TMZuk

it's a matter of taste. I find the activated abilities from a game like Dragon Age silly and contrived. If my charcter is a great leader and champion, then that isnt't something that should be "activated". It's something he/she is. The "modes" are in my opinion often so absurd that they deduct from my immersion. Furthermore, I dislike the whole tactical idea of rpg combat. The game shouldn't be about my combat abilities, as I see it.. It should not be wargame. it's should be about my character's abilities, and even if I'm a poor tactician, I should be able to roleplay a great tactician. My two cent. P.S. The idea that you could push in an arrow that is "stuck" in an opponent is a brillant example of what I consider absurd and contrived. If you've ever done archery you know why.

Difficult poll. Some of the games I haven't played. (Jade Empire and Final Fantasy). Some of them It's a long time ago I played. (Ultima and PS:T) Baldur's Gate 2 and Dragon Age: Origins are the ones that spring to mind. Now, I believe most of the Fallout games are better than Dragon Age, and also Planescape: Torment. But Dragon Age had Morrigan, Zevran and Shale. BG2 had Viconia and Jaheira. That was what made Bioware so great, before EA took over. Their plots were not that original, and DA:O had far to many trash-fights. But the characters were outstanding. I only hope PE will have companions of the same quality.

I will defend the use of unkillable NPCs on Skyrim because of the dragon/vampire attacks, it would be annoying if you were cut from the game through no actions of your own. Honestly, that's just bad design. NPCs should have been unkillable by other NPCs; it sucked to see a town wiped out by a dragon because you was just in the general area. I disagree. That was/is one of the BEST features of Skyrim. It was great to see how wanton destruction would happen, just because your character was present. The same in New Vegas, where Legion assassins would attack my character, and random bystanders would be caught up in the crossfire. Collateral damage. It's one of the things that make a world believable.

If anyone needs examples about unfathomable cruelty and stunning brutality in the past, I'd recommand reading about the Thirty Years' War. Raging from 1618 to 1648, it was a series of wars principally fought in Central Europe, involving most of the countries of Europe. It was one of the longest and most destructive in European history, and one of the longest continuous wars in modern history. Entire regions were devastated, countries bankrupted and mercenary armies terrorized most of Northern Europe to the point where some German states were depopulated by as much as 75%. Burnings, random murder, torture, witch hunts, countless villages exterminated, cities razed to the ground. Children burned alive, babies impaled on lances for fun, women and men raped to death or killed in whatever unspeakable manner you can possibly imagine. The undisciplined and unpaid armies committed atrocities that compares with Holocaust, but without even the flimsy excuse of ethnic cleansing. The things that took place during this conflict makes Game of Thrones seem like a children's lullaby in comparison. So, there's nothing about genocide or wholesale extermination that would in the slightest prevent me from being immersed in the game. So, how far should the game go? Far enough for me to be disturbed, I hope. To feel that chill down my spine when "evil" acts take place. What that should be excactly, I'll leave to the game designers. But mankind is capable of anything, and I hope this game reflects that, for bad AND good.

A very simplified and much more playable version of Rolemaster. I was never able to understand fans of Rolemaster, I have to admit. That game was so ardeous and so incredibly complicated, demanding dice rolls for everything. All it lacked was a Nose Picking Disaster Table, and there'd be a table and a chart for every damn thing you could possible imagine.

Oh my. It was way back in 1988. MERP. Middle Earth Role Play. I made myself a Rohirrim ranger and wauw, I was in love with the concept from the very beginning. He's long dead, and I'll be damned if I remember his name but I've been an RPG fan ever since. My next character was a Dunlending rogue, with a wicked warhammer, an uncanny climbing ability and a barbed wit. His name I do remember: Moch Gunnach. I've forgotten what became of him, though. Good times! So I hope you'll get experiences as great, funny, horryfying, epic and hillarious as I've had. Enjoy!

Persistent worlds and a toolset akin to what NWN had, would be great. It is worth remembereing though, that NWN had what was possibly the most generic and utterly boring OC ever. HOTU was a fair expansion, but still not really good. So the amazing toolset, and the multiplayer part came with a hefty pricetag. Not one I am willing to pay in regard to PE.

I could not care less.

To keep it short: No no no!

Per wiki, Henry VIII died in 1547 while codpieces stayed in use until the 1590's. Yup, but I can't find any armor from Elizabethan era that has one? So were those armors that had one old ones from Henry VIII reign or did that fashion live outside of England? Codpieces were used on clothing as well, not just armour. I assume that is what the wikipedia article refers to. In general, the use of armour declines rapidly throughout the 16th century, due to the advances made in firearms. Already during Elizabeth's reign, a full suit of plate was becoming a rarity, most people opting for only a breastplate and a helmet, which consequently could be made heavier.

There are stretch goals I don't care a damn about, EG crafting. So obviously I'd not feel it was a great loss, perhaps even the opposite, if something I dislike was omitted. In the end of the day, it's about the final product. Some of the people involved in this project has created my most memorable CRPGs. So I cross my fingers and assume they know what they are doing.

Probably, but at the same time it more than once attack the Athenians for being gay, whereas the Spartans are depicted as the prime example on the All American core family. I don't profess to be an expert in Ancient Greece but I thought homosexuality was common and encouraged amongst the Spartans? Didn't the Sacred Band practice sodomy as rule Yes, homosexual relationships were encouraged in Sparta to make soldiers to bound with each other. Sacred Band was made of 150 pairs of male lovers. At least so say experts of Ancient Greece. Now I'm going to derail this otherwise entertaining discussion once more: The Sacred Band were not Spartans. They were Thebans. They were first recorded as an elite unit during the Boeotian War, where Thebes and Athens where allied against Sparta.

I must disagree. The story ends because it's romantic? Why is that? The story ~might~ end when you write: "And they lived happily ever after!" Even then, that isn't certain at all. One of the greatest love-stories ever written, IMO, is Gone with the Wind. Here the main character discovers that what she thinks she wants is not what she in fact wants. That doesn't mean the ending is tragic. It means that she finally realizes what she wants, and through that, who she is. Does she then get what she wants? Who can tell? That is any ones guess. Does that mean there's no romance in Gone with the Wind? I should think not! Just because the ending is unresolved, it doesn't mean that it is tragic, either. It's an arc, where the main character and her surrounding goes through changes and learn more about whom they are. DA:O spoilers: In DA:O, if you play a male Warden, Morrigan beds you with little effort on your behalf. That is just attraction, desire and sex. And, as the player discovers later, perhaps, it is part of a plan. But to her own surprise, she might fall in love with the Warden. But the story won't end "happily ever after" anyway. There's a romantic arc here, but again, there's no tragedy. There's a woman who has a goal which she for selfish or unselfish reasons puts above her newly discovered feelings. And a Player Character who eventually may or may not travel with her through the Looking Glass into the unknown. It's a great romance, because it ambiguous. Perhaps that is the keyword in how to write a great romance. But that aside: If in a RPG, the PC come across someone who could be considered attractive, or someone who may be attracted to the PC, then it feels shallow if the game does not recognize this. Of course, if the game recognizes this in a cheesy or juvenile manner, it may change from shallow to toe-cringingly embarassing. Therefore, FO:NV, in spite of otherwise great writing, often felt shallow in that regard. In my opinion.

Probably, but at the same time it more than once attack the Athenians for being gay, whereas the Spartans are depicted as the prime example on the All American core family.

Not that this has anything to do with women's armour anymore, but.... What was wrong with 300 was not it's historical flaws as such. The problem was that many of these flaws were political in nature, in the sense that they were anti-gay and anti-Iran, and imposing terms like freedom and tolerance on a nation (Sparta) that was anything but! The whole piece felt like a piece of poorly written propaganda.

Romance and sex should be integrated into the story, not a goal in itself. In my opinion most of Bioware's romances are contrived and grates at me, because everyone seems to be wanting my character, as if he or her is the center of the universe. On the other hand, I felt a game like New Vegas was severely lacking in not having any romantic options what so ever. NWN2 and DA:O spoilers below. NWN2 had Bishop. One of the best evil characters ever written. A vile bastard to boot and at the same time a "romantic" option for a female shard-bearer. His story arc was interesting, because he couldn't be "saved". He remained a vile bastard, and in MotB, he paid a price so very steep for his choices. Brilliant character, brilliant writing and an ~interesting~ arc of romance that had something to add to the story. Morrigan in Dragon Age: Origins and perhaps Jack in ME2 are just about the only romances Bioware has designed the past decade, that doesn't feel as if ripped out of an episode of Twilight or some other sappy teen-show. Morrigan is a great example on how to design a romance that not only fits in, but adds to the overall story. She has a plan and the plan involves her carrying the Warden's child. However, she might discover feelings along the way, she didn't suspect she would have, or even expect that she was capable of feeling. Unlike Bishop she might change, but even so, she also stick to her guns! Love is a powerful feeling and a great motivator. I believe that a story-writer is doing him or her self a disservice by not employing it. But it should be an integrated part of the story, adding something to the overall plot. Not a sideshow merely placed there to act as a dating sim.

Actually.... Conan is a very poor example. Read the original short-stories by Robert E. Howard. Unless forced by circumstance, Conan always wear armour. The same in the movie you link to. He wears armour most of the time, when he knows he has to fight. He only leaves it behind when he has to use stealth, or as in the clip where he is a slave pitfighter, and therefore have no say in the matter. Conan is perhaps born a barbarian, but his "class" is warrior/thief.

In my opinion, monks are a ridiculous class. Somebody running onto the field of battle without armour and weapons. "Hey, Dragon, get over here! I'll smack you on the nose and kick your knee!" That's just one of these things in fantasy RPGs where I find it hard to suspend my disbelief. I can't say whether this will make them more interesting or not. It does sound as if they will be annoying to fight against. But thanks for the update.

Since we have already seen some screenshots that indicates that someone has looked at the venerable Darklands, that is one thing that game did extremely well. While traveling on the map, all manners of things could happen, depending on -where- you traveled. A few I recall: Road encounters: - A group of monks asking the party to provide escort to a nearby town. - A priest and his retinue, demanding tithe from the party. - An alchemist and his retinue asking: -The party to hand over all alchemical ingridients carried. -Suggesting to buy or sell ingredients and/or formulas. - Signs that something very large is terrorizing the countryside. - And many, many more, some violent, others beneficial and some doing nothing at all. Wilderness encounters: - Wolves. - Angry bear. - Giant spiders. - A shack, containing: - An old midwife. - A witch. - Nothing at all. - A secret witch-coven. - A robbers hideout. - Etc, etc. Because of the sheer number of different encounters, many of them would play out as menus, presenting a number of choices, sometimes depending on skill. Eg: -Flee the wolves. (Possible if mounted) -Fight the wolves. -Sneak past the wolves. (Sneak-check) You could play that game for years, (As I did) and keep experiencing stuff you had not seen before. That part of Darklands was just all kinds of awesome, and it was steeped in atmosphere. I'd ~love~ it if PE handles encounters in a similar manner.

And having something like that in the game is something that'll ensure my girffriend will stop playing after half an hour, with a disgusted expression on her face. And why shouldn't she? I'd ~love~ to see your face, if all the male armours are pink, and cliché homo-erotic. Perhaps with an exaggerated cod-piece to make room for the protagonists huge male attachment? Sort of sausage-shaped and pointing forward, perhaps? Unfortunately, there's a large number of immature boys playing video-games. Immature boys who believe the only purpose of women in games are to cater to their juvenile fantasies. Get over yourself already.

You have a point there, at least when considering plate. Wearing chain isn't that different from fighting without armour, and leather makes no difference at all. If that level of... uhhh... "realism", is what is needed, then perhaps there should be armoured and un-armoured fighting. I'm not certain that is a good idea, though. If "realism" is what is aimed for, then one-handed swords are useless against plate armour. Longswords or 1½-handers aren't much better. Only pole-axes, halberds and over-sized 2-handers are really efficient. But that would limit the weapons available. In fantasy RPGs, I like there to be a large varity of weapons available.

I don't think armour takes skill to wear. There's a certain art to putting it on correctly, to have the weight on your hips, rather than on the shoulders, but aside from that it is not difficult as such. It's heavy, though, and hot. It is also clumsy and, often neglected in RPGs, it impairs vision and manoeuverability. I would say that stamina should be the most important factor, possibly also strength, but it is not needed to be super-human to wear even plate. Regarding shields, the point is to deflect and pummel, not to have the opponents weapons to get stuck in them. The Roman pilum (throwing spear) is a good example, especially designed to penetrate a shield and then bend. With a five-foot spear stuck in it, the shield is rendered useless.

Copenhagen, Denmark, Scandinavia, Northern Europe.

So let me get this straight: you want arms and armor to look believable (by not breaking the laws of physics, I assume), but all the other crap in video games that is completely unbelievable you're a-okay with? Who cares about all the **** they get wrong with chemistry, biology, physics, economics, and a half dozen other fields of study; it's boob plates where you draw the line in the sand. Really? As for why I'm posting here: it's so the devs don't think that all the backers are renaissance fair nerds. You are quite a piece of work. If there was a possibility that a price could be won for trolling, you'd be ahead by a mile or more. Well done, sir. Since you now have ~proven~ that you have nothing constructive to add, I have an offer for you: You refrain from commenting on my posts, and since you consider them nonsense, that shouldn't put to much of a strain on you. I shall then return the favour.

Probably the fact that realistic combat (like realistic armor) looks boring as ****. At the end of the day this is a fantasy video game and not a symposium on warfare during the middle ages; just go with whatever the artist thinks look cool and who cares if it doesn't agree with the laws of physics/realism/whatever (90% of the rest of the game sure as **** doesn't). If you don't care, and will go with whatever the artists come up with, why are you here? I don't personally want "realism". It's a silly term to apply to a fantasy RPG. But, neither do I enjoy hugely exaggerated arms and armour. The weapons in a game like Dragon Age: Origins and even worse, Dragon Age 2, really puts me off. I like arms and armour to look "believable". And in my opinion medieval arms and armour looks cool. So get over yourself already. if you have nothing constructive to add, you are just wasting space!