Lephys

Yeah, I get that. But, Shepard (at least in my playthrough) kinda calls her out on that, and she sort of admits to it without actually doing so. Her persona always felt to me like she was kinda purposely going all-out with it, to use her reputation for some manner of control without actually having to deal with as many incidents/issues. I think the truth of her is a bit of both. She really is sort of like a big kid who thinks she's way cooler than she is, while at the same time actually pretending she thinks she's even cooler than that to really sell it to anyone who might consider 1-upping her. Of course, her quality is all within the context of the Mass Effect series. I mean, she's not the best character ever or anything. I just thought she was notable, for being a minor character, within the Mass Effect 'verse.

Except, that she killed a lot of people just for the sake of power. I consider this quite evil. Meh... mostly a bunch of evil people who were prepared to kill her just for the sake of power. She didn't just go around slaying babies and laughing. If she killed someone, it was for a reason. She basically just instituted martial law on her own terms, simply because it's either that or complete chaos in Omega. Did she like what she did? Sure. But she still had a good reason for doing it, and that reason wasn't just to make her feel better. *shrug* I just liked the conversations with her and such, and her general character style, even though you only talk to her like 5 times. Of course, I didn't play the Retake Omega DLC, which I don't understand being DLC and not just an inherent part of the game. But I digress.

You know, "see you guys in a couple of weeks" doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't supposed to be an update yesterday. It could have EASILY meant that they're going to surprise-hack all of our webcams (or Microsoft Kinects or whathaveyou) in a couple of weeks, and quite literally see us. u_u Gyah... we jump to such conclusions, when it could've meant practically anything!

As someone mentioned already (in another thread recently, methinks), Skyrim's design also completely overruled the idea of different designs from the same material. Well, except for the handful of alternative "skins" for things (like the horned iron helm versus the non-horned one, etc). You couldn't make iron chainmail, or iron plate, for example. You just had "iron armor." And you couldn't make some cool particular style of breastplate out of Ebony. You just made the one-and-only Ebony armor. I'd really love to see different blueprints for different pieces offering differing pros and cons (THIS breastplate as opposed to THIS breastplate, etc.), even before material is factored in. I think there's something to be learned from the variety in arms and armor (as seen in this thread) in real life. This people made their armor like THIS, because of what they faced, the climate, the tactics being prevalently used against them, etc. It would be amazing for on-the-go adventurers coming through all these different lands to kind of mix-and-match from all the various styles and benefits of various designs and materials.

Yeah, just, at-a-glance, I'd say that if taxes aren't a significant enough thing (even if they're understood to exist in all cities/towns to some degree) to really affect you, they maybe shouldn't even be brought to your attention. That's why I mentioned the "You have to pay a weapon-carry tax in this town" example. Clearly, that has a large impact not only on your finances, but also on your capabilities while within the town. As well as the goings on of the town, itself. How people react to people with weapons, how people react to the people enforcing the tax, etc. Whereas, in some other town, there might be a 2% sales tax in place, but it's not really of any significance. Shy of making the whole game into a politics/economy simulator (in that you can always affect politics/taxation in any place, no matter what), there's not much benefit to having something like taxes permeate the entire gameplay experience. It's a little tiny bit like race reactivity. Some towns aren't even going to comment on the fact that you're an elf or whatever. Some towns might commonly see every race imaginable (some big trade hub or something), so it's just not even a big deal. But then, other towns might NEVER see Elves. So, you stroll in there as an Elf. Boom. Impacts the situation. I hope that makes sense. And I'm not trying to shoot down your suggesting. Just trying to help hash it out is all. 8P

What if there were actually like "small talk" opportunities throughout areas? You know, to actually give people a reason to strike up a conversation. Waiting in line somewhere, or browsing in the market. You could pull the whole weather comment thing at the fruit stall, as the person interested in fruit might actually have some interest/knowledge regarding the impact of the weather on the fruit, etc. But it's not something super personal. So, you've stricken up a conversation, and you can slowly get info out of them. Nothing super extensive. Just, "Hey, you didn't awkwardly walk up to me and start asking me intricate details about the people of this town, and where they live, and whether or not they lock their windows at night." Maybe someone at the market would potentially talk to you about where the produce comes from and/or who owns the farm, or about other people who frequent the marketplace, or maybe they'll even give you a hint about how to get better prices from a given merchant (i.e. "he really likes animals... if he thinks you're a loving animal appreciator, he'll likely be more amiable to deal-making"). Of course, with certain things, stopping someone at random would be fine. Such as "Excuse me, but could you direct me to the garrison/square" or "I was wondering if you could recommend a tavern/inn for the night. I've only just arrived here." Heck, maybe taverns could actually be the best places to go to learn about the goings on of the town, whether its from eavesdropping on conversations from people relieving stress at the end of the day, or speaking directly to drunken people who are more loose-lipped than their sober counterparts. It is a bit unsettling, though, when everyone's just totally prepared to reveal rather personal information to complete strangers, and don't think it's weird that you've just stopped them in the street to ask about their family.

Well, here's my response to the "are we just changing mechanics just 'cause of bows, beacause realism?" sentiment (which is a valid question, I believe): We already have factors at play for different weapons and such, right? Probably? I mean, polearms have already been mentioned as having a longer range. And different weapons might interact with different armor types in various manners. Maybe that dagger vs. plate has a greater Glance-to-Hit ratio than a dagger versus leather? And I already made the reference to DnD critical chance variance (some weapons had a crit range of 18-20, some 19-20, and some just 20). So, imagine that two different melee weapons have 2 different crit ranges. Maybe a Rapier has 90-100 (on the 1-100 P:E attack roll range), while a broadsword has 95-100. Well, even if you're treating ranged weapons "the same" as melee weapons, why wouldn't an arrow (or even a specific type of arrow) be able to have a different set of ranges than a broadsword, if a Rapier can? In other words: A) If you already have some variation between different melee weapons, then having variation for ranged weapons doesn't actually require any change to the system, so it can't possibly even be an arbitrary change just for ranged weapons' sake. B) Range is already going to have to factor in, unlike with melee weapons, so the Miss-Graze-Hit-Crit range is going to have to adjust no matter what. At what point will it mimic the melee weapon range? Who knows. Maybe at 5-10 feet (1-2 "people spaces" or "squares") it'll actually be slightly less accurate? Then starting at 15 feet, you're at the 5%-Miss and 5%-Crit spot. Then, every 15 feet thereafter, it shifts? Or some other increment. Anywho, the point is, unless you're treating every weapon in the game in exactly the same manner and aren't factoring the effects of range into ranged weapon accuracy at all, there's no possible way not to treat ranged weapons in a different manner. So, as for the "why don't we actually consider the differing chances arrows and the like have to graze and crit, etc." argument, and the "Don't just treat ranged weapons differently just because!" counter-argument, you're al-READY treating them differently. So, it's not really an insane consideration to be made. I don't think anyone's suggesting ultra-intricate physics-equations to determine the actual chance and degree of armor piercing as dependent upon angle, force, arc, etc, and/or the statistical probability that a "miss" of the target would actually strike a limb, inadvertently. Just, if any weapon is going to function in any way differently from any other weapon in the game, then that's already reason enough to at least consider whether another weapon should, and exactly how it should within the confines of the existing combat system (in this case, Miss-Graze-Hit-Crit), regardless of whether it's ranged or melee.

Yeah, I remember reading an interview with one of the people working on both Eternity AND Torment, and they said that one of the main negatives with a publisher is the sheer amount of wasted time and resources, spent in the name of appeasing the milestone updates to make sure they got their next 6 weeks-or-so of funding. So, you're working on stuff, and they want to see progress, but simply showing them what you're working with isn't good enough. They want like... a gorgeous, cinematic trailer of some class that isn't even finalized battling some villain who's already been conceptually replaced, because it looks really cool and makes THEM feel like "Yes, this looks very good and means the game is going to do well!", because they can't tell that from looking at alpha footage of incomplete systems, even though it's only been like 3 months of pre-production. So, they spend all that time making sure that cinematic looks really nice in that meeting, but all that work on that not only does them no good toward actual game production progress, but it actually does them a NEGATIVE amount of good, since they COULD'VE spent that time actually progressing with the game's actual production. They said they still have milestone meetings, but they only have to appease themselves, so they're happy with actual progress and not "this looks, to you, more like progress than actual progress does" impostor progress.

I believe the proper term is "Highly Defined." u_u P.S. I don't truly believe that, and this is pure silliness.

I think taxes could actually be a cool narrative element to have to deal with. You know in THIS town, you have to pay a tax to carry your weapons. Or you can give them up at the gate. Or, maybe there's a tax in place for out-of-towners using the inn/pub. Citizens present some sort of identification, and you don't have it, 'cause you're "not from around there." So, you have the option of trying to figure out how to get fake identification credentials, at the risk of being discovered and getting into a troublesome situation, or just paying the taxes. OR, maybe there's enough interest in getting these taxes removed to provide a quest-type opportunity to actually do so. Maybe a lot of people in the town feel that such taxes are hurting the town's financial well-being by discouraging out-of-town traders and travelers from actually stopping in that town, etc. But, if you're at all referring to "You just pay a portion of all the stuff you earn, for the overall benefit of this whole region," then I'd say that doesn't really fit into a game like this. First of all, you're playing as characters dealing with an ongoing crazy situation, and not just people sitting around, being good citizens and reaping the benefits of city/town infrastructure from your tax-money. So, there's not even much of a reason why you'd fall into any kind of always-taxable situation. Again, though, maybe once you get a stronghold, you have to deal with that, in regard to the well-being of your stronghold. Maybe it earns you money (that you don't necessarily have to earn), and the lord or whatever over that region learns of your stronghold (maybe it's some old manor/keep you fix up that people kind of forgot about, or maybe it's already being run and somehow falls into your official ownership, *shrug*) and demands taxes. Maybe he's wrong to, and you tell him to shove it. Maybe he's not wrong to, and just wants a mutually beneficial relationship. Maybe you STILL tell him to shove it. Maybe you spend resources/make choices to keep your keep a secret, smaller-scale operation, so as to avoid things like taxes, or public knowledge of its existence. I wouldn't at all say taxes have no place in a game. But simply going for the "what if you have to pay taxes" blanket across the whole game would be all annoyance and no beneficial choice or affectability.

Awwww, man... I was just about to invent and subsequently perform the Update Dance, too... Drat. Now my morale, much like Stamina in P:E, has been reduced to 0, thereby rendering my motivation to invent-and-perform said dance (much like Health in P:E) useless.

I'm still baffled by people's reference to that as a "leak," when such screenshots were blatantly published in a distributed publication. So it was in Germany, and not here yet. If I'm going to call some people up to make movie night plans, and I call Steve up first to ask him if he's up for it, and he texts Stacy before I call and ask her, it's not like our movie night plans were leaked to Stacy, when I had planned on telling her anyway. They had just done Rezzed, and the European community needs some love, too. We get all kinds of news that hey don't get 'til after some latency, so why not us? Doesn't mean it's secret news. *shrug*

Nope. I did "Backer to the Future," but yours is better. Haha.

One might go so far as to say it is the... Ultima-te option...

They could always just take the Bethesda approach. "You miraculously get dragged into this whole world conflict... FROM A PRISON CELL! Why? Who knows! The only limits are your IMAGINATION! That's like... INFINITE backstories! I mean... as long as they all involve you ending up in a prison cell! 8D!" Haha. Seriously, though. I think even just an elaborate tree of scripted (like the officially teased bridge-jump scene, or giant-egg-in-an-alcove scene) events would be nice. That way, you can get a LOT more intricate backstory options and variety in the same amount of time it'd take to DA:O in significantly fewer playable background areas. Then, like McManusaur said, you could still have different starting locations, all converging on a single point of narrative origin (i.e. the supernatural event that you witness that kicks off this whole thing). You could even witness this event in slightly different ways, from different angles/perspectives/vantage points or at different times, etc. Think of it like a dot on a grid, with lines coming from like 10 different directions that go through it. If you come at it from the left, you come out the right side. If you come at it from the bottom, you emerge on the top side. From the right, you emerge from the left, and so on and so forth. I think one problem with the DA:O approach (not that it was a problem with all the specific backgrounds) is that it's realllly difficult and resource-intensive to actually craft out entirely playable sections of the game when they're just your background. Well, without only having like 3 of them, at least. Why? because only SO much of your background has anything directly to do with the rest of the actual narrative of the game. Whether you came from a farm or came into town as a slave in a caravan, or as a noble's servant, doesn't really mean that the main narrative is going to feasibly work in that farm, or that caravan route, or that noble's house into things. Granted, your character is going to continue interacting with the world, and that farm/caravan/house is going to do so, as well. So, you'll cross paths with people/elements of those backgrounds. But not necessarily the locations, themselves. This means that every area they make for a background is essentially all that work JUST for a prologue. The characters with whom you come into contact again could be in the game, regardless of your background. The only thing that changes there is your relationship to them. So Nobleman Godfrey is in some city, but if you're from a farming background, he just treats you like a peasant. If you're from a slave background, he probably treats you even worse (but still a little differently). If you're from the noble house background, maybe he has a lot more impact on your specific playthrough. But, he's not a unique character/area that only exists when you choose his background. Writing some extra stuff for him isn't as intensive.

Yeah, the individual-armor-piece approach kinda also plays up to the "You're just a traveling adventurer who's trying to handle situations as best you can" notion, too. I mean, for at least a certain duration of the game (until you get some well-established stronghold, or powerful faction affiliation, etc.), you're kind of a nomad. "We need to go to this town, because this reason! Oh crap, different stuff, different scenarios. Okay, now we need to go to this town." It'd be nice if playing someone who could only afford a steel forward-arm bracer/pauldron -- while keeping a bronze off-arm bracer/pauldron -- was possible. Or, you know, "I've got this really nice breastplate, to protect my breathy/blood-pumpy bits, but my arms and legs are just covered in leather." I guess what I'm saying is, even though not ALL adventurers would mix-and-match, it IS a pretty feasible thing in the context of adventuring.

Wasn't NWN2 (at least the original campaign/game) the one that was spearheaded by a completely different project lead for like 75% of its development, and between publisher-induced decisions and various people in-charge, was not handled very well at all, to the point of pretty much not even being releasable (not due to lack of quantity, but, rather, lack of quality)? Then Josh Sawyer took over for about the last 4 or 5 months, and somehow got it out the door in passable shape? I might have the exact details wrong, but someone posted a quote from someone in the actual development community (possibly even with Obsidian, themselves) in response to people talking about how wonky NWN2 OC was. It was kind of an "all things considered, it was miraculously well-polished." I mean, I'll just say that when you give a creative person (or creative team) free reign to design what they want, with only their own expertise and a budget as their limitiations, as opposed to having a bunch of non-creative people telling them what to do, and a bunch of completely-unrelated-to-creative-design businessy goings-on and job-role shifts, etc., it's a whole different animal. If someone commissions me to draw them a portrait, and I draw what they want me to draw, and they're like "No, no, I want you to use crayons, and I want it to look like a 3-year-old drew it, like something you'd magnet onto a refrigerator," then it's pretty silly for other people who see it to say "Man, you really should've drawn something better than that! You're obviously not a very skilled person at producing quality artwork!" It's a much broader scale with publishers, but they often push decisions based on demographical statistics, without much concern for what actually works best with the overall game's coherent design and what doesn't. Not to mention the fact that they basically pull "I want you to clean this entire car, by hand, with this sponge and some soap, but I want it done in like 3 minutes. Once 3 minutes is up, we're driving this car away, no matter what you want to do, and people will judge how well you cleaned it" stunts with timeframes. Then, people make threads like this one: "Man, Obsidian sure doesn't care about bugs and glitches." When, you don't even really know that Obsidian hasn't been all "Umm... we kinda need to hold off on release until we fix all these bugs" and/or "If you had let us code these things differently/not changed the entire design of the combat system halfway through production just because you decided 5% more 13-17-year-olds would appreciate the new system, we wouldn't HAVE all these bugs!" on pretty much every project they've ever worked on. I'm not saying development studios never make mistakes. It's just silly to consolidate all even completeley circumstantial factors into the fault of the developer.

So, what you're saying is: "Silly rabbit... translations are for KIDS! 8D"?

My mistake. I was picking up a "let me toggle those, you know... for the people who want to actually figure out where to go" vibe. Maybe I misread the tone.

Belated + Backers gives us... BELACKERS! A backer is never late, anyway. Nor is he early. He always backs a game pre-CISELY when he means to. u_u

I don't want to set the world on fiii-rrrrrrrre. I just want to start a flaaaaaame... in yourrr hea-aarrrrrrrrrt. That's all I have to say to that. u_u *drops the mic*

Aria T'Loak, from Mass Effects 2 and 3. Really good voice acting, and she did a pretty damned good job of being "bad" without being "evil."

What are we changing? The entire game's design already emulates real life. You can't make an RPG not based on real life. "In this game, you play the role of a pure-energy collective hive-mind that doesn't even exist within our physical universe, and has no similarity to a human, whatsoever." Heh. Have fun with THAT game. But really, I agree that getting too nitpicky with things is bad. But that's more a problem of moderation and balanced resource usage in the development of anything than it is a problem founded in the attempt to base your design on reality. Doesn't mean it can't stray, but... why should something like how characters use weapons be based on NOT-reality? That doesn't make any sense. The weapons are from reality. The characters are all realistic humanoids. There's realistic physics and weather and materials in the game. Why should how they aim and how an arrow strikes a target be abstracted from ANYTHING other than real-life person-bow-aiming mechanics? "We shouldn't look at reality" isn't a viable argument at all, since that's literally all we do, in pretty much any game ever, no matter how much fantasy stuff you put in.

A) That wasn't a hypothetical example. It was a simple question. A factor to consider, as your "If you can get it from the woods, why get it from a quest?" question simply ignored the fact that everything isn't available at the same time in a game, and that, even when it is, you don't necessarily know of it. B) Are hypothetical examples bad now? Am I supposed to provide prophetic examples only?

Alright, I've got it: Backer to the Future.