Fearabbit

Hmm, the article doesn't tell me anything new, I don't like how the author mocks other people's opinions and taste in games, and I think there are some problematic notions in there as well. For example, the author talks about the backlash a game gets when it gets "called out" on its racism, and how that's not censorship but some sort of righteous reaction. (But his example is an article about a game where a samurai says "herro" instead of "hello", and for some reason that's super racist even though the character was written by an Asian guy who actually had trouble with the English language himself.) I just think that's super wrong... yeah it's not censorship, but if this type of scandal is successful and the studio has to react to it, then it's something very close. The studio will then just start making boring, politically correct characters. That can't be the goal. Sure I'm against racism, but... stop with the outrage, it's not helping.

You need to work on your comparisons, Bryy. This game is nothing like Civ or FTL. If anything, Banished most closely resembles the Anno series, except that it has more micro-managing, is less forgiving and offers no campaign and less features in general (but the features it has are more complex). I prefer the Anno games, but I like some of the ideas in Banished. My biggest problem is that there's no sense of purpose really. It's similar to Don't Starve in that regard - I just don't see the point in playing the game when there's no real story or campaign behind it. At least give me an endgame where I can try to get back to civilization or something, I mean why call your game "Banished" otherwise? :D If I had a say in it, I would tell the developer to think about a proper setting for his next game. I think the Wild West would have been perfect for Banished. The whole frontier spirit thing, the various religious groups who wanted to be free and create their own perfect settlements, the Gold Rush and its implications... and all that in a harsh unexplored land. Of course, in the end you'll still get bored. But with a proper setting, the player will have several different goals to choose from before that happens. Banished right now only has one goal, which is "survive and grow". That's just not enough.

Well I'm glad you agree that what you wrote was a general statement - "high xp numbers are better than low xp numbers". I just think it's sad that you have to get so defensive and bad-mouth Lephys all the time, when he's just having a normal discussion with you. Look at your posts. The first one looks like a general statement (whatever your intention really was), and Lephys replied in a general way. Then you keep on talking in general terms about the advantage of high XP values, only now you use BG1 as an example. Doesn't change the fact that your argument still is of a general nature (again, whatever your actual intention may have been). Then Lephys correctly argues that his point is actually not based on BG1, and suddenly you talk about how abstract he always is with his hyperboles and all that. Do you realize how strange and unnecessary that looks? And why is 10,000 XP an extreme example anyway? Because you already consider 1000 XP to be a high value? What do you base that on? Why is that "high", compared to what, and when does "extreme" begin? You see what I'm getting at? To me, 1000 XP for a quest is a completely normal reward. So a high XP reward (like you said you'd prefer) would actually be in the range of 10,000 XP. By the way. Lephys' 10,000 XP are "extreme", but when you talk about how 10 XP is too low for completing a quest, that isn't extreme? Why? Because, you know, Lephys' example number differs from your "gold standard" of BG1 by only a factor of 10, while your example differs by a factor of 100. The truth behind all this is this: You communicated your thoughts badly (which is not a problem) and then got defensive when people didn't get what you're talking about (which is a problem). You could have de-escalated the discussion right after Lephys' first post with the following words: "Sorry, let me clarify: I think BG1's quest rewards of 1000 XP were what I consider 'high' compared to other games. And I, personally, liked that because it gave the illusion of progression. A quest reward of 10,000 XP is already too high for my taste - I guess that BG1 really hit the sweet spot there." 1) Why does it matter which one? They all had lower XP values in general. (At least, that's what it felt like to me - but then again I wasn't thinking of quest rewards, I was thinking of the repetitive tasks like killing monsters etc.) 2) How is the size of a game connected to the magnitude of its XP rewards? I can make a small game where solving a quest gives you 10,000 XP, no problem. What is your point here, what do you mean when you say it's "on par"? Because that sounds really subjective right now. "Big games need big XP numbers, small games need small XP numbers" - what? I mean if that's what you personally think, it's fine, but it's not exactly a general rule on which to base an argument.

Your original statement wasn't about BG1, it was the abstract statement that a high xp table feels better than a low xp table. Lephys replied, and only afterwards you started talking about BG1. Maybe you were thinking of BG1 all the time, but we can't know that, right? So Lephys' example of 10,000 XP wasn't "extreme" because we didn't have anything to compare it to. Anyway. I like Fallout's XP system very much, which has rather low values. I don't like useless zeroes at the end of my XP values just for the sake of it, and I think the illusion you're talking about fades as soon as you see the XP you have to reach to gain a level. (That said I think BG1's system is fine. I think there's no illusion that makes it better than other systems, but if they do it exactly as BG1 did it, I'm fine with it.)

Still waiting for good deals on FEZ, Transistor and Skyrim: Dragonborn. Also I'm on Team Purple, so I prioritized my wishlist a bit, just in case.

Cool! I didn't expect all those screenshots. Very nice. And holy crap that choose-your-own-adventure part sounds awesome. Possibly. The ability's name is Knockdown. What's weird is that the author wrote "Ghost Bleach" in the original German text, so there was actually no translation involved at any point. (And I can't think of a translation of "Knockdown" that is anywhere close to a German equivalent of "Ghost Bleach"...)

And you've repeatedly extrapolated from this one small insignificant video to the general state of the media here, as if these journalists are somehow representative of anything. I think that is problematic because 1) obviously they're not and 2) they might not even show their actual opinion in this video. It's an E3 summary video that seems heavily improvised in parts. And if it's the first time you're in a video like this, and then the others (who are more experienced) say stuff like "I don't know how to deal with Kickstarter projects", you will not say "well that's just a stupid opinion". You'll nod in agreement because who the hell cares if you nod in agreement. (Noone but you, Hiro.) That video isn't a thought-out article, it's just a video they made where they share their (probably partly improvised) opinions and thoughts about E3. It doesn't matter and it is not the definite proof of whatever you're trying to prove that you think it is. So, again: Why do you keep talking about these journalists. Noone else is interested in them. You're the one who always comes back to them. Why? I've asked this numerous times already, but you always chose to answer with a completely different question.

Well in this thread you don't seem very calm, it seems quite important to you to show the people that these journalists are hacks. And I'm asking, what's the point, and you still didn't answer. As to my personal agenda: I just felt that there are some misunderstandings happening. I was trying to explain what Lephys is doing and where that differs from what you're doing. I don't like discussions where people talk past each other without knowing it. The least I can do is to point it out. And maybe try and mediate a bit. Looking at Lephys' posts, I don't see where they are idiotic and wasting time. I mean, you started a discussion about journalists and Kickstarter projects, and he gave his opinion, which is a more general (if "abstract" to you is negatively connotated) opinion than the one you presented, but a valid one nonetheless. And I think there's something to be said about trying to find an answer that is general.

I didn't think that you go to their site. But that's exactly it, why does it bother you so much what they think if you otherwise don't care for their opinion? As to your question, I don't think people actually defended these particular journalists. Lephys relishes in these kind of abstract, philosophical debates - he's not one for taking a specific example and basing his argument on that, at least that's the impression I get when I read his posts. So he wasn't talking about these journalists, he was talking about the general problems one might have as a journalist when it comes to covering projects that are very open about their progress. Basically, the problem was that you wanted to talk about a specific example and extrapolate from that, while Lephys didn't care about the specific example and went straight for the general problem. Elerond didn't think their statements were problematic, which is not exactly the same as defending them. And I agree, but mostly because I simply don't care about what these journalists have to say. Watching that video, I decided that they're not the kind of journalists I'd rely on when it comes to game reviews and news, not even because of their statements regarding Kickstarter projects but just in general, I didn't like them, they didn't seem particularly clever to me. And that's it. I can totally understand if you watch that video and go "how are these people gaming journalists!", I think it's a valid reaction... but I wouldn't extrapolate from it, and I wouldn't get worked up if people disagreed with my assessment of their qualifications.

Hiro, why do you get so worked up about these journalists? You don't like their stance on Kickstarter projects, so just don't go to their site? Personally I think that Rock Paper Shotgun is pretty good when it comes to coverage of new exciting Kickstarter projects. They've covered (just off the top of my head) Torment: Tides of Numenera, Pillars of Eternity, Witchmarsh... and they've already given first impressions of Wasteland 2 and Divinity: Original Sin (which were very positive). I mean, what's your general point that you're trying to make by complaining about these four journalists? Others don't feel that way about Kickstarter. If you think that Gamespot's journalists are hacks, don't go to Gamespot and find other, more reliable news sources.

Huh? I actually made sure to say that I am just as jealous as he is. I long to see the E3 demo as well, I think it's natural for a fan to feel that way. You're calling me childish for that? As for your opinion, my post still applies. Yes, you think that your discontent is warranted. My point was that lots of people don't think of it this way and that this discussion is leading nowhere. Your main argument is "backers deserve more than that", and I don't agree with it because I understand Obsidian's reasoning behind it. In any case, I just don't feel like the backers have gotten "less" than the press from Obsidian. They gave us in-depth looks at various stages of the production, about all that's going on behind the curtains and about the systems they're implementing, the classes, the world... all that stuff that isn't suited for the mainstream gaming press. They can't write articles about these updates. We're the ones that are well-informed about the project, we're the ones that get to give feedback on certain design decisions. And I don't see how we're somehow entitled to see everything when we already get to see all that. Also, we will get to see flashy cool gameplay footage soon. And we'll get even more than the press: we'll get a true oldschool RPG like we've wanted for so long now. My gratitude for that is bigger than my impatience to see some video that Obsidian thinks we shouldn't see because it would spoil the fun of experiencing it in the game for the first time. But yeah. That's my opinion, some people view it differently. Like I said, my point was that it's useless to keep discussing this.

Okay, we got it. Darji, you want gameplay videos, and you don't want them in a month or so, you want them now. Noted. The developers think that would be a bad idea, some people here agree with that. You have your arguments why you think it's a good idea to show videos now, we consider these arguments invalid due to a number of reasons (personally I'm just not interested in half-finished gameplay, I'm much more interested in a polished and awesome trailer). Same goes for exclusive press material. You think it's unfair that we don't get to see it first, and we think it makes sense for Obsidian to do it this way (even if we are just as envious of those pesky journalists as you are). With this conclusion in mind, maybe we can stop the back-and-forth now, since it won't actually change a thing.

"That is what Kickstarter is about for most people." Kickstarter is about funding products that you want to see come into existence. That's it. Everything else is just icing on the cake. I don't know why some people have such a hard time understanding this basic concept and assume that their 20$ give them the right to make demands of any kind. Star Citizen is a completely different type of game, by the way. It's an MMO that relies on balanced and fun gameplay and interactivity on a large scale, they basically need to show people what's happening and check out their feedback. It also doesn't rely on story at all, while lots of content from Pillars of Eternity would be a spoiler. It doesn't make sense to show footage that basically spoils the game to people who already said "I'm definitely going to buy this, in fact, I already paid for it". Most games don't start their big advertising campaign until a few months before release. It's a much better strategy than constantly sharing new videos because it reminds people that this will come out soon and gets them hyped right before the game comes out, which is better than hyping someone a year before (especially for smaller games that don't get as much press anyway). Concerning Wasteland 2 as well as Divinity: Original Sin (and also Star Citizen actually): I haven't read anything about these games in the last few weeks other than "coming out soon" or "still looking good". How is that good strategy? Divinity is coming out, what, in a couple of days? They haven't made a new trailer in months, not that I know of in any case. You call that good advertising? I think it's pretty bad and doesn't work. Yeah, you get the Kickstarter backers hyped up, but they were hyped to begin with.

Well, what exactly are you guys interested in? Personally I'm hoping for news about Fallout 4, and I might be interested in Mirror's Edge 2... and of course I'm hoping for some cool new stuff, but other than that, I'm not really looking forward to anything. 90% of the games announced at E3 usually don't interest me at all. Like a new Halo title, the standard Nintendo games, the next Assassin's Creed game(s) and so on. And even for the other 10%, I can't remember a surprising E3 announcement of the last few years that got me excited. That being said, there's some entertainment value in watching the show. I'll definitely watch it and have a good time, I think. But yeah, I'd like to know what you're excited about this year.

"My lord, they left the inn. I overheard them asking for directions to your fiefdom, it seems like they are heading here now. I came as fast as I could." "Good. Exactly as I planned. How many were they?" "There were six of them, my lord." "And the wizard, was he with them?" "Yes, my lord. There was also the cipher, and the priest; the leader of the band is, as you know, a cowardly fighter who likes to attack his enemies while they are facing another direction, and it seems they have teamed up with an Amaua barbarian and an elven ranger. They seem to have left their most capable fighter behind, as well as some of the others that we know of." "You've done well. I'll have to think about my strategy now, go and see that the mercenaries are ready, and tell the wizards to get their grimoires." "I'll do so at once, my lord." (Bows and exits.) ...a little bit less sophisticated than other proposed systems, but this seems an entirely plausible thing to do for a villain who is expecting our party. Since we have like a dozen possible companions, knowing which ones we'll take on our journey is already a huge help.

You lost me some time ago in this discussion, so I'll just state my position as simple as possible: 1) Boob armor is armor where you can see boobs, and it seems like it doesn't protect anything. Boob armor sucks because it's sexist and stupid. 2) Armor with a special curved chest part for females might not be realistic, but it is not sexist. Maybe a little bit stupid though, but not in any way comparable to the utter ridiculousness of boob armor. 3) Obsidian's explanation "so you can differentiate your characters" is stupid. But in the end, who freaking cares. It looks nice, it's not sexist, it's just a bit stupid. That's so much better than any other game already. Stop complaining. Really, I am a total SJW myself and everything, but that doesn't mean that a plate armor that's just a bit more curved than usual suddenly becomes a boobplate that only exists so nerds can jerk off to it. Relax, take a deep breath and realize that this is better than most of the stuff we know from the fantasy genre. It would be important if the armor is sexist or anything. But as long as it doesn't have gratuitous cleavage, I'm not seeing the problem. And this whole discussion is really about something that's just not very important, and the bickering is getting tedious.

No. First of all, that's vague and doesn't help anybody. What are meaningful choices? How many of them do you need? Are games like The Walking Dead and The Wolf Among Us RPGs now? (Or better yet, is the only reason they aren't the fact that their choices aren't meaningful enough, which is highly debatable anyway?) Second, I vehemently disagree. What's important for an RPG is that you're free to play different types of characters and use various strategies to achieve your goal. For me, that's the meat and bones of an RPG. Not choices like "do you want to burn this city to the ground yes/no", but the choice between playing as a thief or playing as a warrior, and having an underlying system that supports both ways of playing. And stats are helpful here because they differentiate between the different types of characters I can play, and they act as restrictions to what a certain type of character can and can't do. But like I said, definitions are useless anyway. There will always be exceptions.

It's a difficult decision, (and I don't think lists of must-haves and can't-haves are going to be much help). Wasteland 2 is considered an RPG, yet it's basically a tactical squad strategy game. And I think that if you put Jagged Alliance 2 in a fantasy setting, everyone would call it an RPG. Personally I think neither of them are "true" RPGs but sometimes, when we talk about RPGs, we just mean that we want character customization options and a setting that pleases us. To be perfectly honest, I don't think that Baldur's Gate is a true RPG, because you play 6 characters at the same time. For me a true RPG has one player character that you can control and customize. But the lines are blurred and basically... who cares whether a game is or isn't a true RPG?

Is that sarcasm? I haven't played the game but it got pretty bad reviews. It looked pretty cool though. But yeah, I remember now, Hunted was the reason I was wary of Tides of Numenera at first, exactly because Hunted looked great and then got bad reviews. Let's hope Tides of Numenera won't end up the same way (especially since I backed it). By the way, it will be very interesting to see whether all those new Kickstarter-funded RPGs will make the list in the next years, and whether they'll get a good ranking. I have high hopes for Divinity: Original Sin, Tides of Numenera and of course Pillars of Eternity. And Wasteland 2 is apparently excellent already, but it's not my cup of tea I think.

I love the priest, sounds like an awesome class. Too bad one of the companions will already be an ass-kicking firearm-wielding priestess. Not that I'm complaining, but it means that I won't be creating a similar character anytime soon, I like diversity in my group. And I already knew I'd like the chanter, but I really love how the names of their chants are actually the whole content of the chant. Nice concept, it really sells the idea that the whole chant is important, you can't just shorten it to a one-word description. Sadly, I'm not really feeling that Aumauna chanter... will she be a companion? Maybe I'll grow to like her in the game, but right now she looks like the typical "wise savage". It says that priests get their spells from faith, but not from their deity. So it sounds as if there won't be these typical D&D type "blessings". But maybe there will still be spells unique to certain religions? One can only assume, but I'd think that worshipping a god of death is different from worshipping a god of love.

Let's just all agree that Skywind will be amazing. I think Skyrim was a great game and it definitely had the better balance and better gameplay.... but otherwise, you just can't beat Morrowind. I'll be honest, I'm a diehard fan but... in my opinion the dialogue and the various questlines are highly underrated, and the world is simply the best I've ever seen in a fantasy game. Also as a freeform RPG I really appreciate the fact that it had like 13 (!) different guilds that you could join PLUS the main questline, and that all these questlines didn't end after 5 quests but actually really took a while to complete. All while actually having interesting plots abundant with intrigue and twists. I forgive them the fact that lots of the actual quests were fetch quests or something like that. I mean.. that's really the thing that Morrowind did. When it offered you something, it offered it to you in abundance, but the individual thing was a bit rough. Yes its NPCs were a bit bland at times, but it had over 3000 of them. Combat was weird, but it offered you hundreds of different armor and weapon types (remember shurikens, spears, crossbows and individual armor pieces?). And so on and so on. Edit: And yeah this is a little bit off-topic, sorry. I just really really like the game and I think it deserves a top ten spot on the list easily. And I haven't yet played one single RPG that didn't have horrible mechanics in some way or another. At least jumping to improve your Acrobatics was highly meditative.

Yeah I know. I said that at the beginning. You can also see that I said "too bad that Skyrim and Fallout 3 didn't make it". I didn't say "Skyrim and Fallout 3 are missing for this to be a proper ranking" or anything of the kind. @Humanoid: I admit there are some inconsistencies (after 200 years those supermarkets should've been raided empty). The lack of farming is explained by the strong radiation and infertile soils, however, and the non-permanent housing is a result of the fact that the area is a perpetual combat zone with supermutants roaming around. But I don't want to defend the game, yes it definitely has flaws. However, I didn't say "New Vegas and Fallout 3 have the same mechanics, therefore they're the same quality". Not at all. I'd say they're based on the same gameplay, and then both have different bad and good stuff. You could name dozens of flaws in Fallout 3 and I'd find you the same number of flaws in New Vegas.

1. Your beer metaphor is not a very good comparison. I mean, the whole premise that the Codex knows better what makes a good RPG and what doesn't is flawed. 2. I'm German and I don't know Bud and Fosters. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't compare Skyrim and Fallout 3 to either of them though, judging by what you're implying. 3. YES, if almost all beers are on the list, even some crappy ones, then excluding two that have lots of good qualities (and even "twin beers" on the list) and are more popular than almost any of the beers on the list seems like a very stupid thing to do. Especially if it's only because they're popular. By the way, my whole point is that lists like this one are only useful as a guide for newcomers or for people looking for a good RPG. As has been said it's useless to make a simple list of favourites. If that's all they wanted to do, I'm completely fine with the ranking and the list. It serves no purpose but it's fine. My point, however is that if it's also supposed to be a guide, then some pretty important RPGs are missing.

Well, that's not what I said (I was talking about Skyrim), but it is the same world as any other Fallout game, and they are pretty well-regarded. The game has skill checks, choices & consequences, crafting, difficult combat, various ways to approach a situation... everything that made Fallout so popular can be found in Fallout 3. But people hate on it because "it's Oblivion with guns" (which is so far from the truth it hurts). And then they like on New Vegas which had so many problems. To be sure, I love both games and yes, I love them for different things. Saying one is one of the best RPGs and the other a completely crappy one is beyond ridiculous, however.

...his list of favourite beers that, as has been said, includes almost all the beers that exist. Skyrim and Fallout 3 are very, very good RPGs, mainstream or not. (In the case of Fallout 3, this shouldn't even be a question; in the case of Skyrim, well. They did include and praise Morrowind. So the gameplay can't be the problem. The world is interesting, the dungeons are excellent. The only negative thing I can think of are some storylines, but well. There are lots of them, and I'd say most were pretty good. Neverwinter Nights only had one plot, and it was horrible.)