TMZuk

Dragon Age 2 was very, very bad. Fallout 3 started really well, but the whole Messiah "plot", if you can deem something that linear a plot, was downright embarrassing. Mass Effect 2 wasn't bad, but it was such a massive disappointment after Mass Effect. Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim are all exercises in boredom. Uhm.... And the winner is: Neverwinter Nights Original Campaign.

Dear me, I hope not!

Who knows? It's not something I'll throw money after, though. I was never able to get into the IWD games. The lack of interaction between the characters and the endless combat sequences made it utter boredom to me.

I agree with all of the above and just HAD to add one more entry! 11. Skyrim is the most overrated excuse for a cRPG made in the last three decades. (Seriously, a game that takes place in Skyrim and doesn't even recognize that my character is a Nord, deserves to die!)

I'd say she already raised the awareness about this, simply due to the hateful and hysterical reaction she has received. I find it stunning that when I started interesting myself in video games, the branche was in it self progressive and innovative and so was the people associated with it and playing the games. Sometimes nerds, sometimes geeks, but usually fairly open minded and tolerant people. After having watched the backlash at Sarkessian's kickstarter campaign, I wondered: What the Hell happened? So, obviously, I started looking into what it was she was talking about, and thus became interested in the debate. So while I don't agree with her completely, she does raise some relevant points and the hysteria surrounding her campaign more or less proves her point.

So let me get this straight. Because I like a CRPG to have love included, just as I bet it has hate included, it means I can't get in anywhere else and therefore I am a pixel passion devotee? Is that what you are saying?

Characterization: Who They Are. That you get a feeling that it's a person, you are speaking to, and not Random Questgiver One or Portable Warrior Three. Believeability: What They Want. Closely related to Characterization. That I somehow can relate to them and what they want and what drives them. Ambition, honour, greed, hate, love, faith or what have we and any combination of these. Reactivity. What I Say and do Matters. And more than that, what I wear and how I look as well. Not just an arc, but multiple arcs, depending on how well they are aligned with what I say and do. Sexuality. Gender Matters. No, not the ability to seduce everything that moves but a recognition of gender differences, beyond "Greetings, miss, mistress, mister, ma'am, master."

Yeah right. Pump up a shallow, generalizing statement like that and call other people shallow. Well done sir, even as the internet goes, that's pretty sad. When I am disappointed, and I am, it's because of three things: One, I had hoped that Obsidian, in contrast to most other developers, would include some ~interesting~ romantic options. Biowares romance system, with gifts and what have we, is deeply flawed and embarrassingly silly. The only good "romance", silly term anyway, in the Dragon Age games, was Morrigan's. It was the only one where personal ambitions and conflicting interests stood in the way of "happy ever after". Two, Obsidian's greatest success in the past years, Fallout: New Vegas, which I do like, is seriously lacking in one department: Companion interaction. All the companions feels like shallow paper-dolls, and not just because you cannot have romantic interactions, but because you have next to no interaction at all. And furthermore, your character could have meaningless sex, a female character could even prostitute herself, but real involvement? Oh no. And that brings me to my final worry. Three, it's not only romance that is difficult to write and implement. It is all meaningful character interaction. When Obsidian gives this a pass, and with all the updates from the past six months in mind, PoE seems more and more like IWD and less and less like BG2. And that, in my opinion, is a Bad Thing.

My worry is that the decision to not involve any sort of romantic involvement means that there will not be paid all that much attention to any sort of character interactions and development in general. Because it is not only romance that is difficult to implement, but ~all~ the stuff that makes characters in an RPG live and breathe. I ~hope~ to be mistaken, and discover that PoE indeed has deep character interaction, but the focus seems to be more on creating a tactical war-game for six characters, than about the characters. From all the updates from the past six months which I have read, it all seems to have been about classes and balance and game-play. Number-stuff and design. While I do enjoy a good looking game, I had hoped for more. It seems that PoE will be less BG2 and more IWD. Some people might enjoy that, but I am not one of them. IWD was never very interesting compared to character driven games like BG, BG2 and PS:T. I know from NWN2 and especially MotB that Obsidian ~is~ able to create what I am looking for. They just don't seem to be headed in that direction.

Well, that's disappointing. What is it with Sawyer's and Avellone's dislike of romantic involvement? In New Vegas, you could perform some pretty nasty acts. Especially with a female character, where you could basically prostitute yourself and that's apparently all right. But having some sort of real involvement happening is to awkward to write. In New Vegas is made the characters seem shallow and unreal. To paraphrase Avellone from an older interview: "Let it happen in your own imagination". Yeah right. Let Scarlet O'Hara's involvment with Ashley Wilkes and Rhett Butler happen in you own imagination, so that Margaret Mitchell didn't have to write it, and you didn't have to read about such awkward stuff in Gone with the Wind. How about Game of Thrones with romance happening in your mind? The problem about romances in cRPGs isn't that they are awkward as a rule, but that it is often sappy teen stuff. That is what makes you cringe. Take Dragon Age: Origins.. Terrible Twilight style romances... except Morrigan's, which was absolutely brillant! So, Sawyer and Avellone: Instead of once more squirming yourself out of it, how about writing some proper stuff for grownups? Something that isn't sugar coated nonsense, but has real issues where ambition, personal goals and conflicting desires makes romantic involvement difficult, problematic, filled with conflicts and potential landmines, where it can go sour or perhaps not, depending on the characters involved. And to the haters: Why do you care? You don't want romance, steer clear of it. The unpleasant gloating by some of the posters here indicates immature and troubled minds, who have to deny others what they don't like themselves.

I'd hoped to see a departure from the tired old aggro/tank/healer cliché in PoE. That's one reason why I'm disappointed that there's no option to multi-class or dual-class. It forces me to consider boring party mechanics when choosing companions, rather than whom my character would like to bring along, character wise. It's interesting enough to read about how you perceive the classes and what their strengths and weaknesses are, but why, why, why does every CRPG have to follow the same tired formula?

No idea. I lack the ability to make a warrior priest, usually my favourite class combo in any setting, due to the silly decision to not allow dual- and multi-classing. Possibly a fighter or a priest. Then hope for a quick mod to change that strange restriction. Since paladins are usually associated with law abiding do-gooders that is not an option.

Absolutely not! While good voice acting can certainly add something to a game, bad voice acting only deducts from it. And amateur voice acting is ~always~ bad! So NO!

I'd prefer not. Of course, since I don't care about them and never pay them any attention, it matters little to me. However, if they are present, I'd like an "turn achievements off" mode. I remember how annoying it was in Dragon Age: Origins when suddenly an achievement badge would flash on the screen while I was utterly involved in the game.

Oh.... I'm not very demanding. I just want the game to be responsive and have freedom at the same time. Not a lot to ask, I know. I want the game to be a GM, rather than a series of scripted events. It's a dream, but I can dream, can't I?

That is not telling people how they should play? Perhaps you should read what you post! I don't care about you having strong opinions. I care about you telling the rest of us what we should do.

And if the role someone wishes to play is a Wizard with a small amount of martial training, you have just prevented them from playing the role they want to. And if anyone wishes to be unbeatable demi god with ulimited strenghts, all the spells all the abilities then we should allow it also? It remains me of Cartman from South Park in episode "Good time with weapons": Kyle: God damn it, Cartman, you can't keep making up powers! Stan: Yeah, dude, that's like the fifth power you've come up with! Cartman: I am Bullrog, and I have lots and lots of powers. Kyle: No, ****! From now on you only get to have one power! So what is it? Cartman: I have the power to have all the powers I want. Kyle: That doesn't count, fat ass! Stan: Yeah, that's it, Cartman, now you don't get to have any powers! [Cartman whines] If we want to create jacks of all trade and cherry pick every aspect of a character then we should play classless based RPG, when you have class based system then pick one for Christ sake. Some people are really needy. You know, I'm a backer as well as any one else here. And I like dual-classing and multi-classing. It was features I liked a lot in the old Infinity-engine games. If you don't like them, then don't use the feature for crying out loud! Stop telling other people how they should or should not play a game! Multi-classing would be a feature added. It does not take anything away from those who don't want to use it. Some people really walk in tiny, tiny shoes!

Why does it defeat the purpose of classes? That is an extremly rigid interpretation of a simple RPG mechanism, in my opinion. What you say is that an electrician cannot become a soldier. An electrician is a craftsman class, and as such he obviously cannot become a soldier, which is a warrrior class, if we follow this logic through. A warrior might start out as a soldier, and then he may even become a combat-engineer, but that's still not a craftsman. That makes no sense to me. Of course a craftsman can choose to become a warrior. He'll then be learning new skills and abilities while retaining his old. He might even end up a brillant combat-engineer because of his craftsman background. But he'll always be behind the one who's been pursuing a warrior class their entire life in regard to combat abilities. That, I would think, makes sense.

I am not certain how they will implement the ability to wary a character without multiclassing. The more I consider it, the more dissaponting it is. I utterly despised the ever more ridiculous sub-classes in Dragon Age, and resented the fact that multiclassing was impossible. I certainly hope that Obsidian does a better job than Bioware did. As to the what some people say about multi-classing not working in games like this, well, in my opinion it worked very well in Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2. I enjoyed my multiclassed characters a lot.

I love multi-classing, and use it all the time in DnD, Fighter-cleric. Fighter-rogue. Mage-rogue. I love them. What I don't understand is the fierce opposotion some people display. It's an option ~added~. it doesn't detract anything from the game. You don't like it, then don't use it. More options added should be good, not bad. Some people love creating the balanced party where everyone supplements each other. Good for them. I could care less. I love playing an independent jack of all trades. The balancing argument I just don't get. It's a single player game. Who cares about balance?

An RPG based on The Wire would be absolutely incredible, if done well!

This is a good point, and I think that these issues generally go back to balancing (and making gameplay fun) non magic using classes with those that can wield spells. What we were looking at in games like DA:O (I didn't play the sequel) were essentially superhuman (spell-like) abilities in these activated modes and also in some of the crazy attacks like scattershot or "rain of arrows". Taken as superhuman, these abilties can make more sense, but there is no real reasoning for why fighters and rogues and do such things; unlike magic which relies on the fade as its source. P:E seems to be addressing this by making all powers related to the soul; thereby allowing classes not normally associated with magic to perform superhuman or supernatural feats as a substitute for spell slinging. For me, the fact that there is an internal, logical consistency in a system that has all special abilities originate from the same place, goes along way toward allowing a willful suspension of disbelief. I'm not sure how you might feel about this sort of reasoning, but seems to be the direction Obsidian is taking with their modal abilities. They are at least trying to ground these abilities in some rationale. But this is excactly what I don't get. When I play a warrior, I do NOT want to play a mage. I do not want to rely on "powers" and activated abilities. It becomes like playing a mage with swords. The abilities may not be "magic", but if they work the same way, it doesn't matter. That aside, I dislike activated abilities for all classes, for mages even more than the others. That is because it makes magic "free". When you have your abilities available all the time, it feels as if there's no limit and no price. I can no longer suspend my disbelief. To once more draw a comparison with the old D&D rulesets: Here powerful mages are able to cause immense destruction... But only a few times a day. Warriors, on the other hand, are able to function as warriors all the time, but they cannot kill twenty people at the time, or snuff out the life-force of a dragon with a single spell. Both are highly specialised, and unable to do much outside the battle-field. In between them there are a myriad of classes, many with abilities not related to fighting. That, in my opinion, creates a far more interesting game-play, than e.g. Dragon Age, with all it's abilities and modes.

There's a difference between realism and what is believable. The difference varies from one person to another, but in short, yes, I can make myself suspend my disbelief in regard to magic. Magic is an age-old concept, and while I never play mages, I can accept the idea. The idea of activated talents, on the other hand, I cannot force myself to look past, because they make no sense. Magic, when implemented well, follows certain rules. Forgotten Realms magic, e.g., is either arcane or divine in nature. It draws from somewhere, and there's a price. Something has to be paid. An activated talent such as indomitable makes no sense. If you could do something like what is described, you would do it all the time. Not doing it would be foolish. When you've mastered a certain level of swordplay or any martial art, you do not choose to make yourself less skilled. Furthermore, a skilled swordsman, or indeed any martial artists, do not spend more stamina when fighting. He or she spends less. Employing the correct stance and the correct guard makes it possible for you to make your attacks and locks with far more ease, spending far less energy. You have all your tricks at hand, all the time. Fighting in general consumes stamina. A lot of it, in fact. But fighting correctly, employing your skills and your experience does not consume more stamina. It consumes less. The same goes for leadership talents. A good leader is a good leader and rarely makes him- or herself a poor leader. If anything should be activated in that regard, it should deduct from your own fighting skills. Because giving commands to and motivating your companions takes your focus away from your opponents. And, it also makes you the obvious target. So a fighter should get more and faster attacks, to reflect his progress. There are certain tricks that could be implented as combat moves, e.g., disarms, tackles and sudden death attacks. They'd be nasty to be in the receiving end of, though.

@gromnir Yeah well. In my second post I quite deliberate made it sucky, because I was pissed off with people attacking a word, rather than debating what was being said. I could also say: "Talents or skills that seem like absurd inventions with no believability (is that even a word?) what so ever, rubs me the wrong way. They annoy me and prevent me from feeling any connection to the ongoings on my screen." I follow these forums on a fairly regular basis, but I don't post that often. One reason is that I dislike repeating what other people has already stated. But I also dislike when people resort to attacking the the choice of words instead of replying to content. Maybe there should be a sticky, where the list of words presently considered poor taste to use are listed, so that the inhabitants here do not have to see them used by some poor newcomer, unaware of the sin he or she is comitting. Asphalt-rollers have many potential victims.

[sarcasm] Oh my. We are attacking peoples choice of words, rather than debating what is being said... That is rich. Well done. [/sarcasm] That aside... The problem about abilities is that they are quite often stupid. Pure and simple. That was especially true for Dragon Age. Take a look at a few of the two-handed talents: "Indomitable - Through sheer force of will, the character remains in control on the battlefield, gaining a slight increase to attack and damage while being immune to stun or knock down effects for the duration of this mode." So, through sheer willpower, I make myself immune to knockdowns? Right. "Powerful - While in this mode, the character puts extra muscle behind each swing, gaining a bonus to damage but suffering penalties to attack and defense" Yes, because that's just the way to use a sword. Swing it so hard that you reduce your own chance of connecting. Very believable. How about the champion talents? "War cry - The champion lets out a fearsome cry that gives nearby enemies a penalty to attack. With Superiority, nearby enemies are also knocked down unless they pass a physical resistance check." Riiiight.... Some lunges our champion has, mhm? Maybe that's what the All blacks are attempting to do with their haka here? Joke aside, these invented "talents" or "skills" or "abilities", whatever you wish to call them, are absurd and unbelievable, and therefore subtract from my immersion. Oh, I said it again. Immersion! But well, they do!