one that i have seen to regurarly praise Jordan's writing is Sanderson,who is a known fanboy of Jordan. But maybe i don't follow the right writers. See my first answer. I was talking about the pacing and not of contradictions in the plot. Jordan loses control of his plotlines, and in order for some characters to catch up in their plots, he has ten others sitting in their asses for whole books. Perin chasing Faile,Nynave in the circus, book ten where absolutely nothing happens etc. Maybe. And since you are very biased in favor of WoT, we are a great pair for discusion . Agreed, when compaired with his clones, i prefer Jordan as well. But my favorite authors are Wolfe,Martin,Erikson,Bakker,Abercrombie,Lloyd,Cook,Donaldson etc. These authors don't follow Jordan's school, so there isn't about immitators, or who did it first.

I haven't read him yet, but he is in my list to be read. What do you think of him?

Are you implying that, those writers/stories are somehow better then Robert Jordan/Wheel of Time. If so let me tell you this, by writing alone, he blows Wolfe and Ericson out of the water and for me personally Wot is superior to Asoiaf.(I got bored at book 2 and couldn't finish the series(I don't like Dirty Fantasy)) Taste is subjective and all that, and it's nothing wrong with liking WoT more than Asoif if you don't like the "grimdark" fantasy. But Jordan's writing of all things??? It is mediocre.Not bad, but still... I will never understand you in that so there is no point to discuss it. But WoT, regardless of if you like it or hate it (and i don't hate it) you have to admit it's the most flawed of all the series we mentioned so far. The plot is a mess, with a good 1/3 of the books being complete filler, and the characters are some of the worst i have the misfortune to read about. I was firmly in the Saitan's camp because i wanted every single character to die a horrible death. Except every major character had plot armor. In my opinion WoT works best if it is one of your first fantasy series and grew up with these books. Most of WoT fans i have talked are in this category. I read it for the first time a few years back, and i found it ...meh. Some good ideas, interesting worldbuilding, but not ten top material.

Only the main character can speak.Your companions can speak if THEY want, but it won't be in the players control. It will be like PS:T or BG2

Don't put Jordan in that company As for Sanderson, too soon to tell, but he has the same weaknesses in all his works so far, and Way of Kings doesn't reverses the trent. First of all he cannot write shades of gray to save his life.All his characters are always black and white.Brandon’s characters tend to go pretty emo as well. Either that, or they are tough as nails. There isn’t a lot of in-between. That is the reason that most of his characters seem similar between his works. Second, his prose is nowhere near Wolfe or Erikson (when he is on form). The "invisible prose" he uses that is just there and doesn't get noticed by the reader is not a flaw per se, but it isn't "quality of writing" either. Salvatore does the same. His strengths are the creativity in worldbuilding and magic systems and inserting "cool" cinematic moments in his books. Strenghts that i realy like and are things that drew me into Malazan as well. But (for me at least) Sanderson's worlds give me a "video game" vibe. They don't feel "real" if that makes any sense. The simplistic morality plays a role in that. But Way of Kings was better than his other works i give you that.

Steve Erikson .. The riddiculous cases like Jordan and in a lesser extent Martin aren't so common. Hang on there a minute, for a second I though you were implying the Erikson had a well planned series. Say it ain't so, Malekith. His series has some of the most massive continuity errors of all time! Of all time! I'd be pretty certain that both Jordan and Martin planned their series as well, sticking to the plan on the other hand... Sticking to the plan is probably one thing the game story development process does better than the book process. Yes. He knew the end from the start, he knew how to get there. Malazan was a ten book series from the start, and he sticks to his plan admirably. Now, that the last five books should be 200-300 pages shorter, with tighter editing, and that Erikson forgets (or ignores on purpose) the details in his story are valid criticisms. But you cannot cut whole books from Malazan the way you can in Wheel of Time, which is a good six book series stretched to a bad 14 book one

Adrian Tchaikovsky Steve Erikson Joe Abercrombie Scott Bakker Tom Lloyd The riddiculous cases like Jordan and in a lesser extent Martin aren't so common. But nowdays i don't start series that aren't finished or close to

Not even close. Yeah I have to agree. Believe it or not, the simple style that Salvatore writes in is not that easy to pull off. He keeps a quick pace, develops characters smoothly, and is easy to read. He's also a professional that churns out a ton of content every year. Sanderson does all that better than Salvatore though. And i don't consider Sanderson a great author either. Don't get me wrong, i kinda like Salvatore's novels, but in the same way someone likes fast food. Quick, simple, not taxing, entertaining... but not great in any strech of the word. I cannot compair him with authors like Martin,Wolfe,Erikson etc.

But he compalained about the camera, and that is idiotic. I was more immersed in Planescape:Torment than any other game. That is why "immersion" is just a buzzword. Immersion is a good thing, but what someone finds immersive is strictly personal. I for example find first person and OTS camera just annoying, not immersive.

I actually thought it was the worst offering. Gaider seems to be getting better from a technical standpoint, but the subject matter in Asunder bored me to death. Then again I'm not interested in the DA universe for the mage/chantry plot they're shoving down our throats now. Is David Gaider a better writer than R.A. Salvatore? Pro Asunder he was way worse. Asunder is close to Salvatore level, but that isn't a high bar to reach.

Google how many cities in America are named Independence

Love it!!!!!!! As for the suggestion that narrative bits being different than the responses, i disagree. They are just fine. I wouldn't mind italics, but absolutely no color difference. The only thing i can find that i would change is "-" before every response. I would sujest something like this:

I think Ziets said that only the player character can start dialogs, but other characters will talk when they have something to add.

You seem to be confusing Baldur's Gate 2 with Baldur's Gate. Both had quality, though, although the characters in Baldur's Gate 2 clearly had more substance. However, there's a balance between quantity and quality that is important. It is very easy to regurgitate the old "Quality over quantity" argument, but quantity is a quality on it's own. While no-one would advocate having 70 nameless, genderless and identity-less nobodies, I do not think that you would find many people that would find it interesting to have a set 6-person party that can never be changed, with the argument that "Oh, but the characters are really, really well-developed". Or, to take the argument to it's logical extreme, 3 really good characters.. in a 6-person party.. of 3 persons. The fact of the matter is that we want both. We want an adequate amount of characters with an adequate amount of character development and interaction. What signifies "adequate" is different to each person, but saying "Quality over quantity" as a winning oneliner as if someone is disagreeing with that, or saying the opposite, is just silly and infantile. With only 8 available characters in the game and a party-size of 6, there just won't be any interesting combinations that you can make; it leaves exactly 3 characters to fiddle with, for whatever purpose. No themed parties, no RP-centric choices without risking to deeply cripple yourself (unless you're roleplaying someone that is willing to take on just anyone), no meaningful variety between playthroughs. The lack of companions has far-reaching consequences in how the game is played and experienced, and what choices you have available. It is not a simple question of "Quality over quantity". I very much enjoy having a good range of choices when it comes to characters and my party, party interaction, and my party structure, something no game has been able to really fulfill for what now amounts to decades. As for hirelings... soulless automatons need not apply. I'm obviously talking about actual characters here. I thought it was obvious from what I wrote, but perhaps I should've clarified that. They said they want PS:T depth of companions. And PS:T had just 7. Feargus said that a single companion at that level of interactivity takes Avellone one full month. There is no way for them to have more companions without extra money and delaying the game for six months. And still 12 companions would be few by your standarts. You will have to wait for the expansion and maybe DLCs for more

That is the key word. You spend way too much time on BSN.

Sorry but that is Gaider level BS. The posibility of someone just hating the character is too far fetched? Case in point Fenris. I gloated when i gave him to the slaver, and as far as i know he is not a gay option. (I hated Anders and Philippa too without their sexuality playing a role) Philippa was a terrific and interesting character, and they nailed her from the books. But i was glad she was mutilated.

What works on Dark Souls or Witcher 2(single player games) won't work on DA:I (party control). Action combat demands that the player controls one character and lets the AI managing the companions. This seems nothing like DA:O and more like ME with swords or KOTOR.

Yes but that's is kind of irrelevant, isn't it?

We already have the slow combat implemented and it works pretty well. I'm sure we'll be adjusting it more as we fine-tune combat pacing and pathing, but it's an enjoyable alternative to full speed vs. full stop. It's slow motion all the time or when i press space instead of pause the game goes to slow motion?

Let's assume it's the same actor who'd do the partials. Again depends of the quality. Bad VO is worse then completely silent. But if the VO is good and as you said won't restrict the writing in any way at all, then sure why not. Full VO will be the way to go. But in a real world these conditions will never happen. Because VO costs money. And that money would have to come from somewhere else, be it design or art ot QA or whatever. Unless you are Blizzard with their unlimited money, "it's done when it's done mentality".

That is not what reactivity is. Reactivity is when, the characters simply reacts to anything you or you other characters do without any user input. Or to further elaborate, when they, for an example, comment/react to a certain situation. (I don't know how to explain this any better) As the characters/story are all the same throughout the whole series, I am considering them as a whole game.(But yes individually it outsold ME2 by 1 million units) As for Skyrim, it was never mentioned by me or anyone in this thread, it isn't even in the poll and most importantly I don't think it fits in to a category of the games mentioned here. I understand. But as i said, i think the games i mentioned do it at least in the same extent as DA/ME. Ah, ok. If you count the 3 MEs as 1 game than you have a point. But it cannot be compaired that way with other games. As far as whole series go, then yes it sold the more copies from the list if you discount Fallout 3 as part of Fallout series.(and it should be out as it has no relevance to the discusion at hand.)

Nothing wrong if you like Bioware companions, but there is nothing "objective" in your list. (Not mine or other people, but you are the one that brought the objective angle) I just joined this thread... My first mention of the word objective was in the post you quoted. I mean read the page my comment is on... Didn't noticed, sorry. As for your other point's VO adds to the immersion, there is no denying that.-Sure it adds.And longer and better writen dialogues add depth, something that doesn't happen in fully voiced games. That's why i think partialy voiced companions like in PS:T or BG2 is the best from both worlds as it allows immersion by seting the character's voice, but at the same time allow the writer to write as much as he wants They are the most reactive to your choices, each other and the story line.Just no. In BG2 your companions could leave the party, attack each other, attack you depending on your desisions. The same in NWN2 MotB,New Vegas,Alpha Protocol. Had the most characters, not necessarily the largest variety. "Define variety" Because as personalities go DA and ME are a repeat of the same archetype personalities in all Bioware games since BG Simply not true, not even by the longest of shots. The ME series alone outclasses all the games here together. ME is the largest selling "RPG" ever made. I'm not sure where you came by that. Skyrim alone outsold all 3 ME games combined. Bioware games never came close in sales with Bethesda's games(not that it means much, i find Bethesda's games terrible) And yes, New Vegas sold more than any ME game individualy.

Nothing wrong if you like Bioware companions, but there is nothing "objective" in your list. (Not mine or other people, but you are the one that brought the objective angle)

BG2. Beyond that, i agree. Eh, Mass Effect 1 had some of the best graphics for its time, and KOTOR 1 looked as good as any other Xbox/PS2 game at the time. Graphics != looks good. If art is bad, no amound of graphics will save it. BG2 looked terrible even back in early 2000s, and its artstyle failed to the likes of Icewind Dale. Mass Effect's artstyle actually looks decent for its time. By the same logic Mass Effect looked worse than Crysis so it was crap. Sure, IWD looked better than BG2. That doesn't meant BG2 looked bad. And i still think BG2 looks beter than ME and DA2. Their art realy doesn't do it for me.

BG2. Beyond that, i agree. Eh, Mass Effect 1 had some of the best graphics for its time, and KOTOR 1 looked as good as any other Xbox/PS2 game at the time. Graphics != looks good. If art is bad, no amound of graphics will save it. Planescape:Torment looks amazing to me because of the art, even if it's graphics are bad. BG2 was the only game from Bioware where i liked both the graphics and the art.