pzp11

specialized classes, more spells, more helmet/armor/weapon designs, definitely a third big city ...

thank you, obsidian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhPh_fmLaFA The badass looking guy standing at the back is the priest. Be it runes or insignias or magical touch-screen like in the video, I think I'd be happy with something as 'subtle' as this but still compelling. I also thought of importing the idea from skyrim and its 'shouts' where there was a specific verbal word/phrase matched to a specific spell, like fus ro dah, is force level 3 (each word had some specific meaning but I can't remember). But this may not be that necessary. I just want my wizard to have the arcane, scholarly, disciplined outlook. Equipped with an erudite learning and a wide array of invocations at the tip of his tongue. Also .. to add, that avatar clip made me think of incorporating environments into the gameplay. Or maybe it's for another thread.

When I read ciphers as ones drawing energy from the soul I just thought it's something like a sorcerer but not magic. And considering it's skill being related to soul and mind manipulation maybe it's something like a alteration / illusionist / rogue / bard mixup. I was also thinking it could also add steampunk machinery kinda element to it too? But that might reduce the raw feel of a pure sorcerer. Maybe put that as a subclass.

I can't remember exactly which title was it, but it was isometric and each character had different field of vision based on race/class/skills. Like a dark elf had vision penalty in bright places and characters with night vision had better vision in caves for e.g. And clicking on a ranger to scan for hidden traps, etc.

Field of vision reduced, attack speed reduced, movement speed reduced... when near death. And I like the idea about npcs responding to your outer appearance but it should be kept minimum or creative so ot doesn't sound generic. I hear the same comments on my character every 30 sec I walk around in Oblivion that I'm sneaky or something. How did they know I'm sneaky if I'm being sneaky? And keep those comments to yourself! Instead of generic "hey you look (insert name of highest attribute/skill in adjective form)" it could be expressed more subtly like people getting out of your way, occasional gossiping among themselves of my possible* connections to the thieves guild or something.

Hi, I made the difficult choice to join the discussion. If you'll just bear with me ... To start I just want to say something about faith and religion. Some questions above tried to isolate faith from religion, and then failed (sorry I'm too lazy to peruse the thread to cite individual arguments), and tried to go back again with the example of how people deal with daily lives without really asking every single thing. I think the OP was asking about religious faith after all. Because if the OP was asking about assumptions then the question is already solved. Another word for assumptions would be inductive arguments, which are found on reason, as someone above already pointed out in the mother-poison example. If the OP was asking about why we make assumptions, well, that's an entirely different question. My understanding of religious faith is strictly limited to the Christian tradition. I think faith is an elusive term when it comes to definitions, but I think most will agree that faith is found on reason and experience. This is why I think faith still exists, if not growing, despite the secularization. To explain how faith is found on reason and experience: to go with the latter first, personal experience. Most opponents against the religious faith make the argument that religion is so subjective and personal, but aren't we all subjective and personal when we deal with things we really love and trust? Being subjectively inclined towards a certain flavor does not make your whole appetite invalid and unreliable. But this is not really my argument. I'm just trying to explain that religious faith comes from personal experience that is not as fleeting as a mood but from a 'real' experience, just like any other experience we all personally have. It's not about religious people having weaker judgment or are more susceptible towards illusion. Actually it is so 'real' that one simply cannot just deny it. If there's a life-changing experience, this is it. The point on faith and reason. After that moment of experience, it is not that all doubt disappears. This is why faith is also a journey, but only those who have had the first experience can join it. If you will you could also say that there is a pre-journey to this journey, as a curious unbeliever seeks for that 'first experience', but that's for another discussion. Anyway, after the first experience, all one has is that undeniable experience as proof, and reason at one's disposal. The journey is about using reason, but always relying back on that first experience to grow in relationship with God. So it's not like being converted means losing one's reasoning faculty. Everything outward remains as it is, doubt continues to ask questions (perhaps even more vigorously because there's so much at stake) but the first experience changes his/her every perspective. It's like how one's previous allegiance to one's best friend totally changes when one discovers him/her talking behind one's back -- the new information totally changes the way one sees things. Likewise, the things one may have believed (e.g., nothing beyond the world and idea, there is no God, my belief is all that matters) totally changes because of that first experience. But, regardless of how life-changing this is, I'm not fully sure but I would like to believe, that one may still have a choice whether to accept it or reject it. What is sure is that a believer is one who has taken the step to accept the changes that are going on within him/her, and this translates into taking further steps towards finding more about God. To recap in a sequential form: God acts -> the 'first experience' -> journey with reason --- Now, finally, to answer the question: why people bother with faith. The general assumption is that 'faith' is founded upon a certain function or will, be it biological, psychological, spiritual, or political, societal, etc. So questions like, 'why still hold onto some extremely outdated beliefs?' may arise. My short and rather insufficient effort to explain above tried to 'correct' this assumption by saying that faith did not come from a clever human idea, but that it came to us first. I think this is what makes faith genuine and worthy of trust (if not some curiosity). And if a 'believer' does not agree with this, then I suggest he/she best think about what he/she's really believing in.

What do you mean "not limited to just the five elements"? An avatar is a god incarnated as a human or an animal. They don't have to be tied to any of the five elements. Or are you referring to some work of fiction that I have missed? Yeah the discussion reminded me of a specific animation movie-comic called 'Avatar: Last Airbender' and I was referring to that context. It's about people living in countries where they serve elements as gods (religious aspect) and have elemental powers, like fire, water, etc. Their affinity to each respective element is expressed in their clothing, hairstyle, perhaps even temperament, ... that was what I was trying to get. I should have made that clear, sorry about that. I agree with you that it doesn't have to do with the five elements. The film is not recommended to watch, by the way.

They're improving the fighting mechanics. I don't know how much but I read it'll be better than the previous series.

Kinda avatar-esque. Except that it's not limited to just the five elements.

Um I thought planetouched would be a little more subtle .. going with the Aasimar/Tiefling .. and not something that just freak everyone out when you step into a town unless you cover yourself up in full armor or its Halloween. Unless planetouched are a common sight and it's okay to see talking borderline alien monsters selling fruits in the market.

So basically you want less hand holding? I can relate to that. It's more satisfying if not every person in the world has a sign over their head. Questgivers approach you to deliver a quest, enemies blindly charge you etc. That has been done to death. I liked how in BG, bears would only turn hostile if you stay standing in their territory. Something similar should be true for more enemies. Maybe out of a group of enemies, one (the gung-ho one) should attack you while the others stand back. Now you cut down the loner, but do you also attack the rest immediately to gain an advantage? Or do you sheathe your weapons, hoping that after this display of power/ lone maniac getting killed, the rest of the group will stay peaceful? Also, estates or rich NPCs were kinda nicely done in BG2, more of that. Do you rob them/ burglarize their homes, or attempt to get a quest from them? Yep. Like for e.g., there's this widow who is being stubborn from handing over a certain item that I need to complete my quest. I could certainly try to go into dialogue and persuade her, help her out, etc., but I also want the 'unmentioned' not-so-obvious option of just turning to hostile mode and killing her outright, or pickpocketing her, or hire mercenaries to take care of her, etc. This kind of 'freedom' to do whatever you want, and the ability to deal with ethical questions/dilemmas within yourself is what I think as 'mature' in the sense that only a 'mature' people can experience this kind of dilemmas between "self gratification" and "commitment to others" as someone above already mentioned. And also to the guy who said realism should be just taken out because PE contains soul and fantasy themes ... you got Reality (the REAL) and 'reality' (in game) confused. The moment you start playing a game, especially a RPG, you've already taken a step towards escaping reality. The reality-fantasy issue we're talking about here is already presumed as non-reality (that is, not REAL). The discussion here is directed and limited within the game-reality and there is nothing wrong to incorporate certain themes from Reality to 'reality', as many others in this forum have already done (like asking for more 'realistic' armor, etc.).

ME3 had some poor forced elements, but seeing my favorite characters die one by one, and the whole balance between reluctant hopelessness and stubborn hope that carried all the way until the end when it's time to decide the outcome for Shepard and the world .. well that was quite moving for me at least. It wasn't like oh-kill-the-demon-lord-who-tries-to-open-the-gates-of-hell-and-you-save-the-world-thing-and-get-loot-and-be-crowned-as-king. The final scene forces the player to put your (Shepard's) own well-being as one of the possible choice alongside your beliefs. Idk, this part made me think a lot. I've played through the trilogy and I put more emphasis on the character relation than anything so maybe that amplified it for me. And I agree about the kid .. that cutscenes and dreams were kinda weird but the overall success (for me) let me just get over it.

I think one of the expansions in NWN had a 'dragonborn' or 'halfdragon' something as a class/trait (can't really remember what) but going this path allowed you to interact with dragons in ways others couldn't.

I think the language barrier issue is very realistic and should be incorporated. This brings in the interplay between your character and your party members more actively everytime when you enter a foreign town. I can see how it can lead to quests being solved or failed due to misunderstandings, etc. At least my wizard should be able to speak some ancient languages.