Lephys

I don't think so. I believe he was just affirming that the initial (well, most significant pretty-early, at least) D&D ruleset actually employed the same rule/mechanic. I think it's just a FWIW factoid.

I can think of worse, but not by much. I agree. However, the significant thing here is the representation of a time-based thing in an interesting way (it's kind of a puzzle, designing a mechanic to get the best result), not necessarily actually having a clock. All I can say is, when I think of a game with all the stuff this one has in (namely the stronghold, which you'll come back to and improve over time, and apparently time-based events will happen to it), it seems like a good context into which to fit some kind of delivery mechanic. See, in those games where it "doesn't make sense" that new goods are suddenly available, that's not entirely true. Or, not necessarily. Sure, in some it just doesn't. But, in others, nothing says that they didn't just get a new shipment of stuff in in the amount of time it took you to go handle those orcs or whatever. The game doesn't tell you that, sure. And, if that was the intention, then maybe it should. But, the point is, functionally, it's no different. Did they magically appear, or did they just now arrive? See, they don't have a ticking clock for new goods to arrive, and yet they're arrival is still "time" sensitive, since it's not until you complete a task in the game world that would definitely have required time to pass that something new occurred. Keeping up with exactly how much time is passing, etc. is tedious and doesn't really offer much. The relationship between your progression and the progression of the world around you is what's important. Which is why I'm perfectly fine with being able to jog around in the middle of a town for 17 real-life hours, and have nothing really change in the game (the game's time is effectively paused until I do SOMEthing of note -- travel on the world map, stay at an inn, go meet with some people, etc.), but then return from clearing out a bandit encampment in the forest to find that a couple of days have passed in this village, and different stuff's going on on Thursday than was going on on Tuesday, etc.

Sounds like it'll probably only come up as a check when items of some significance are involved. Not just "Does that guy have something worth more than 0 monies in his pocket? I can try to pickpocket it! 8D!" I approve, but at the same time, I hope "rarely" doesn't mean like... 3 instances in the entire game.

Ahhh, just like Mario and Peach. I see. I guess Link just gapes at her all the time for absolutely no reason.

I'm almost certain that anyone who's been impatient about any of this stuff (upset about not getting to see E3 build, for example), will get over all that very quickly once they actually play the game. It's passing-the-time qualms, is all.

Uriel, all we know at the moment (unless something was posted in the last couple days and I missed it, but I figure it would be a big, stickied Announcement) is that they're supposedly still working on getting pledge-editing (to add add-ons to your existing pledge that you've already confirmed/completed in the portal) working. We were first told that a couple months back, I think. Shortly after the portal went live. Haven't been many updates since, that I know of, but I trust that they're still working on it.

Firstly, all this reinforces is "Bioware doesn't have a good model to copy." Secondly, look at how much extra stuff the stronghold brings, and it's optional. It's got a whole environment, PLUS different instances of that environment for all the various states of repair of the various facilities. PLUS NPCs and management mechanics to boot. AND it's integrated into the actual narrative as an important location, so that it serves a purpose even if opted out of. I don't understand this "I'm going to point out that an instance of something is bad, then act like that somehow proves the thing itself is inherently flawed" mentality that just keeps rearing its head in here. The analysis of your examples is fine. Yes, double the dialogue is noteworthy when it comes to resources, especially in the games you mentioned (because full voice-acting). But there's no need for an arbitrary "see? Romance = double the dialogue" conclusion. No it doesn't. The Legend of Zelda games are pretty much centered around Link trying to rescue his beloved Zelda, every single time, and yet hardly any of them even have any romance dialogue. Your move.

So the theme of romance is subject to realistic criteria, but the rest of the game isn't? I think they should make a game with no guarantee your character is even capable of completing the game. You're Frodo, and you don't just happen to have a bunch of friends bail you out of situations, and the Ring never makes it to its magma-y grave, just because you don't have the means of getting it there. It'd be kind of randomly generated, though, because sometimes you'd have the capability to succeed in your quest. BRILLIANT!

You don't really have to love it. You could hate it, if you wish. And it's just the justification for the "sexualization" (as you insist on calling it, as if the developers are taking pre-existing, perfectly un-sexual NPCs and unnaturally twisting them into the resulting NPC) of some number of female NPCs throughout the entire world's populous of NPCs. Hey look, there's a brothel in the city. OMG! The real world NEVER had brothels! *gasp* We've sexualized those poor, virtual women, rather than just represented something that really exists, and people that really exist! *ultra gasp*! @PrimeJunta: That's a good point. I don't like people actually objectifying women, but the problem I have with the typical view of the "objectification" of women in video games is that, most of the time, it just means "sexy = objectification." Which is what's happening here. Hiro won't rest until we say that absolutely no NPC, ever, is allowed to be sexy and sexually expressive, or they've been objectified. As if real-life people can't enjoy sexual attraction and all that jazz and appreciate their own forms and beauty without somehow wrongly encouraging all other people to treat them like objects. It's a huge stereotype that doesn't distinguish enough. I like teh sexy females, but that doesn't mean I want them in games strictly to support my idea that women are objects. Video game women are literally (digital) objects, and yet I still feel the desire, while immersedin the game/in-character, to treat them as if they're actual people. Heck, I played Duke Nukem 3D when I was like 11, complete with the strippers in it, and not once have I ever decided "You know what? I think women are objects...".

Nope. Some women in real life obviously don't adhere to the standard of how to dress, so why expect all women in a reality-based fictional world to do so? I would expect some female characters in a game to be sexualized and not follow dressing standards. Just like I don't expect everyone in the world to kill everyone else and loot their corpses. But I expect some people to be bandits. Variety is the spice of life.

It's like the cash register sound effect. You know... the game got their money, so it's their bad, then, if they're too impatient to get past the lack of jumping. I was just being kinda silly is all. Sorry. You were talking about worrying about PoE really reaching a lot of people today, but you described them getting upset with it and uninstalling it. So, if they installed it, then they already bought it. So I was just jokingly saying "Looks like we got that impatient person's money already! 8D" Hehe. Just silliness. It's good for morale.

See, Darji... clearly, no woman in real life shows that much cleavage unless some Divine Developer has forcibly sexualized her into doing so, so that all the people playing Life can objectify her. /sarcasm.

Clearly, if you don't completely disregard physical attraction, you're objectifying someone. People who are naturally beautiful should be ashamed that they even exist, and/or purposely go have plastic surgery to look less attractive. You don't have to think someone's an object or de-value humanity just to appreciate someone's perceivable traits.

Sounds like by that point they've already bought it. CHA-CHING!

Oh. I was only commenting on the first 48 episodes (season 1, I guess?) of the anime. That is the extent of my Fairy Tail experience. Sorry, but no. Disregarding people's dignity is bad. However, animes (for example) don't disregard "people's" dignity. Same with games. They're not people... they're just constructs. It's no different from a first-person shooter. They just simulate a conflict. Sure, they probably desensitize a 5-year-old, because he doesn't know any better. But, once we're able to separate fiction from reality, we see enemies in shooters as a challenge, and kills as points. Just like in martial arts competitions and such. You don't get a point for how much pain you've inflicted on someone. You get a point for your form, etc. Now, that isn't to say there isn't needless sex and violence, oftentimes, in video games (and animes, etc.). But, providing characters in an RPG who are actually sexualized isn't forcing the player to decide that real people are just objects. If a game provides a bunch of characters who are functionally sex dolls, that's not horrible objectification of females, it's just bad character writing. That's a semblence of a real female that isn't very realistic. It's basically just the shell of an actual female person, because it doesn't have even simulated dignity.

Oh. Odd. I tried to send you a PM recently, and it basically said I was not allowed to. Plus there was that time you told me I was going on your ignore list. I just figured I was on it, after all that. Clearly I was mistaken. Sorry about that. When it's false, it's no longer good. I think there's a word for it. Slander? Libel is printed, but I think forum text would still count as slander. I'm not sure on the technical aspects of that. I don't understand why you take pleasure in this act. It's not very nice.

@Darji: Fairy Tail is an excellent example! They're sort of parodying fanservice with the way they do theirs. 'Tis amusing, ^_^

Oh, I'm pretty sure I'm on his ignore list, and he still finds time to criticize every post I make. I really don't mind. Without criticism, understanding cannot be tempered. Sometimes, Hiro actually has really good stuff to say. So, if I were to ignore him completely, I would miss out on those good things, when they appear. It's kind of like hunting rare Pokemon. Patience is a virtue.

Fair enough, but they would be. Unless all you ever did was order weapons and equipment that weren't immediately in-stock at any given merchant's shop. Seems like travel times and stronghold improvement times will be represented, so I just figured it wouldn't be quite so alien to have deliveries to your stronghold. Besides... really, a lot of games already do this. You go off adventuring, and after some time has passed, you come back to a merchant, and he suddenly sells a better weapon. "Oh-hoh-hoh! I got some new stock in last week! Have a look!" If you're going to wait, then have immediate access to better stuff, it wouldn't be all that different to simply say "Hey, you don't have a masterwork longsword in stock, but I'd like one, if you can make it. Then, the next time I make it back to my stronghold after I go do a couple of things, I'll grab it and equip it, instead of just waiting this same amount of time, then making the purchase at that point in time." I'm not really worried about making the game into largely a trade empire simulation. It's just a time-based offset. It wouldn't even be mandatory to use (the ordering), as it wouldn't necessarily be exclusive wares. It would just be stuff that wasn't immediately available.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You just literally told me what I do in my games. I'd like to know how you can know that. If you're telepathically stalking me, I need to know about it. Or maybe you have malware in my computer? *rolls a Search check*

Isn't that how marriage works? The first "two hours" is figuratively the honeymoon. But the rest of the game doesn't follow suit.

Apologies, but I feel the rest of your post has taken a back seat to this. How exactly do you know what I have and have not been doing in both my playthroughs of video games, and in my mind as I'm playing them? If you have the ability to know that, you must have a fascinating telepathic ability. Although, a flawed one, since the information you've somehow acquired is incorrect. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure one of us hasn't cracked. I can attest to not yet having been strangled, so I suppose that hasn't occurred yet. He strangles my mind, a bit, I suppose.

Honestly, with the stronghold, orders could potentially be delivered there when complete. That would probably make things a lot less tedious than "Okay, in 5 days, I need to remember which merchant's stall I was at, and where, and make my way back there." Maybe you could sometimes pay more to get it more quickly? Not like "the more money I give you, the faster you humanly craft this item at your forge." But, just, the guy's probably got OTHER projects he's working on, so, unless you give him a reason to, he's not going to bump yours to the front of his work queue.

I don't think it should be mandatory. But, I don't think it should be toggleable or something. I mean, it should simply be facets of the characters that you either explore or don't. It shouldn't just be "everyone's a robot, unless you click the 'Romance' button" or something. Kinda like the stronghold. It's "mandatory" in that it doesn't simply cease to exist or be a part of the narrative and world if you don't decide to lay claim to it. But, the game doesn't force you to become its lord and manager. But, yeah, I agree that you shouldn't find that your only option is to develop romantic emotional attachment to someone in the game.

You're quoting me on a handful of isolated words. I'm not asking why you're saying the same words I said. I'm asking why you're selectively quoting them, as opposed to simply quoting me on whole statements. You've selectively quoted these words, but provided no reason for their specific emphasis. Except for "incorporated." It is evident that you feel negatively about that word. That I did. What I didn't describe was the completely re-worded/tweaked example you presented above as if it were the exact same thing I presented. So... you did it purely because I did? Or are you saying you did it for the same reason I did? Because, when I did it, it was to emphasize the fact that the game doesn't forcibly objectify a character by simply having a sexually expressive character in its world and allowing the player the option to interact with that character. The real world contains people who are both physically attractive and sexually expressive, and yet no one coded them that way. If they're sexualized, it's of their own volition. Thus, I can't really see the fault in virtually representing such a person in a game. It's a bit redundant for you to emphasize the same word for the same reason, right after I did. Maybe there was a different reason? I'm okay with exactly what I said I was okay with, which is not that. You keep adding words to things, and I know not why. What I'm okay with is the sexualization of NPCs in a video game. Obviously within reason, as with anything. I like cake, but I don't like infinite cake. That leads to an upset stomach, and/or death. Also, I asked if sex was supposed to be the only way one can interact with an object, as if an object were just an object. It is you, just then, who just decided "object" means something else. Objectification is essentially the treating of an non-object (namely, a person), as if it were merely an object. There are many ways in which one may treat an object, and, thus, many ways in which a person may be objectified. Sexually is merely one of them. Do you disagree with that? I can't tell if you do or not, because you keep rewording things we've already said in interrogative form, such that they mean something different. I don't know if you're accidentally doing that, or if it is your intention to present me with a reason to clarify every single question you ask me.