mcmanusaur

Speaking of mature themes, I want whatever you've been smoking in the game. Make it happen, Obsidian!

Ignatius for President!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2ZeTKc7Cyc&t=4m51s Investments mentioned at 4:51! You mad, anti-simulator bros?

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. I was merely reflecting on what others had previously said about whether things like sex are mature or immature, or both; I didn't purport to be representing anyone else's argument. So that's not a straw man.

Putting in shock value for the sake of it isn't mature. Such things are pointless unless they are deeply entwined in the narrative and overall "feel" of the game.

I would even go so far as to saying that Torment is an intentionally surrealistic game. But I don't think that's what the devs are trying to accomplish with PE. Which is an issue in and of itself. The devs have said that one of the advantages of kickstarter is they don't have to answer to a publisher, but shouldn't they answer to the fans? Sure they're making the game, but we funded it with certain expectations and the devs own personal desires for what they want in the game should come a distant second to what the fans desire (a game similar to BG, PST, and IWD in both mechanics and style). I know I didn't fund it because I trusted the names of the people, but because they promised a modern infinity engine game. Or maybe since they already have our money they feel they can do what they wish, but I'd rather not take such a jaded outlook. That's limiting the creative process in a way that no other artist would stand for. Personally I trust the developers to take certain liberties and break away from the old games because they clearly have a philosophy against many of the things that have hurt modern RPG's. I'd rather them not "answer to the fans" between now and release because the simple fact is that- as much as you may think otherwise- this community is as diverse as any other one, and no one person can pretend to speak for the rest of the fans.

Fun is completely subjective, and realism is one of those things that makes a game fun for many people. It's also subjective whether realism ever becomes a trade-off with gameplay. I'm glad we agree. I guess the question then is what the majority (not the vocal minority of the forums, mind you) finds more enjoyable. The only problem with that is that the majority finds Skyrim most enjoyable. This game is aimed at a minority.

And...? Conceivably random differences in evolutionary history- that might have brought about different races of sentient beings- don't change the way that physics operates (which is ultimately the reason why high fantasy armor and weapons are impractical) or which traits are selected for (which are the cause of what we consider realistic behavior). The point is, just because a game makes sacrifices in some ways doesn't mean it has to forgo realism in every aspect (and in fact that would make for a ****ty game). Personally I like low-magic settings, but I'm alright with a bit of magic and fantasy races if the game is otherwise realistic. Fun is completely subjective, and realism is one of those things that makes a game fun for many people. It's also subjective whether realism ever becomes a trade-off with gameplay.

This isn't a puzzle game or hack-and-slash, this is an RPG. Aka R-o-l-e P-l-a-y-i-n-g. Which contrary to popular belief goes beyond any old fantasy game that uses the DnD system.

The worst thing would probably be for one of the cities to become no longer relevant at some point as the plot develops.

You guys can't read, can you? It's a petition, and no petition records people who side against it.

And you happen to have an extremely restricted view of what an RPG is, no doubt bolstered by all the DnD RPGs and spiritual successors.

Sorry, what's your question/point, again?

Sounds like Final Fantasy Tactics or something.

Are you meaning to imply that our characters shouldn't be able to climb up the feudal ladder and have vassals of our own?

Make that five... in serious need of merging.

Emotion is for sissies. End of discussion.

Only if this is accompanied by the line, "Let's split up, gang!"

I think we should hold a community picnic to encourage emotional bonding and mutually respectful interaction. Who's with me? I'll bring paper plates!

That sums it up perfectly. This is a ROLEplaying game. Now, we need to get out of narrow-minded approach that a role is only what you contribute to a party in a combat situation (DPS, healer, tank, crowd control, etc.). Some people like playing actual roles in the game's society, and this is something that would allow us to do that to a greater extent.

Pffft. And you forgot gloves, btw. I'd say this should be the absolute minimum: Helm/Hat Necklace/Amulet Armor Layer Clothes Layer Gauntlets/Gloves/Rings Main Hand Off Hand Boots/Shoes Quiver But a second helm/hat layer, customization for spaulders vs. pauldrons, vambraces and rerebraces, belts, pants/chausses/cuisses and greaves would all be cool. Perhaps, for most of the armor pieces though, that's better done with an interface in which you can view and customize the different components of an armor set, but keeping it all collectively one slot for equipment purposes. I think the main things I'm looking for is some semblance of layering and the ability to customize armor's appearance from separate components, but the latter doesn't have to necessarily be accommodated in terms of equipment slots.

Honestly I think it's strange that they bothered to create a subforum for mechanics but not anything else. If you ask me it's meant that mechanics have gotten less attention (people are likely to just browse general discussion), when mechanics are one of the main things to discuss during development.

Additionally, one must consider the summation of these various skills/abilities/talents/spells, each with their own individual value, into meaningful wholes. In my experience, often many RPGs are- intentionally or otherwise- designed so that the next level of value hierarchy is the entire build. That is to say that there exists a "build" concept that a player is aiming for, and every individual part is specifically chosen to optimize that whole (ignoring for a moment the casual gamers). As far as I know traditional DnD tends to have a handful of fully viable builds per class, which is decent enough in itself. Perhaps it's just habit that keeps people forming parties with one barbarian, one paladin, one priest, one wizard, one ranger, and one rogue, but that seems to be the preferred method of obtaining a diverse party. Now, if you look at it in terms of actual roles- DPS, healer, crowd control, etc.- that opens up possibilities for maybe having complementary characters of the same class. Well, these roles are often as hackneyed and boring as the classes themselves (might Project Eternity break the mold in terms of roles, if keeping a traditional class set?), but for me the main question of this thread is how much overlap there should be between classes and roles. That said, this would probably be a smaller concern for Project Eternity than for an MMO. But how much should classes and roles intersect? Should there be one specific class that excels at each role, or should most of the classes be able to fulfill most rules to some extent? What are the costs for not min-maxing your character of whatever class into a role? Are there any benefits? How viable are builds that attempt to fulfill multiple roles? That determines the number of viable builds, and the variety within in each class.

NOPE. Why would you want this? "Oh, wow look at all the work the devs put into making this building, but too bad this abandoned city will never see the light of day!"

Anyone who complains about lack of level scaling should go back to the Elder Scrolls.