Lephys

So if milk is a white liquid made from cow ... Then Milkman must mean that he is white, wet guy that came from cow ? The term "ranger" describes the person's affiliation with ranging. It does not make him a druid, or an earth elemental. A milkman (if you're referring to the profession) transports and delivers milk. He probably knows his fare share about milk, and how to properly transport and deliver it without causing problems. Whether he perches atop barbed-wire fence posts at night with his arms folded to defend cows in pastures, or he likes to murder cows and poison people's milk, he's still called the same thing. His name doesn't change to "White Liquid Poison Man," or "The Bovine Defender." A builder is a builder, to give another example. Whether he builds dungeons and deathtraps or orphanages and farms, he uses the same skill set and tools for both. I shall re-iterate that your strong, preferential correlation between "ranger" and "protector" is perfectly understandable, but Calmar's post illustrates that while "ranger" can mean "protector," it also primarily involves a simple affinity for the wilderness, and a skillset to boot.

^ This is very true, Ffordesoon. The old "There's a reason that psychotic, withered necromancer is the only guy in town who uses that magic" bit. That is one method of balancing I'm very much in favor of. "You can create a nuclear explosion, but then you're burnt out on magical channeling for a year, so it better be worth it." I dunno about a nuke... not in combat mechanics, anyway. But, you get the idea, I'm sure. *Thumbs up* I just don't like simply the lone "Don't worry, 'cause the check will be very high" idea. As I mentioned, it kinda leads to "Is it even worth it to try to use that spell?" situations. Ability-use consequences = AWESOME!

For what it's worth, Mass Effect 3's ending wasn't really caused by the problem of handling the factors and player decisions from the previous two games. It was more of a... lazy design choice. Not that they couldn't have gone farther with things (even though I understand that with full voice-acting and the like, it was already a very expensive endeavor), but they already had a pretty extensive (more so than many other games that try the same thing) branch-handling system that incorporated your playthrough data from the previous games. At the very least, it was quite polished and fluid, even when it sometimes only accounted for superficial, non-impactful variance in your playthrough's story. Really, the problem came at the beginning of the 2nd and 3rd games, as well as the ending of the 1st and 2nd games, where they kind of had to force a "canon" ending/beginning so as not to have 97 different beginnings and endings to write for the latter games. But, the ending of the 3rd game could have been crazily branching. The thing about dynamics and player choice versus linearity is, it's not so much a hallway versus a giant field as much as it is a narrow hallway versus a much broader hallway. When you make a giant open field, you end up with problems like Skyrim and Oblivion faced. There's almost no direction. Everything might be affiliated with everything else, but there's no sense that you're actually dealing with matters at hand rather than simply dealing with matters in stasis. When you go with a widened hallway (or a cone, even), you still have direction. If you build a cone-shaped labyrinth, with multiple exits, then the western-most exit might be 50 miles west of the eastern-most exit, but both exits are still 100 miles north of your starting point. Yet, you still have the chance of dealing with obstacles in various ways, and taking various paths that will never involve ALL of the given obstacles in the labyrinth. Granted, it's a lot easier to make geometric similes about than it is to masterfully achieve in a game's design.

It is a good thing to hope for, methinks. It's a pretty complex thing, though, dependent upon so many factors. I hope they have as much of it as they reasonably can in P:E, but it's realllllllly difficult to know and/or measure how much that is, exactly. Heh. But, I think "More than BG2/Fallout 2" is not a ridiculous proposal.

The solution to this would be simply to provide the opportunity to use a variety of weapon types before the opportunity to specialize in a particular weapon type presents itself. I kind of like this idea, too. Maybe "fighting style" would be a more apt thing for multi-tiered specialization, and maybe there'd also be a one-time specialization with specific weapons/weapon types? The fighting style advancements could provide bonus effects and abilities to your use of weaponry in various ways, while the one-time weapon specializations could simply provide permanent, minor attack speed and/or damage bonuses, etc. OR, forget the one-time weapon specializations, and go with Trashman's Familiarity proposal to handle that other facet of minor bonuses for specific weaponry. 8P

Don't be ridiculous. Valorian is a rogue AI aboard a military satellite, and he speaks only truth. He has ascended beyond the intellect of literally every single person on the planet. DO NOT QUESTION THE VALORIAN! He knows none of us can comprehend his majestic truths, anyway. He just likes toying with us, out of boredom... like a trickster deity. 8P

Yeah... it's definitely not impossible. It just kinda opens up a can of worms, is all, heh. I still don't know how to quite put my finger on exactly what it feels like the problem is, either. Take Death spells. I don't even like instant death spells. I don't mind a "this will kill you, and your Willpower/Mental Fortitude check determines how long it will take" spell, but a "you either have defense against this or you die" just seems to override SO many of the factors that make up the meat and potatoes of the game. Do you have 1,000 hit points, or do you have 10? It doesn't matter. This spell kills you. It's not even about dealing enough damage, or hitting you in the right situation. It's just about hitting you. So, I dunno... by the time you've produced enough restrictions on something like brain-pebble teleportation, it just seems like a ridiculous amount of work for very little payoff (as opposed to a "this spell simply affects your life essence and ceases/shatters it" spell). And, I mean, if you can summon something inside someone's brain or other vital organs, why even make it a pebble or a bullet or shuriken or any type of weapon, for that matter? Why not teleport a teddy bear, or a flower, or some water? Anywho... like I said, I'm not quite sure what it is, exactly, that makes it seem so muddled. Maybe it's just the extreme shift? "With this spell that's not even designed for offense, literally every single piece of matter around you gains the ability to become unstoppably, instantly lethal." Then, there's the whole "if it's THAT hard and restrictive to actually manage to achieve such a kill, would anyone really take the time to choose that method over the 170 easier ways to use magic to kill someone?" Maybe that's another part of what I'm thinking of, but can't seem to touch? It seems like the ability would be pretty much obsolete, in terms of gameplay mechanics, by the time you've properly written it into the lore and balanced it in the mechanics. *shrug*

Like HELL it can't! "Hey guys! Just wanted to share some artwork with you today! Here are some doorknob concepts we've been working on. Also, today we're going to discuss the extensive UI mechanics we've been working on. See, we can't decide between a little arrow button at the side of the given UI pane, to cycle "left" and "right" between characters, or tab bars to do so. Also, let's talk puddles. Will they ripple when you step in them? Can your character dig small trenches to re-route puddles and merge them into larger bodies of water? And last certainly not least, PLUMES!!! Here are 7,000 concepts of plumes we'd like to see. Plumes will probably be the most customizable element in the entire game, surpassing all other aesthetic elements by a minimum of 1,500 options."

It is, which was sort of my point. Being able to summon a pebble is something that isn't inherently fatal. However, a death spell is something that IS inherently fatal. It kills. So, it unnecessarily complicates things when your lore and mechanics allow for an extremely simple summoning spell to SOMETIMES instantly kill things. I mean, when you can summon pebbles inside brains to kill under certain circumstances, what's to stop ANYTHING from being elevated to fatal? Conjure Drink. Conjure some drink inside their trachea (which, if their mouth is open, technically isn't even inside of their body. It's just empty space), and now they drown. OR, better yet, if you can summon/teleport things into their body, why not just teleport their own lung OUT of their body, and into someone else's body? That guy loses a lung suddenly, and dies, and the other guy gets HIS lung clogged with a teleported lung, causing HIS death. Breathe Underwater. If you can create oxygen in a bubble around your mouth for the purposes of breathing underwater, then you can cast "Breathe Underwater" on an enemy's artery, bursting it instantly. Boom. They die. It just doesn't make much sense, in the grand scheme of things. It complicates. It's very tricky to make sense of all the details when you start allowing such a drastic difference in such things. A death spell's sole purpose is to cease life in the living target. Whereas, a summon pebble spell is an extremely simple spell that has absolutely nothing to do with death or even harm, directly, but then SUDDENLY is also allowed to create instant death.

As always, you provide a menagerie of good ideas and analysis, Osvir, ^_^ You're right that the sort of "soul check" could work for summoning deadly objects within people's insides, but, it still seems a bit overpowered for some reason. I mean, imagine if a gun didn't need to be aimed, but instead just instantly killed whomever you decided to target when you pulled the trigger. And the limitation was that you could only use it on someone who didn't have a gun, or who had a much smaller gun than yourself. Well, everyone who could manage it would have giant guns, and everyone who couldn't manage it would be at the people-with-guns' mercy. Sure, in reality, if you go 1-on-1 against someone with a gun, and you're unarmed, they most likely will win that fight. BUT, you can wear bullet-proof armor to protect your vitals, at least, and you can cause them to miss, depending on the distance and your movements, etc. But, if they could just summon the bullets inside of you, it becomes binary. You might as well just make a death spell. At least then you could limit it more intelligently/easily. It's just harder to wrap your mind around "Sometimes you can instantly kill someone by simply summing a pebble 6 inches from where you could previously summon it, but other times you can't summon it there" than it is to wrap your mind around "if you're powerful enough, you can cause a person's death with a single spell, but it weakens you for a time, and/or can only be used very infrequently." Just for example. But, back to stabbity mages, I really like the idea of what amounts to melee magic, even going as far as closely mimicking aspects of regular martial weapons. I think that's a much better route to take than "Your Wizard can just become a badass with a longsword in the same way that a seasoned soldier can." He can become a badass maybe, and he can use a longsword (ethereal or physical), but he can still do it in a different way that says "Mage" a lot more than it says "Fighter." It's the same concept as seen in the way that Wizards/Mages tend to have missless or quite-tough-to-dodge spell projectiles, as opposed to archers/Rangers who have to rely on accuracy. They're both utilizing ranged attacks, but they remain distinct in style from one another. An arrow to the throat as opposed to the toe is what makes the archer/Ranger's attack skill effective, whereas the sphere of pure electricity the size of a human torso moving as fast as a crossbow bolt is what makes the Wizard/Mage's attacks effective. The same thing can be seen in the Grimoire Slam. The release of magical energy from the tome is what generates the effectiveness of the "slam," as opposed to a Fighter or Monk's physical form and Strength of their attack generating the effectiveness of some melee knockback move. Both moves are melee attacks, but the Mage's still stems from magical means.

Because... during the cold, harsh winter, food was scarce, and the group was forced to eat Robin's minstrels... And there was much rejoicing... "Yayyyyyyyy..."

I just want to say that it's awesome of you guys to take the time to show-and-tell what you're able to in a weekly update, rather than simply saying "Meh, there's nothing super major to share right now, so we'll just go dark for a few weeks." So, thanks for the update, ^_^! And that's pretty cool that you've got a film crew documenting everything. Maybe if you get the chance, you can make an instructional video for publishers on how to not inhibit development efficiency/quality. 8D

I thought of a much better example of my suggestion, as compared to the "influence minigame" seen in many a game: Imagine the action of dropping a lit match. - If you drop it above a puddle, it will land in the puddle and fizzle out. - If you drop it above bare earth or damp foliage, it will burn until it is fully consumed, then extinguish. - If you drop it above a field of dry grass, it will ignite the field, and fire will slowly spread until it hits a barrier and burns out. It will put lots of smoke in the air that the wind might carry to various locations, depending on where you are and how the wind is behaving at the time. - If you drop it above a fuse leading to some powder kegs, it will ignite the fuse, slowly burning up it until it reaches the powder and causes an explosion. Think of the different effects of the exact same action as the impact your action/choice has on various companions. They can't all even be divided into positive or negative effects. They are simply different. An explosion isn't any better or worse than an inferno. Yet, in a given situation, you may prefer one to the other. In another situation, you may wish for a puddle, so the match will simply fizzle out. Or, of course, you may decide to do something that isn't the metaphorical dropping of a match, in which case you'd have entirely different criteria and factors to consider, with entirely different possible results.

Well, you know... blocking properly 7 times out of 10 is better than blocking properly 0 times out of 10. It's not a binary "always notch your sword/never notch your sword" thing. It's more that the training allows you to effectively mitigate the reduction in effectiveness of your sword's edge because you're better able to react in a more efficient, proper-form manner, in general. You're absolutely right that you don't just magically ALWAYS rock because you know how to do it right. Even the HORSE has a plume! Hells YEAH! ^_^

Perhaps I could've been clearer about my suggestion's intent, but I'd also rather like to avoid the "influence minigame," as you call it. The point being that different actions and decisions in different situations would produce different effects for the various companions, rather than ALWAYS producing the same effect (a change to a single influence/likey-ness meter). In other words, getting my Thief to share her own personal spoils with me and getting her to want to go out of her way to cover me in battle shouldn't rely on the same points-o-meter. Essentially, this eliminates the idea of a points-o-meter, entirely. At least as far as I'm able to conceive. I don't exactly have a full, working system in mind, off the top of my head. You can severely dislike someone, though, and still value their knowledge, wisdom, or skill. So, you may not care much for buying them some ale in the tavern or chatting with them a lot, or sharing spoils with them, but you'll proudly follow them in battle and watch them get things done that you, alone, are far less capable of handling. You don't go around shifting your view of someone based on all the things that go against your preferences. "Every time you choose something that comes in a variety of colors, and you pick a color other than red, you shall lose 1 Likeyness point from me. If you choose enough non-red things, I will eventually leave your party and/or try to murder you or sabotage your efforts because I will hate you so ferociously." A good example: A Priest character might not LOVE that you don't pray to their favored deity, but they shouldn't necessarily think LESS of you for it. However, if you go around pissing on their deity's statues and laughing while you do it, that should probably cause a bit of enmity between you two. It's one thing to say "My values differ from yours," and another entirely to say "Your values are worthless shyte."

Apparently I have been annihilated. And was a fly. Man... that sure showed me. Sci-fi games can lead to people becoming frustrated with the game because they hate sci-f... oh wait, they voluntarily bought that particular game themselves. Respond unto others as you would have them respond unto you. 8P

I still find it hard to believe that someone would either read such an essay OR ignore the whole thing and call it "nothing," then still respond to tell the other person how pointless their words were. Humans will be humans, I suppose. Oh, crap, you're right. They should stick with naturally-occurring RPG levels and attributes. Silly artificial stuff... u_u Those who "find" level-scaling an abomination are different from those who "find" anything to be anything, exactly how? I find the lack of 50-caliber sniper rifles in fantasy RPGs to be an abomination. I guess that matters now, since I'm a person, and I made a conclusion regarding something. I've gotta work realllly hard to overcome the fact that no games accommodate me in that respect. u_u Because there's no such thing as reason, apparently. Only opinion, and they're all equal. I suppose you're never going to open up that mind of yours beyond what you've already "found" and actually discuss anything. So we're just cluttering up the topic at this point. /resign

Teleporting blades into enemies from a distance, for example. Teleportation could be a cool branch of magic. Yeah, sorry. I was just having a bit of humorous fun with the literal meaning of "summon blades in my enemies." What are you summoning? Blades. Where are you summoning? In your enemies. I do like the idea of teleportation. I like the kind of spatial-joining thing most (like portals in, well... Portal). I think it would be awesome for some enemies to be behind cover, and for your Mage (or another magicky class) to open a 1-yard triangular "portal" in the air in front of an archer character, which connects to an identical portal-type opening in the air behind the enemies, allowing the archer to fire through. Someone already mentioned that, if not something very similar. I mean, the archer could still miss or hit, but he can now bypass the enemies' cover to make attacks on them, rather than having to relocate before attacking. I rather enjoy the utility of abilities like that. The only problem I foresee with actually teleporting/summoning blades that burst into existence already inside your enemies is that it begs the question, "Why not just teleport/summon a small pebble into the middle of their brain, every single time?" I think that's best handled with the whole "You can't teleport/summon things at a point where matter already resides" notion. Either that, or maybe just make teleportation of that nature extremely taxing (very few casts/ability uses per-encounter/day). It could easily be over-powered, for lack of a better term.

Ehh... again, I do understand where you're coming from. I really do. But, the term "ranger" is meant to suggest a skillset/fundamental "style" (for lack of a better word) of the person. A ranger doesn't have to love bunnies and ladybugs and plants. He simply values, respects, and studies the natural resources of the land. He knows how to make his own tools, utilize natural resources (be they plant, animal, etc.), and navigate land and terrain. If he uses these skills to hunt things (and people), then awesome. Maybe he goes around killing wolves just because it's fun. Maybe he's a poacher and sells the pelts. Maybe he bounty hunts folks for money. Either way, he knows how to best the wolves from studying them and familiarizing himself with nature, and he knows how to not get ripped up by thorns or poisoned by plants on the way through the woods to kill the wolves, and/or he uses such knowledge to get the better of humans without it, who think their armor and weapons sufficient protection for any situation. Basically, what's survival to normal people is almost luxury life to the ranger. Obviously there's some leeway with the class specifics, depending on the surrounding lore/context and such. But, yes, the term "ranger" covers what it needs to, even though it might resonate awfully strongly in your mind as national forest and wildlife protection and such. Even under that term, you can still be a hunter, exactly as you described. Even if they don't officially name the specialization "hunter" in your UI or character sheet. A good example would be to look up the branch of the U.S. military known as the Rangers. They do not spend all day protecting ferns and deer and butterflies.

Rendering a point moot with another point is not the same thing as "missing" it. The default setting of the circle colors was chosen to assist the most common form of color blindness. That still leaves other forms of color-blindness. Not to mention the fact that it's not such a ridiculous thing to "wonder if it might be possible" to have some extra selection circle options, rather than to demand them. So, not only are there perfectly valid reasons to desire extra selection circle options, but there are also absolutely zero perfectly valid reasons to proclaim that the desire for such is a silly thing that should simply be "gotten over" in the event that it doesn't get fulfilled. Not to mention obvious... "Well, if there aren't any wombats in the game, and you love wombats, you'll just hafta get over it." That's actually not even true, as they could simply mod the game to add in wombats (or, as the topic deals with, selection circle color options). So, there are, as far as I can count on one hand, a negative amount of options, at this point, to tell someone they need to get over a simple reasonable request. I'm merely commenting on the extreme lack of necessity of the response in question. That's all. And, for the record, almost nothing in the UI is "purely" cosmetic, unless you've got a terribly designed UI. The colors and appearance of things like selection circles are chosen for a reason (the common defaults of green and red are actually complementary colors and are basically complete opposites on the color wheel, for example); to allow all the elements displayed to the player to be as quickly and easily distinguishable as possible. Is it the end of the world if you have to spend 2 extra seconds of looking to see who it is that's actually surrounding the character you're currently focusing on? Of course not. But it shouldn't have to be done... especially the 1,000+ times you're going to have to notice/utilize such awareness throughout an entire playthrough. Everyone's eyes are different, and various colors affect this ease of awareness in various ways for various people. Obviously the blue/red defaults Obsidian has announced is an awesome idea that blankets the vast majority of players, but it's hardly unreasonable or silly, in the least, to request customizable control over the appearance of the selection circles, or any other UI element, for that matter, so long as it wouldn't be an arduous undertaking to implement. Clearly, if it's going to take an extra 500 man-hours to implement, it probably shouldn't be done. I don't think anyone has expressed a belief contrary to this.

TL;DR version? A bunch of words you're probably not going to read. --------------------------------------------------- I rather believe I brought up a point that renders your points moot. As always, you sidestep it. *sigh* I really don't go out of my way to antagonize you. I simply try to understand your concerns in the absence of a vacuum. You can also mimic blindness by turning off your monitor or closing your eyes, and yet the game will provide the representation, nonetheless. I realize iron-man mode isn't as necessary as the representation of blindness. However, whether or not you can mimic something doesn't really determine how much it needs to be in the game, it would seem. See? I got the point, and supplemented it with another. Also, the fact remains that you cannot mimic level-scaling in a game that is devoid of it, either (without essentially modding files and such, as you mentioned you would need in the reciprocal situation). So, the exact same argument could be made in either scenario. "You have an iron-man mode for something that can be easily mimicked, yet there is no level-scaling mode!" That being said, there remains the obvious "you're still not denying there should be a choice, Lephys." Which is true. This brings me back to some Example Time: Take the 2-enemies example I used before, for simplicity's sake. An option for "removing" or "not-using" level scaling implies that static levels would be the regular, unmodified version of the level/challenge system, and that the introduction of level-scaling simply enacts a modification that "many people would want to play the game without" (much like Hard difficulty versus Normal difficulty). Well, let's take a look at that. Enemy A is level 12, and Enemy B is level 15. So, if I'm part of the group who WANTS level scaling, because we can take on the 2 enemies in either order we choose (and I want the second to not be overly simple in challenge, compared to my party), then I get to fight Enemy B at level 12, followed by Enemy A at level 15 (assuming I've either enacted an option for level-scaling, OR the game just doesn't have any option BUT level-scaling). Let's see what happens to the people who don't want any level-scaling. Oh, what's this? They still fight 2 enemies in any order they wish, and are presented with a challenge relative to their party's capabilities (which were lesser BEFORE fighting the first enemy, whichever they chose, than after). Okay, let's take out level-scaling. Now, they're still presented with 2 enemies, one of which is level 12, and one of which is level 15, always. They still have the option of fighting them in either order, but one order is going to involve a first ridiculously difficult foe, followed by a second ridiculously easy foe, whereas the other order is going to result in the exact same thing that would occur in the level-scaling-enabled scenario. So, for those people who arbitrarily, at this particular point in the game, wish to basically play on Hard difficulty but don't wish to have Hard difficulty permanently enabled across the board, they get something no one else can get. THEN, they get to play on Easy difficulty when they reach the second enemy, yet again only for a brief period. Now, I ask this... if only certain things are going to be level-scaled (in moderation at that), so that all the optional stuff is already static level content that can be attempted either when it's tougher or when it's easier, AND there are difficulty modes available to the player on top of that... what objective use is there for ALL scenarios to be static in challenge rating/level? Should the game NEVER ensure that something is a challenge for you, no matter what the order of your progress? And, if so, why is the availability of progression options even limited? Why not just allow all things to be tackled whenever, and just let the difficulty-from-level sort everything out? Level-scaling can and does serve an objective purpose, when used properly, and I fail to comprehend why you so adamantly deny this. Let me ask this much... if everything you could encounter and fight in the entire game were level 5, would that not be a problem? You would eventually say "Dammit... I'm like level 9 now. Why is everything still level 5? The devs really should've made sure there was a challenge for me." So, what's the effective difference between fighting something that's level 9 because it happened to be determined to put level 9 things into your path, from the get go, at the point when you should be approximately level 9, and deciding that the enemies around you are going to be level 9 now instead of level 5 because you're level 9? The goal of both is exactly the same. "Present a challenge with our mathematically-progressive level system." If there's such thing as an appropriate challenge level for a particular portion of the game, then why does it matter how that's achieved, as long as it's properly achieved? Also, why would the player need to have a mode that has him give up some non-linearity while eliminating level-scaling, when linearity can be easily mimicked/self-regulated? Purely linear game + level-scaling = indiscernible from a non-level-scaling, purely linear game, FWIW. The only purpose level-scaling ever serves is the handling of the appropriate gradation of challenge when non-linearity through content is presented. And just because there are various orders to the progression choices does not mean that the only reasons for choosing a given order is solely to influence the difficulty of a sequence of challenges. Therefore, with only static levels, you're presenting an uninentional side-effect to the people who choose the higher-level content first and the lower-level content second for reasons unrelated to the level/difficulty of the content. Basically, you want a flag to be red, and it is. But someone told you HOW they made the flag red, and now you're unhappy with it. You don't care if an enemy is level 12, so long as it was determined that he'd be level 12 at the beginning of the game, rather than when you got to him. That's what I fail to understand most about your molten hatred of level-scaling. The problem stems from the fact that it cannot be self-regulated, yet it in no way "needs" to be self-regulated? I don't understand.

I understand your analysis of the terms, Ulquiorra, but take "Fighter": Is he a brawler who fights whenever he can, or a disciplined soldier and protector of things? Does he know group tactics and strategy, or does he simply excel at one-on-one (or one-on-several) fights that he can handle himself? This is all up to the player and the versatility of the class. I understand that you think of a common use of the word "ranger" as a title for state park / wildlife authorities, but it also describes the survivalist/surveyor/precision skill set that the class possesses, no matter how huntery they are, or protectory they are. 8P

Ahh, The Wheel of Time has a lot of inspiration for verisimilitude in a world filled with powerful magic. The Aes Sedai (basically the coalition of female channelers in the "known world") see themselves as a beacon of order for the entire world, and believe anyone who isn't trained by them or a part of them to be dangerous, out of control, or simply useless and ignorant. One faction in the world literally believes everything associated with the One Power (basically magic itself) is pure evil. Another faction believes all channelers MUST be essentially controlled and owned. Most people in the world have any first hand experience with channelers or the One Power, and therefore rely ferociously upon rumor and pure speculation for all their beliefs about it, much the same way people in the real world do about technology. Good stuff.

That's nicer than zero interactivity, but I'd almost prefer physics to only work when it matters. In other words... it's nice that you can still fire arrows into a corpse's arm and it'll move in an uber-realistic fashion from the force of the blow, but in what way does that EVER apply to the gameplay or affect anything? Now, if the corpse moves when you use the "kick" ability because you can actually target the corpse with it and you're a super strong Fighter, and enemies will be stricken by the corpse and affected, then cool. OR, if you can intentionally pile up corpses to form a sort of bulwark against oncoming attackers, then cool. But, that whole passive "Look, the movement of my character sort of almost accidentally affects these corpses" thing, while very nice and realistic, doesn't really help the game any. I mean, if the rest of the game needs good physics (like attacks landing, or people dying/being stricken by heavy objects, etc.), then I understand why they wouldn't simply turn physics off in certain situations when it wasn't needed. Rather, I would like to see abilities and actions specifically designed to take advantage of the physics. A good example I can think of would be hiding bodies in a stealth game. It's awesome if there's super great ragdoll-type physics with the limp bodies, but my character should be able to do more than simply pick up the body, move to face a closet, then drop the body in a very generic fashion, hoping that it falls in such a way that the door should close. In that scenario, I'd MUCH rather have worse physics throughout the whole game and a functional ability to intentionally make sure the entire body is placed neatly into a closet than I would have the awesome physics throughout, and the extremely rudimentary interaction with those physics.

OR, things cost 10,000 gold, and you keep finding chests and "treasures" that contain like 150 gold, like in Fable. Or things of worth, throughout the entire game, cost 15 gold, and everything you loot or sell gives you about 3 copper, like in Dragon Age.