Lephys

Make that soulless automatons with souls... Ahh, he beat me to it. I was gonna say "If they were soulless, they wouldn't be much good to you, now would they? *le smirk*," but now it's totally too late to say that to any effect, u_u. You may have inadvertently stolen my thunder, rjshae, but I've still got my lightning... *mage hands of lightning-brandishing*... and now it's STEALTH lightning! o_O

2 points of clarification, if I may: 1) Unreasonable arguments are unreasonable because they're unreasonable, not because they're on a certain side of the debate. People on the pro side making unreasonable arguments no more proves anything regarding the objectivity of the matter than people on the anti side making unreasonable arguments. I happen to think that, in an ideal world, romance finds its way into the game. However, I realize that, reality not-being ideal, there may very well be sufficient factors to support the decision not to put it in the game, none of which have to do with the very nature of romance as a form of sentient-being-to-sentient-being interation, however (nor with its supposed inability to be coded in a video game without ruining all things). But, notice that I made no comment regarding "pretty much all the pro-romance arguments" in here. Just because I find reason in implementing romance in some form of fashion into this game, that in no way means that many pro-romance arguments that have been made in this (and other) threads aren't unreasonable. 2) I have absolutely no interest in swaying the ultimate decision of the development team. Only in objectively evaluating/exploring the potential implementation of romance in such a game, so as to collaboratively uncover as much useful information as possible for the benefit of whomever is interested (including, potentially, the devs, if they're considering romance).

There's nothing Fantasia-ing can't accomplish. It's like Omni-kinesis. He's got that yellow-starred blue pointy hat on and everything, making grandiose hand/arm gestures to bring forth bird chirps and symphonics, alike, I tell you.

If it made you smile against your will, you can probably sue it. Unless of course you failed your Will save.

Yeah, the game was designed to be played on normal... BY PANSIES! I jest. Flowers can't play games. Designing any aspect of the game for play by pansies would be nonsensical. u_u

Ahhh crap. I'm pretty sure that's against Internet Regulation 119, Page 17, Paragraph C. The Internet Police are going to throw us into Internet Prison. They'll charge us with Disturbing the Turmoil.

I... guess? *shrug* *Looks up info on the shields in Magicka*

Haha, yeah. So far, Shadowrun Returns seems to be doing a pretty good job of just having different tonal syntaxes for the same thing, and for changing that "I've got to go..." to something like "Thanks for your time" or "Yeah, that's what I thought" once you've actually utilized other dialogue options after initiating the conversation. However, there are still a few "Neverminds" floating about, even after I engage in polite conversation with someone AND buy things from them. That just feels REALLY weird, at the end of a cordial interaction. "Nevermind? What do you MEAN 'nevermind'? Do you want to return those items you just bought? Did you ask a question and I didn't hear you? I'M CONFUSED, AND/OR YOU'RE A JERK! A strange, strange jerk!" It's not really that big of a deal, but then... it's not really that much work to "fix," either. Add to that the examples of it being "fixed" in the exact same game, so "we didn't want to take the time to change the 'goodbye' line according to the progression of the conversation" doesn't even fly, 'cause they already did so. It would be most pleasant if we didn't have to be too cool for school whenever we mechanically end conversations/interactions. 8P

It's actually not all THAT difficult to not have a bunch of same spells with flavor differences. Lots of work? Sure. As with anything in quality game development. But, you can make a simple change and have 2 different spells. Example: Wizard -- Fireball: Launches a concentrated orb of flame at the target/location, exploding on impact. Druid -- Pheonix Fire: Conjures a Pheonix spirit to attack up to 3 specified targets in sequence, striking anyone in its path between the targets. Boom, there's 2 AOE/multi-target fire spells for you that act in completely different fashions. There's no reason both a Wizard AND a Druid NEED to have a spell that fires a flamey projectile at a target, then deals radial fire damage.

You win a free pun... at the opportune moment.

Funny thing is, I played Mass Effect 2 on Insanity (which was, admittedly, a bit ridiculous), and it wasn't anywhere NEAR as bad as either DA game, even though they're both using almost the same engine. Mass Effect 3 was even less ridiculous than 2. In 2, there were only a handful of encounters that were just ludicrously difficult, no matter what you did. In 3, there were a lot of encounters that seemed ludicrous at first, but after exploring various tactics for a couple of tries, I ALWAYS found at least one way (usually multiple ways) of virtually dropping the difficulty of the encounter down to about Hard, if not Normal, via the efficient/effective use of my tools, rather than through attrition.

He can't hear you... he's in his sound-proof studio, Fantasia-ing all the musical instruments and equipment about and weaving dreams.

As Kore said, I was merely referring to the potential of Obsidian providing an "editor" toolset, with the premade terrain bits and such that they used. Basically, the same type of editor we find in oodles of games. If you wanted to make custom terrain and objects and such, then obviously you'd have to make it all yourself, and it would be much more extensive. But, it's possible it wouldn't be too difficult to simply provide a default toolset that includes all the existing bits and pieces Obsidian has already put into the game. Whether they do that is a different story, and is dependent on a lot of other factors, beyond how easy it is to provide such a toolset for this faux-3D style.

I don't know about the Druid guess, but the Paladin is possibly the single biggest team-player class in the game. I have my doubts about that being an omission from the companion ranks. Hmm... I can't come up with any good guesses,

As far as family-forging goes, that would probably be best for an "ending" occurrence, if at all. Hey, maybe your family could play a part in the expansion. 8P But, yeah, I really don't see people worrying too much about that DURING some ongoing world-shaking turmoil-tackling. The importance of romance lies merely in the dynamic range it adds to personal relationships. It's not about writing some standalone love story that's meant to occur, and tacking it onto the game's narrative like a sidecar on a motorcycle. It's about allowing the simple concept of romantic development exist in its rightful niche in the world. It's REALLY a lot like a given class's existence in the game. Even if you never have a Wizard in your party, ever, Wizards still exist in the game and comprise a portion of the overall game world. Pretty much every anti-romance argument I've seen in this thread (and others) that's of any legitimacy whatsoever has directly involved specific flaws in the implementation of romantic aspects in a game, rather than with romance itself. Just because a bunch of games put snow in the desert, and that's a legitimately terrible idea, does not mean that there shouldn't be snow in frigid climates, either. It doesn't say anything about snow, itself. It just indicates one thing to NOT do with snow.

I'm not sure exactly. The answer's in a lot of factors, I think. To put it overly simply? Don't give a preview of the entire spell system database to a tiny Mageling. You don't even really know what you can learn, except what is contextually near to what you are studying/working with. Or, you bump into Trainers and such who can teach you things, but they don't really just plain give you preset, globally-wielded spells (not that there COULDN'T or even WOULDN'T be ANY globally-adopted spells). This is one of the reasons I advocate a more fluid spell system. I think it's silly that people go around all "Wait, you ALSO know Melf's Acid Arrow! Cool!". And that's it. Like... How did Melf ever cast his own Acid Arrow before it was a pre-defined spell, as recorded by himself?! I bet the first person who ever ran into Melf was like "Okay, I know this guy is a Mage, so I'm prepared with various magical defenses." And he was all "Ha-HAH! This shield repels fire, frost, AND lightning! Do your worst!" And Melf was all like "BOOM! Acid Arrow!". And the shield-wielder FREAKED out. Then, he probably ran off, all maimed from acid, and started spreading the tale, and everyone misconstrued it, and didn't know if it was true or not, and maybe other Wizards heard about it and started trying to mess around with acidic effects. *shrug* All I know is, if it were a wee bit more fluid, it would be functionally the same as the weapon system for all non-magic classes. How do you know that Warrior isn't about to fling some throwing knives at you, even though he's currently going at you with a greatsword? Or what if he specializes in disarming? Or what if he is actually practiced enough to hurl that sword as a last-ditch effort? OR to just throw you off, drawing a couple of shortswords while you're WTFing at the thrown greatsword, and finishing it all in a matter of seconds with the advantage of your complete and utter bewilderment? Sure, there are typical fighting styles and such, and typical weapon styles. But, you just don't really know exactly how people are going to USE what they have at their disposal. You don't even know exactly what they have at their disposal. If you've never read any of the Wheel of Time series, you should. I think the One Power in those books is quite an excellent example. There's a healthy combination of fear, rarity, and obscurity that goes on with that. There are people who don't even know they can tap into the power, and weave it. There are OODLES of ways in which to weave it, such that even the most trained in its use are aware of just how much of its use they're unaware of. It's dangerous, because it's an externally-existing force. People can read "residues," so if you think you'll just slaughter a bunch of people, then "Ha-HAH!" your way out of there via a portal or something, others who can use the power can track you. People can detect when you're using it (if they can use it, or have a device that can alert them). So, if you think "Hmm, I'll just weave a giant explosive fireball and hurl it at-", Boom, you just got shielded. Someone wove a shield before you could finish doing what it is you were doing. Just the same, you start weaving that stuff, and some guards notice, or someone calls out? Boom. Arrows in your back. You CAN weave a shield of Air, to stop arrows, but you have to know about them, and weave it, and know that no one's detecting you while you do that, or during its duration, before you accomplish what you're trying to accomplish. Plus, if a weave (spell) is "tied off" rather than maintained (kinda like non-channeling versus channeling... heck, the spell-casting in that universe is all called "channeling," heh), it's a lot easier to dismantle/counter/affect. And, again, we're back to "you only have so much focus/effort to distribute between tasks/weaves." Annnnywho, I could go on for ages and not make the point as well as I'd like. A few things, I guess: Rarity -- everyone can't be an uber powerful person. Even if 50 people in a town can use magic, maybe they all have drastically varying levels of potency/precision/effect-producing-range. This was one reason I mentioned The Last Airbender. You've got effectively "equal" people still using drastically different abilities. Some Earth benders know how to do things other ones don't, etc. Co-existence -- it's got to coexist with the physics (for lack of a better term) of the rest of the world. With the concrete slab of reality that the fantasy world is based upon. If you can weave a fireball, you've still got to concentrate on that process until it's done. You're still only human. There need to be very real threats to even a potent magic-user's well-being. Everything else in physics has inherent limitations, and so should magic. It's just a fictitious form of physics-manipulation. It's not outside the realm of physics. It's just the source that's artificial, really. Not the effects. Not inherently, at least. I've just babbled a bunch of stuff. I don't know exactly how to answer that question. But I'm all for exploring for an answer.

@Agris: I think the answer to your problem lies in the circumstantial effectiveness of your build. What I mean is, if you make a Warrior with max Defense and HP, but with hardly any offensive capabilities whatsoever, then if you're trying to have him take stuff down, you have "failed." BUT, he's still viable. In general. You CAN use him for something, viably, throughout the whole game. If you spend all your time having him engage foes and corner and route enemies, he could be QUITE good at what he does. So, yes, there can be a sense of accomplishment in more efficiently utilizing the rules to achieve your goal, as opposed to less-efficiently/effectively doing so. BUT, I don't think there's any need for you to be able to put 18 (DnD numbers example) in 3 stats, and 7 in 3 others, and have your character not be viable for ANYTHING in the game, just because of his class. Basically, the game needs to have a greater variety of criteria for what is viable and what isn't. Or, to put it another way, a range of different forms of viability. If you've "failed," it needs to be in the form of your character not being effective in the specific manner in which you wish them to be effective. Not "Your character literally is disabled, because your stat allocation counteracted all ways in which you're supposed to allocate your stats for this class." If you want to make a Wizard with 18 Strength who fights unarmed, then just because his Unarmed fighting capabilities aren't on par with a Fighter's or a Monk's doesn't mean he's nonviable, or that his melee fighting can't be useful. Maybe when opponents close in on him, he can effectively stun them, and/or disarm them, etc., then escape their engagement. Again, if you just want him to smite everyone at close-range, without the use of his Wizardry, then yeah, he's not very viable under your criteria. So, strictly because of what you wanted out of your character, you shouldn't have built him that way, and you may have effectively "failed" at character creation.

^ Good point, Tale. That does make things interesting, heh. Guess all modders will have to study perspective texture use. Although... since the camera angle is fixed, you could essentially "paint together" terrain and assets and such. It'd basically work the same as 3D stuff, only you'll have to set collision zones and such separately, instead of them being built-in to the objects you're placing. *shrug* Still an interesting difference.

I think the obscurity of magic is an important thing. It should be rather nebulous in its possibilities, kind of like martial arts or swordsmanship (or engineering), in that even people who are quite familiar with it shouldn't know all there is to know. I think that's one of the things that makes it so bland in a lot of worlds, is everyone always referencing "fireballs" and such. It'd be interesting if some people couldn't even affect certain elements, for example. Maybe there are mages who can't do a lick of ANYTHING with fire. Almost like benders in The Last Airbender story. Almost. Anywho, it'd be great if magic wasn't just some cliche thing. "Oh, so you telekinetically move things and shoot fire? Cool." It'd even be pretty awesome if there were some sort of mystery/crime you had to forensically solve, as a mage (or at least as someone familiar with magic/a researcher of magic), by tracking down another mage and figuring out how/what they did. Mage frame job, making it look like bandits with firebombs or something, etc. But, that's the best I can say about it: It's good when even a Mage couldn't really tell you what another Mage is capable of. And the more magic there is just being tossed about willy-nilly (obviously there can only be so much, feasibly, but there IS a range), the greater the need for anti-magic countermeasures. If magic isn't often used/seen on a regular basis, then maybe countermeasures are pretty rare/obscure as well. Maybe there are Ghostbusters-style traps for spells, so they act as a defense, AND form a sort of counter-offensive, should you decide to release the spell-energy trapped within. Maybe they don't always come back out in the same form, because of structural deterioration of the energy, *shrug*. Maybe people just know of ways to non-magically silence/otherwise disable magic. Basically, it doesn't need to be "some people can use magic willy-nilly, and everyone else is just completely helpless, and totally fears all magic, and knows all magic, and everything's just all static and blatantly unbalanced in the world and boring, yet, somehow, mages don't rule the world..."

Haha. "You're out tilling the fields for the season. Suddenly... DRAGONS! Annnd play!" I agree with your sentiments, McManusaur. However, I wouldn't equate a supernatural plot event in P:E being quite significant to the narrative with ALL supernatural plot events always drastically shaping the narrative. It's when the significance of the event relies directly upon its mere supernaturalness that such things are crappy. That's just bad writing. Example: There's fundamentally no difference between a powerful Mage or dragon attacking a city and leveling some buildings, and an army/militant group attacking a city with perfectly realistic explosives/technology and leveling some buildings. The significance of that attack upon a city should (if you're a good writer) come from oodles of other factors (what buildings were taken out, what was going on at the time, who was involved, who KNEW who was involved, who made what decisions whilst fighting them off, or prevented them from destroying further buildings, etc.), not from "OMG CANNONS!" or "MAGEERY!" or "DRAGON-NESS!". In other words, fantasy and non-fantasy are just flavors. Bad writing is bad writing, not because supernaturalness, but because bad writing.

But, you make it seem so easy! It's like you made that post... with Bothans tied behind your back. I'd just like to point out that, while this is a very good point, all it really proves is that there's no need to directly tether optional romance to overall character interaction/development quantity. Romance REALLY isn't that major of a thing. I mean, boiled down, it's like a switch factor, just like your race, or your class, or your Charisma, or your alignment/reputation (the controllable portion). You can have character development and opt to not flirt or do anything even remotely romancey, OR you can have character development while also happening to be flirty with a given character. But, really, when you look at it like that, it IS very similar to almost anything else (hatred, smartassery, etc.). Hell, it's basically a form of faction reputation, in mathematical/coded function. Just imagine it's but a single faction within a given character. You could build up your comraderie with that character, or your rivalry, or your dominance (maybe you want to turn them into a lackey?), or your romantic interest. IF they even have any, to begin with. If a given faction in the game only accepts Dwarves, and you're not a Dwarf, then no amount of nicety is ever going to sway them. Doesn't mean they hate you. You can still interact a-plenty with that faction. You just can't do CERTAIN things with them, like become their leader in a week's time, like in Skyrim! 8D! Haha.

Really? Mine is thousands of spiders burrowing out of my skin, then growing to giant size. In all seriousness, I dare say that it's one thing to, for example, hope the Obsidian team doesn't suffer any unfortunate accidents or anything, but another thing entirely to say "I'm really afraid they're all going to go outside and play in traffic on their lunch break." I don't really see anything they're doing that bolsters any kind of crazy risk of this game failing miserably. So, to go back to the traffic-danger analogy, I don't sit around fearing that a herd of cars is going to Dukes of Hazzard its way through the side of the 4th floor (or whatever floor they're on) of their offices and smash them all to bits. I know they're careful people who don't play in traffic, and they don't work in some place with heightened risk of cars inadvertently ramming into their offices. So, it's just not a major concern. It has no reason to be.

Could someone please provide some kind of reference to the talk of memorization? From what I understood, they hadn't really said anything about actual memorization. And, I wanna say they said something about how, as a difference from the standard Vancian magic system, you'll just have access to all spells in a given grimoire. There was even talk of switching between grimoires/spell sets in combat, much like weapon set switching (longsword to longbow, and back, etc.). Anywho, I'm just curious about those details. I'll try to dig up the stuff I seem to be recalling, to make sure I'm not just imagining things. But, it kinda sounded like they were doing the following (example): You currently have 5 LvL-2 spells in your Grimoire. You can cast 3 LvL-2 spells per-day. You can cast 3 of the same spell, or any combination of 3 instances of any of the 5 spells of that level in your Grimoire. If you switch grimoires, to one with 5 DIFFERENT LvL-2 spells, then you can expend your remaining LvL-2 spell ammo on any of those spells, while that given grimoire is equipped. Maybe you can cast 5 LvL-1 spells per encounter, because they're easy enough for you at this point. And LvL-0 spells might be infini-cast (like Pathfinder), 'cause they mentioned that. But, the detail I'm closest to certain of is that the limitations of the grimoire are supposed to take the place of the limitations of memorization in the typical system. I suppose you could know, in general, more than 10 LvL-1 spells, but you may only have 10 in a given grimoire. Different grimoires may be able to hold greater amounts of spells, or even apply metamagic-type effects to spells, etc., or affect your casting stuff (this one gives you +3 LvL-1 spells per day, this one gives you +1 LvL-2 spells per-encounter -- even if you currently have a base of 0 LvL-2 spells per encounter, etc.). Annnnywho. Sorry... If you can't tell, I enjoy magic characters.

If they're reinventing, then, by definition, they're not changing. If you "reinvent the wheel," you're basically trying to make a wheel, but you're pretending it doesn't already exist, and using the existing knowledge of its design pros and cons. If you ask me, the problem with the games industry is that everyone else ISN'T trying to reinvent things. They're either just directly copying and tweaking a few aesthetic values for flavor ("THIS shooter sequel will have like 3 more guns! 8D! And a different 'story'! 8D! And more enemies to kill!"), rather than actually re-iterating on their core design from the ground up, using their experience and knowledge from their previous iteration to their advantage. All they're doing is stuff they WISH they could've done originally, but lacked the tools/resources/knowledge to do before.

Obviously, they Rock-Paper-Scissors to see who brings the heals for those face bruises. And yes, Chrono Trigger influences, FTW! Two Wizards are better than one, 8D! Seriously, I know it's an action game, but I urge the team to pay attention to the way combos worked in Mass Effects 2 and 3. I'm not saying "Make the gameplay like Mass Effect's gameplay." Just... they made a little combo go a long way, and they could've even done a lot more. It was very active combos, and felt a LOT better than DA:O's "Hey, if they have an obscure status from one class, this other class can then deal bonus damage! 8D!" system. So rudimentary... Also, it's great to know you guys are sparing no expense with the companions... I mean, they're like... champagnions. 8D