TMZuk

YES, we do. One the things I hate about modern RPGs is the removal of all the building stones that makes it possible to create and develop unique and varied characters, All the little things that create variations are good. No "streamlining", thank you very much.

Oh please. He's not a backer. How does he even have access to the beta? Don't feed the troll.

This is another interesting discussion that could derail the thread. However, you have to take extreme care using the sagas as source material. The historical sagas are written 300 - 400 years later than the events they describe and while there's most likely a core of truth in them, the change in society and the fact that they are written down by monks, distorts the view they give of the time where they take place.

I'm talking about the average. I really did not think I would have to say it. The strongest and fastest of women never were and never will be (unless we evolve somehow) as strong or as fast as the strongest and fastest of men. On average this will always show. No they are not. Equal food and equal work will produce a stronger male. This is a scientific fact unless you are going to tell me women in the past had the same amounts of testosterone as men. If what you say were true women and men could compete in physical sports without the division. But they can't. You will have to ask a biologist why it is. I am just a poor archeologist. And when I say that facts are against you, it's because that men and women were much more alike in the Viking Age, than they are to day. That is a fact. You can claim it is not, but I'm the one standing with the bones. They were shorter than Scandinavians are today, but taller than people were in the Middle Ages. Average height for Danish men to day is about 182 cm, women averages 169 cm. A thousand years ago, we estimate that Danish men averaged about 173 cm and Danish women about 168 cm. They were probably stronger than today, not surprisingly, but in a sinewy rather than a bulky way. This is true in Scandinavia. As already mentioned, I have not looked into how it is in the rest of Europe, let alone the rest of the world. I can send you some sources, but they are in Danish. But if you want to discuss this particular subject further, I suggest we do it in pm's or in a separate thread, in order to not derail the thread.

You had me until this. The time between then and now is pitifully small in evolutionary terms for the kind of changes you speak of. Men are bigger, stronger, faster etc, etc. Facts are against you. It has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with equal (ly lack of) food and equally hard work.

To take the stance that the very few women who are advocating the viewpoint you present, are representing feminism as a whole, that's the same as saying that KKK represents the majority of white people in the USA. In short, it is sheer and utter nonsense. I live in one of the countries in the world, where emancipation has come the furthest. Within the last century, women has gone from not being able to vote, to where we are now, where women are able to hold just about any position in society. However, a century isn't very long, which should be obvious to anyone. The oppression of women that has taken place for the last thousand years here in Denmark, isn't something you just leave behind. As an archeologist, with my specialty being Scandinavian archeology, there's a number of interesting facts I'd like to put forward: One of the most "masculine" cultures of the past, in how we perceive it, is the Viking Age. (approx. 793 to 1066). However, is spite of the popular picture of big men with big axes and big beards, a large number of the richest burials excavated, contains women. The Oseberg Ship, excavated in Norway, contains more goods that any other burial from that period. A large ship, a wagon, fifteen horses, cattle, pigs, sheep and dogs. All manners of goods and utensils. A fortune. And who is buried there? Two women! Another interesting fact is that with the improved Osteology we have available, it has become clear that there's several women buried with weapons. With this being an accepted fact, we must redefine our entire outlook on the Viking Age. Because everything found before 1950 is gender determined from the grave goods alone. The osteology was very primitive and by and large not used. The first certain discovery of a female warrior grave dates from 1964, found in Southwestern Finland. Since then several more has surfaced. So how is that possible? We all know that men are bigger, stronger, faster etc. etc. than women, don't we? No, we don't. Not in Northern Europe at any rate, The further back we go, the harder it is to see the difference in build between men and women. They are about the same height and the same build. Only when we find the pelvis bone, can we easily determine the gender. So, as it becomes clear that in the Viking Age, women held power and influence to a far higher degree than in all the centuries between then and now, one must ask what happened? Christianity happened. With the introduction of religion in a modern sense, we get terms as God's Will and Sin. With those tools, the Church transformed the old tribal society into feudal medieval states. With all that implies in form of oppression of women in Scandinavia from 1000 to 1915 (in Denmark) where women are allowed to vote. This has become a long rant, but there's a point to be made. It will take more than a hundred years to find a new balance between the genders, where the differences are celebrated, but the opportunities are equal. But simply stating that feminism sucks and women should stop fighting for their rights, solves nothing. That is regression of the worst kind.

Deadlands as a CRPG? Oh yeah! Sign me up!

There's a lot of generalizations as to what kind of games women play and what they like. Just as there's a lot of generalizations as to why they play. Exactly the same as the generalization that has been around for decades, that a gamer is a nerd, with no life and no friends. Generalizations can be useful at times, but mostly they give a very distorted image of the reality. I know five women who spend time playing computer games. With time I mean more than once or twice a month. Interestingly enough, they all prefer to play on the PC, but maybe that's because it is still a major gaming platform in Denmark. The exception is Guitar Hero, but that's mostly something we all play at drunk parties. Two of them are hardcore RPG fans. Of the three others, one of them occasionally plays RPGs but mostly simulators and strategy. One play simulations exclusively and the last one play browser games. Age wise they are between 25 and 45. Five people is not enough to determine anything from, but still, I'd say women are as diverse as men in what and how they play.

Paladins in PoE are not all religiously-affiliated as they are in A/D&D. The paladin companion, Pallegina, is associated with a secular political organization. There are "traditional" paladin orders in the world like the Shieldbearers of St. Elcga, Kind Wayfarers, and Fellows of St. Waidwen, but there are also mercenary paladins (Goldpact Knights), battlefield ravagers (Bleak Walkers) and all sorts of other groups. Without exception paladins are always zealously devoted to their chosen cause, but their chosen causes and codes of behavior are quite varied. A belated thank you for that clarification. Somehow I've missed it until now.

That's easy. Something like the Tales of the Sword Coast expansion to Baldur's Gate.

Exactly that. I used to love Bioware games. In my opinion, BG and BG2 are far better games than the IWD series. Also better than the original Fallout games, which I also like. Only PS:T compares. The first great disappointment Bioware gave me, was NWN. Ugly, boring story, forgettable companions, it had very little going for it, initially. User made modules, persistent worlds and CEP eventually made it a good game. Jade Empire I didn't play, but that's because I don't like oriental settings, so it never appealed to me. ME1 was great! By far the best of the ME games. DA:O was fair. Predictable story, but the origins were fun and it had some cool companions, especially Morrigan, Shale and Zevran. The expansion was extremely mediocre and so was the DLC. DA2 was awful. ME2 was a glorified shooter. ME3 was in some respects an improvement over ME2, in other respects it was worse. First and foremost it was marred by the Worst Story Ever! So yeah, EA has pretty much run Bioware into the gutter, as they did with Westwood and Bullfrog before that.

While traversing Ancient haunted crypts filled with Flesh rotting Ghasts? (Ie. the example of mine that you're attempting to counter)? Aaah. No they don't. Except maybe in poorly written Bioware fantasies. You see the this is where the argument " people on an adventure to save the world wouldn't think about Romance" is utterly false and ridiculous This is EXACTLY where Romance would flourish, you can try position other anti-Romance perspectives but not this one If a group of people are on some epic quest to defeat some diabolical demi-god, and they know everyday could be there last, they spend time around a campfire and they are prepared to die for each other and they are attracted to each other why wouldn't Romance happen? Romance could be a expression of many different types of emotional states There are numerous cases that people can give where Romance has happened where people face death. I had a teacher at school who didn't know his father as his mother fell pregnant in the dark during the Blitzkrieg in London during WW2 while they hiding in bomb shelter This I do agree with. However, this is exactly what Bioware romances is not. They are contrived and feels out of place. They aren't integrated into the storyline. They feel like a stalker mini-game, artificially added to the game. The Morrigan romance in DA:O was well written and was a natural part of the game. Zevran was amusing when I played as a female warden. All the rest of the "romances" in DA:O, in Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3, not to mention the travesty of a game that was DA2, made my toes cringe. So if Josh Sawyer want to make something better than that, I applaud it. And if it's between the typical Bioware romance and no romance, I'll take the no romance option any day.

Yeah, unless all my friends tells me that DA:I is the best game ever, I'm going to avoid it with a vengeance. After the terrible mess that was DA 2 and ME 3, with abysmal plotholes and writing so stupid that it insults my intelligence, combined with "romance" that seems to be taken right out of Twilight or a similar emo-teenage show, I can't see myself throwing money after another Bioware RPG, period. EA has utterly ruined Bioware.

My money is on Obsidian, although I doubt I'll use crafting a lot. In my opinion it is a silly feature. At least in most games it is silly. The character is a miner/melter/blacksmith/weaponsmith/armourer all in one. How many soldiers and knights in the European middle ages fashioned their own weapons and armour? Answer: None. How many dug out their own ore? Absolutely none! That's why every army had a train with armourers, smiths, cobblers, bakers, merchants and what have we. The only game I've ever played that had a feasible crafting system is Microprose's venerable Darklands.

I believe that for me it boils down to choice and reactivity. CRPGs, unlike PnP RPGs, are limited by the writing. That is of course one reason why VA has ruined so many of the CRPGs of the past decade. It limits the amount of dialogue possible even more. Back in the nineties, when Bethesda published TES2: Daggerfall, I was awestruck. The freedom of the game was incredible, my character could go anywhere and do anything... I thought. After playing it a lot, I came to realize that in fact I could basically interact with the world in two manners; Kill stuff and steal stuff. I wanted more! I wanted to talk to people. To say: "You're a jerk", "you're all right" or "I think I might like you, a lot!" That was what I was used to from PnP games, and gradually poor Daggerfall lost it's luster, and I've never been able to get into a TES game after that. Then came Fallout 2, PS:T. and BG2. Fallout 2 had perhaps the greatest amount of freedom, combined with entertaining interaction that any cRPG has ever had. But they were all good and that, of course, got my hopes up that future CRPGs would continue that trend. As we all know, they didn't. Consoles and voice acting changed all that. So of course I was - and am - hyped for PoE. But the message that they had no options for romantic involvment was a disappointment, because it in my opinion means that there's less choices and manners to interact with the world in and consequently less reactivity. If I believe my character would be attracted to an NPC or a Companion, I'd like the option for my character to say that to be present. And where it could have gone to a new level would of course have been if the NPC then played the PC. Or cheated on him/her. Or took the initiative. All manners of intersting options could have been present. That's the core of my disappointment.

Mhm. As pro-mancer, this none the less strike me as polar opposite to my own viewpoint. I despise most "romances" in video-games with a vengeance! Especially Bioware excels in make them juvenile, pathetic, contrived and utterly out of context. If it's between that sort of "romance" and nothing at all, then by all means call me an anti-mancer. I even dislike the term, because it place romantic options and dialogue as something apart from the rest of the interaction with NPCs and companions. When it was made known that there'd be no "romance" in PoE, I was disappointed because I had hoped for romance in line with how the overall theme of the game was described: Mature and touching on subjects that publishers might shy away from. I had also hoped that they could integrate these "romances" seamlessly into the game, so that it would simply be part of the interaction with the NPC/Companion, instead of some sort of separate mini-game. If I may hold Dragon Age: Origins up as an example. Most of the so called "romance" in that game, was utterly disconnected from the story being told, and as such it felt artificial and unbelievable. The exception was Morrigan's character arc. It starts out as simple physical attraction with no emotional investment. As the story progresses, she, to her own surprise, realizes that it has become more than that. She struggles against it, not just because of her being unwilling to walk down that path, but because, unknown to the player, she has ambitions that does not allow for her to be caught up in a serious relationship. When she has to make her final choice, her affection for the PC or her own ambition, why, Io and behold, she chose her ambition! Now ~that~ was good writing! Perfectly interwoven in the main story-arc and with the companion having her own goals and the will to stay true to them! I'd hoped to see stuff like that. Pitfalls and opposed ambition, jealousy, unanswered love, etc, etc. But if it's just about choosing the right replies in an otherwise unrelated dialogue-tree and then the PC is home free, then by all means leave it out! And, by the way, where Gone with the Wind might be one of the greatest love-stories ever, Cold Mountain is mediocre at best.

If the beta is on Steam, I'll wait for the actual release. Most likely I would have at any rate. One for the long winter evenings.

In my opinion it would have been great if Obsidian, with all the talk about mature themes, etc, etc. would have attempted to include mature romance, instead of the teen stuff that passes for romance in most cRPGs. And with mature I don't mean explicit content. I mean romance with real pitfalls. Romance where ambition, morality and different perspectives stand in the way, maybe to be overcome... or maybe not! Romance where other things might be lost if you pursue it. Where there might be jealousy and deception involved. As much as I like Obsidian, I find it odd that they so often have no problems including casual sex, prostitution and even hints at rape, but shy away from presenting the option to roleplay real commitment and falling in love. Well, maybe one day they will attempt to overcome that hurdle too.

I don't understand the question. Obviously, the crowd funding is done for two reasons: One: To see if people have an interest in purchasing such games, and Two: To make certain that enough money is available to actually develop the game without suffering a huge loss. Of course, Obsidian hopes that the word will spread and more copies will be sold. Consider that if Obsidian sets a retail price of 30 $, the money they have gathered is equivalent of perhaps 150.000 - 200.000 copies sold, including taxes and distribution. If they game is well received, it's not unreasonable to expect that it sells another 200.000 copies. That's revenue. But in all likelihood, if the game is a success, they will launch another kick-starter campaign. It's not so different from the common publisher model, except that the backers are the publisher. Baldur's Gate 2 sold more than 2.000.000 copies and is actually still being sold. While it's unlikely that PoE will reach such numbers, I believe that 500.000 copies is a reasonable goal to aim for.

No there isn't. There's hardly one from the past two years. And MMORPG's are boring per definition as ninety percent of the players only wants to "hunt", five percent wants to cyber and for the rest it is just to steep an uphill climb to even attempt to roleplay.

... am recalling that obsidian were kinda selling poe as a throw-back/retro game-- bg2 and infinity engine games were mentioned as inspirations. we expected better graphics and a more rational rule-set than d&d 2e, but as far as gameplay, we were expecting something along the lines of iwd2, but 'y'know, better. no d&d nonsense 1e, 2e or even frankenstein iwd2 3e. as such, if Gromnir weren't hearing combat and tactics, we would be as disappointed as you seem to be. that being said, the combat and tactics we hear about from obsidian does make us think of modern mmo more than old-skool rpg/crpg, so we is a bit apprehensive. even so, our concerns is near diametric opposite o' your concerns. curious, no? HA! Good Fun! Very apprehensive. As to why our concerns are polar opposite.. we all got different things out of the old IE games. One of my friends, many years ago, was ecstatic with joy when he found out that in BG, if he started a multi-player game, he could design his entire party. All I could ask him was: "Where's the fun in that?". So, while we were both huge fans of the games, it was for different reasons.

I suggest you look for some r/w pen and paper groups or maybe even some play-over-internet games. Seriously. The original IE games were combat-heavy, bar PS:T. Well. PS:T was by far my favourite of the IE games. Followed by BG2 and BG. IWD I wasn't able to become interested in. While the BG games had quite a bit of combat, they had quite a bit of other stuff as well. Interaction, first and foremost. Good dialogue and lots of it. Non combat solutions. (More of those, please.) So, no, I don't have to find a PnP grpup outside of the one I have. I just have to hope for a game along the lines of what I like.

Interesting characters. I don't care what they do. I care about who they are. Trying to micro manage a party to make it as efficient as possible isn't something I'm interested in. Having the most detailed and fleshed out companions along for the ride, that's what does it for me. If that means I have to play on easiest difficulty, fine.

Combat. No, it's a joke, but only partially so. Every update I've seen for months now, is about tactics and combat and combats and tactics and it's...... boooooorrriiinnnggg. I play RPGs to role play, not to micro manage an endless stream of combat encounters. I hope we'll get some updates about something else, soon. As it is now, I feel myself thinking IWD and I'm loosing interest.

There's a billion boring MMORPG's out there. We don't need more of those, we need more quality SP CRPGs.