Lephys

Would you say you enjoy it even at the... "pest" of times?

^ To clarify, I was under the impression we were talking about "good" as in "quality." However, that is a very good (no pun intended, strangely enough) point made regarding "good" as in "anti-evil" characters. Tying our two analyses together, I'd say that even the "purest" good (anti-evil) character should still be tempted to do not-good things sometimes. That's what I meant by emotion versus reason. You may have every intention of being the most righteous person in the world, but you're still only "human" (I realize there are different races, but, I mean no one's perfect, and we're all susceptible to mental states/emotions/other factors). There should be some situations in which that ultra-good character feels like doing something they know isn't exactly "good" in their own philosophy. Even if those situations aren't very plentiful. That on top of not necessarily being able to make your intentions and the results of your actions/decisions match up.

^ Well, that, and I was also more just thinking about the effects of approaches to a situation (the example basically being an infiltration). Maybe you're able to sneak in (as an intruder who's simply, if you did it right, not spotted), or pose as a noble, OR pose as a servant, for example. Posing as a noble would probably allow you the most access to sensitive information, etc., and free reign of the premises (in general... I'm not saying no one would question anything at all you did). BUT, people are sure to not only see your face, but take note of it. So, anything after that in the game that required being in the presence of those people (as your no-longer-posing-as-a-noble self) would result in trouble. You'd have to avoid certain people, or deal with the trouble of being recognized. And, while sneaking in might leave you unexposed (you can cover your face, or just not get spotted 'cause you're so stealthy, etc.), you maybe have less time to get what you need and less access to the premises/information from important people's mouths (the more of the grounds you cover while sneaking about, the less likely you are to remain unseen, etc.). BUT, you could easily be around any of the people present at that place, in the future, and no one would be the wiser. Posing as a lowly servant would grant you access to the servants, and part of the premises, and maybe you could even overhear some stuff from nobles/important folk, etc. Maybe you could even try to sneak into some other rooms at opportune moments, but you'd be at higher risk of being discovered. And MAYBE some people would recognize you later, but it'd be a lot fewer (mainly people who directly manage the servants, etc. Maybe a guard or two near the servants' entrance or something.) I realize there'd be a lot of other factors at play, but the point I was focused on is how facial recognition plays into your choices and their consequences in approaching a given scenario. That could be pretty awesome. Especially with a system that actually handles item/face recognition, as you've pointed out above.

To be clear/fair, slider adjustments and the like would be pretty pointless. However, a handful of distinct character shape options would be pretty significant, in the sense that it'd be one of the most still-visible distinctions in a fixed isometric viewpoint. It would basically be one of the least-subtle things you could possibly allow variance in, in terms of visual character customization. That being said, is it "terribly significant" that we be able to choose from multiple body shapes? No, not really. It would just be nice, and is feasible (in effect, not necessarily in implementability). As Josh has pointed out that adjusting the armor/equipment model components to various body types actually requires a lot of work, I think it's perfectly reasonable that they don't put in multiple body type options at character creation, and don't really think the game is suffering because of that.

Agreed. I don't need every individual choice (every line of dialogue you pick out of a list in a single conversation, for example) to produce some huge effect on the situation at hand, much less the future, but at the very least, you should be able to affect the general outcome of things. I'm going to use an example of The Walking Dead: 400 Days to illustrate how this kinda sucks. *SPOILER ALERT* In one segment, you play as a "kid" (He's probably college age?) named Russell. You start out, walking down a highway as the sun's setting. Some crazy guy pulls up in his truck. You can hide from him, or you can "stand your ground" on the side of the highway. Doesn't really matter which. It might affect how he reacts to that character later on (in Season 2 or something, outside the span of 400 Days), which is cool, but it doesn't affect anything at all in Russell's segment of 400 Days. Then, he asks your name. You can either be honest, or lie to him. Your name's on your backpack strap, so he knows either way, and either just becomes distrustful of you or appreciates your honesty. Anywho... then, you can reject a ride from him, or just gladly accept the ride. Either way, you ride with him. You pull up at a diner/gas station. People inside start shooting at you. He asks you to cover him while he makes a run for other cover (so you guys can make your way around to the back of the diner), and you get the choice of doing so, or aiming the gun at him, followed by the choice of "[shoot him.]" (brackets denoting an action choice). But guess what? You don't get to shoot him. The safety's on or something. They don't really say. So, now he's just pissed at you. But, NO MATTER WHAT, the only two outcomes of that situation are: A) die and stop playing the game or retry, or B) shoot at the people in the diner and make your way around the back, then go inside and disarm the old couple in there, then either HELP the crazy guy kill them and take their stuff, or tell him he's a meanie-face crazy guy and walk away as he kills them and takes their stuff. You get like 50 individual choices in that segment of the game, and yet, the ONLY difference you can effect in the outcome is whether or not you stick with the guy (who's blatantly crazy, no matter what you do... you don't even have to TRY to figure out he's insane and horrible), or walk away from him. You don't even CHOOSE to walk away from him. You choose to tell him he's frickin' nuts, and that's automatically a choice to have your character casually walk away and let him kill an old couple and take all their stuff.

They need to be comprehendable, and complex enough that you can't figure them out in a single dialogue (you may not even figure them out fully after the whole game. But, if you do, it should take some doing.) If they're... I won't say "evil," but, antagonizing you, you don't necessarily need to be able to sympathize with them, but you need to feel like they're making choices after considering things, same as you are. They're simply trying to get at different goals from a different perspective, and use a different approach. If they're friendly, they need to like certain things about you, and not-like other certain things about you. They need to have convictions, as well as doubts. Even the most zealous Priest needs to question his own faith, once in a while, even if the answer to his questioning is to keep his faith. Whoever they are, they need to struggle with the conflict between emotion and reason. They need to not have everything in the world figured out already, but strive to do so. Their personality needs to affect the way they make decisions, not just automatically decide things for them. I'm fine with a character who loves fighting, for example. But... why he loves fighting is much more important (and should be, in the way that character's written) than simply whether or not he favors fighting. Decisions and preferences are the result of deeper factors at play. Lastly, I would agree that Minsc was a bit overboard on the comic relief front. A character can easily be funny, but, they shouldn't just serve the role of humor for the player throughout the game. *shrug* People just aren't quite that pervasively one-dimensional ("I'm going to constantly refer to my miniature giant space hamster friend in a comedic fashion!").

I don't want any part of romances that are merely inserted into a dialogue system, in any game.

Regarding the face-recognition, it might also be affected by what approach you took to a situation. Maybe you broke in stealthily (trying to go completely unnoticed) and got spotted briefly by people who know you're out of place. The dilemma of "did they get a good look at your face?" problem ensues. OR, maybe you dress and act appropriately enough to blend right in as a lowly servant, and, while you're blatantly walking around everyone, no one bothers to take note of your face. 8P

But... that's really two separate things. One, you should consider what it is your targeted player base will want to do (the spectrum of all the popular enough desires that are feasible at all). Then, you have to consider how to support all character ideas that you're offering as interchangeable choices. We're talking general here. Not "I want to dump STR, but then melee fight everyone as a Wizard! 8D! YOU WON'T LET ME DO THAT FEASIBLY!" or anything nonsensical like that. The thing is... they're already offering muscle wizards. Meaning, if there's ANY feat of strength to ever perform in the entire game, then your Wizard with 20 Might is going to overcome it just like your Fighter with 20 Might. If your Wizard ONLY overcomes that check with soul-magic power, because he's a magic person, then your Wizard who's allowed to bash things really hard with melee weapons and such is never allowed to use his strength for anything else, ever. And if you let him use his physical strength instead of magical power to pass Might checks and the like, then you're still preventing anyone from ever making a physically-weak-yet-magically-potent Wizard. Likewise, if any "non-magical" class has 20 Might, they automatically are uber-powerful if they're ever allowed to do anything magical, ever. Btw, a muscle Wizard who just gets to rip chains in half and tear captors apart with his bare hands is just as ridiculous as a muscle anyone who can do that. So, that doesn't really say anything about muscle Wizard builds, as much as it comments on where to draw the line in terms of the function of Strength checks in the game, whoever's using them. The example I gave was that, as Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson instead of Scrawny Steven, there are situations you'd find yourself in, feasibly, in which that abundance of Strength would produce significantly different options/results than a lack-thereof. Just like in PnP games. Strength is a property of your character. Not just some combat damage bonus. Grappling... climbing, jumping, carrying things, breaking stuff, knocking people out instead of just pissing them off when you punch them in the head, etc. They've got all these scripted interactions going on in this game, specifically to have a lot more of that not-just-combat aspect of stats, a la PnP games. I don't really understand why any mention of a Wizard being able to perform physical feats as well as magic ones, to varying degrees of capacity, keeps being treated as some kind of ludicrous or irrelevant potentiality.

Well, yeah, the thing is, you can be big/wide/sizeable/not-lean and still be on good shape. You just won't be a sumo wrestler. You won't literally be mostly fat. You can have a lot more fat on you than another person, or a lot less. You can have a tiny frame, or you can really be "big-boned" (it's not that your bones are "bigger," per se, but that YOU'RE bigger because of your inherent bone structure and musculature). You're just not going to be a big squishy person who's "out of shape" (not so much literal shape, but fitness "shape") and still be anywhere near capable of being a level 1 any-class. I mean, MAYBE a Wizard? But then, that still doesn't quite cover the whole "you don't really have plentiful food available to even eat enough to maintain body fat unless you just sit around in a noble house all day long, every day, forever" thing. *shrug* Anywho, yeah, I think it's dumb when everyone's a friggin' Ken doll, and the only difference between people is the bulge of muscles. There should feasibly be size differences (width, height, length of limb, etc.) between characters, and that is one of the few things that's most noticeable when you've got smaller models and a fixed camera like we'll have.

Sounds like Kevin James. But Kevin James doesn't make people laugh. BUUUURRRRRRN Hey now... a lot of times, sure. But, if you haven't seen Here Comes the Boom, I recommend it. It's even kind of relevant to this thread, since Kevin James is being used as an example of a typical big-guy character mold, and yet, in the film, he falls out of that character mold when he "becomes an adventurer" (aka partakes in MMA fighting).

Nonek is one of my favorite characters in the story that is these forums. Just FWIW.

EDIT: Blarg... JFSOCC pretty much covered it. Curse my work-related delays in post-typing. 8P

Didn't realize you were talking about that other thread. My mistake. Doesn't change the fact that an objective analysis of the implementation of romance in video games is relevant to the "general discussion" of a video game that has decided there will not be romance. Then it seems you have selective acknowledgement, and are simply ignoring any posts that are not doing so. I really don't care if you even believe anything I'm saying, or how you feel about this. I'm simply pointing out to you that your "OMG, ENOUGH *dead horse gif*" interjections are not only unwarranted, but also pointless, in regard to the mere discussion of romance as a factor (absent OR present) in the design of games such as PoE. Wait, I thought that people weren't trying to whine until devs change their minds about romance? No you're telling me they are? Nope. You're arbitrarily assuming I'm telling you that by coloring outside the lines of my words. Put simply, something was announced to not be in the game, people discussed it anyway (not demanded that it be in a bunch... actually said "Here are effects I'm seeing of that component's absence in this design"), and the dev team obviously found that useful in regard to the inclusion of that component, even after it was already decided not to put it in the game. Thus, discussion of already-decided-upon thing was objectively relevant to the game's design. You don't have to insist on a particular choice, just to point out objective impacts of a specific decision. Like right now. I'm telling you your dead horse posts are pointless, but I'm not in any way insisting that you stop posting them. It's totally up to you. I just thought you might like to know that your dislike for other people's advocacy of romance and the exploration of its implementation and the effects of that implementation (or its absence) doesn't in any way make that exploration moot. Nor does the decision that romance will not be in the game (Once again, if you missed it, see "full misses" example above.) I really don't know what else to say on the matter. I've bypassed the "whose opinion is better" arena entirely by presenting empirical evidence that discussion of something already decided upon as not being in the game's design is potentially useful. If you'd like to insist on continuing a bunch of irrational justification of your own "I'm sick of hearing about romance" sentiments, then, totally feel free to waste everyone's time (including your own).

Also... if effective power/potential-reaching IS dependent upon education/training, then you could see an interesting secret, smuggled "weapon" of the underground/revolutionary groups simply being books and training facilities.

This. When a game developer "gives you" their tools, they still have them. A tradesman cannot do this, as his tools are not digital.

This. People even try to say "that's ridiculous that there aren't fat people in video games like this. That's discrimination!" But, really, it just doesn't make any sense for some dude to be like "I'm a veteran warrior who's fully capable but also can't even sprint 30 feet to get away from some orcs, and/or I get really tired after a few sword swings!" It's the same reason you can't make 500lb dudes in sports games. It's not saying "Hah-hah! Fat people suck! Skinny people rule!" It's simply depicting a world in which people who travel around on foot all the time and don't have a bunch of leisure time and/or rations wouldn't really be very out-of-shape. Now, sure, you could have less-than-ultra-ripped characters and such. Realistically-proportioned females who aren't automatically supermodels, etc. But, there's only SO out-of-shape someone's going to be, and still be an adventurer. There'll probably be plenty of portlier NPCs and such, simply living in towns and cities. But, not people actively battling a whole game's worth of trolls and undead minions, and making jump checks over chasms, etc.

^ Yesss. As a simple example, D&D had, in the equipment/goods list, various types/qualities of clothing (not even armor... just clothing). So, you could spend 50gp, and be dressed like a merchant, and people would actually more readily accept you as a merchant, etc. 200gp or so, and you could pass, visually, as a noble or someone of social import. So, really, beyond just clothing even, it would be nice to be able to invest in goods/resources that serve purely non-combat functions. In that whole "combat versus non-combat approaches to things" debate in some other threads, one of the main points was "combat costs you resources and whatnot, and stealth/diplomacy costs you nothing." But... what if it DID cost you stuff? In this case, the examples are mainly illustrating "diplomacy," to use the general skill name for non-combat manipulation/result-effectation. These people will only let you in if you FORCE your way in, or if you pass as a caravan? Better go gather information on local caravans, and fork over money to at least rent a wagon o' goods and some proper attire, etc.

So true. A game setting/story needs a conflict/issues, and the developer draws from real life and thinks "Hey, this real-life era had an interesting conflict and some interesting issues," and suddenly, the whole GAME becomes, in the media's eyes, just an elaborate political interactive article about the setting and its real-life inspiration.

That's funny. I don't think the OP said anything about specifically putting romance into PoE. It was simply an analysis of romance in games. Argument for romance, in the no romances confirmed thread. You know the post you liked. I can make an argument for cake, without demanding that anyone specifically eat cake at any specific time. I'm simply objectively assessing cake. "And that's why I think cake is good." You don't hafta say "DANGIT, man! We're STILL not going to get any cake!", 'cause I never said "we should go get some cake." If PoE didn't even exist, everyone could still make arguments for romance, and they obviously couldn't be arguing that it be implemented into a game that doesn't exist. And I see people discussing the fact that it is confirmed not to have romances, and the effects they feel that has on PoE. Seems relevant to me. It's pretty "general," but still a relevant "discussion." I don't see a "Should romance be in PoE?" poll in this thread, so it's not some big collective argument for whether or not we should put romance in PoE. If you don't feel it's a worthwhile discussion, then go discuss worthwhile things. But, discussing the effects of a lack of romance on PoE, in general, is not a crime, nor is it against the intended purposes of this forum. So, unless you feel like just telling everyone how worthless you feel their discussion is, I don't really see the point in tossing dead-horse gifs around everywhere. There are like 7 Armor and Weapons Inspiration threads. Are THOSE people beating a dead horse? Should we go over there and tell them they've discussed enough, and should stop now? PoE also had no full misses in attack resolution. People discussed that decision. Then, guess what? PoE suddenly DID have full misses in its design. I guess you didn't do a good enough job, telling those people to stop discussing things because a decision was made.

It is when you don't have reason to. Which is exactly why I gave the example of someone who happens to be "one of the enemy" living peacefully in your town, operating a small shop stall. In other words... ... If rabbits were people instead of rabbits, there could actually be rabbits somewhere existing peacefully without taking anyone's lettuce, and if you took a mob to them and burned their house down and hung them because they're rabbits, too, and you've decided to hate rabbits, then you'd be illogical. See, that's the difference between rabbits and people. You know rabbits are going to be rabbits. You also know that you just need to keep rabbits off of your property. Nobody's "specist" against rabbits. Nobody declares war on rabbits, and goes out actively trying to kill them all out in nature. They just kill them when they come into their garden, etc. The difference is, with people, we KNOW each individual person can choose whatever the hell they want to do. Even if all people of a certain type loved lettuce, they could easily just not-steal people's lettuce. And you inherently know this, because you're a people, and you're part of some ethnicity, members of which have done oodles of stuff that you have never done and will never do. How is it anything but illogical to assume "well, MY ethnicity can choose on an individual basis, but THEIRS can only do bad things, and so I should just treat them all like crap!"? Where's your evidence or rationale behind that? Still not really relevant, because Orcs are fictional, and are generally written as evil. Which is even worse than just dangerous predators, like wolves or such, because wolves don't plan to take over villages. IF Orcs, in a given lore, aren't inherently evil (which, again, doesn't even really exist in real life), then, yeah, it's actually pretty illogical to assume they're all evil and hate them on-sight. The second anyone ever meets an Orc who helps someone and/or doesn't want to fight and kill anyone, they now know that not all Orcs are evil. Being racist and being cautiously aware of statistics are two completely different things. It's one thing to know that crime is highest, per capita, in one area of town, and to be cautious when in that area of town (simply because you know SOMEONE in the area is committing a lot of crime, but not specifically who), and another thing entirely to learn someone lives in that area, and decide they're a criminal and treat them like crap.

I'd just like to point out, in regard to "these are tiny little character models," that overall body shape/size/stance is about the most noticeable thing you can mess with in such a situation. A hairstyle can get covered by a helmet or hood, gender can get even get blurred by armor, but the fact that your Aumaua Barbarian is twice as wide as everyone else in your party is going to be pretty blatant even if everyone's wearing full clone plate.

Come onnn... you've gotta admit that that squarish S-shaped block in Tetris was pretty hot... u_u

I hope so, too. It doesn't have to be modern MMO "adjust forearm apex... adjust elbow depth... adjust foot size" or anything so specific. But, mayyybe something a little more in-depth than "You can pig between small, medium, and large." You could even venture into not-purely-cosmetic territory with some of the stuff (like height/size), but that's a pretty hefty "maybe." Really, just simple physical build customizations would be nice. Tall, short, lanky, bulky, muscley, etc. Stuff like that.

I agree that you need branching consequences/results of choices, but you don't necessarily need giant hunks of mutually exclusive content. Mutually exclusive choices, and mutually exclusive scenarios, sure (if you decide to believe Steve the Alleged Thief is innocent, and help him by double-crossing the guy who hired you to kill him and retrieve what was allegedly stolen, then you obviously can't ever do any further stuff for/with that guy. Or, vice versa, and Steve's dead, etc.) But, yeah, the use of "this 30% of the sheer content of the game is actually just one big path branch, in lieu of that other 30%" can get pretty heavy-handed in games. Sometimes it works/fits, sure. But, it's not really some integral thing to force into the design, just to somehow fabricate significance.