Ninjerk

Thou shalt hold no other context before D&D 3e+ whenst discussing CRPG combat.

Prosper sprang forth from the drops of Cleve's perspiration. He is the life-giver.

Who drew the spider guy?

I love seeing some good concept art. Thanks for they update, Bobby! Could the JAF people go offtopic, though, please?

Idc much about takedowns. I like them in Dark Souls from a tactical standpoint when outnumbered, but I tire of them in games like DX:HR and FO3.

To touch on a point from a page or two back, I suspect the audience that mainstream RPG makers cater to demands a fairly simplistic view on fictional romances (to go along with binary morality/ethics system and "save the world" plot). I'm hopeful there will be some aspect of the struggle between individualism vs. collectivism. I've heard more than one man from my parents' generation (my father included) talk about the disparity between being able to relate with an individual of another race (primarily as it related to WASP v. African-descended blacks) when it was just the two of them vs. the race riots that happened in their high schools where you essentially HAD to band together with the people who looked like you. I don't remember if this is present in classic "colonial fiction" (e.g. "Heart of Darkness," "Things Fall Apart(?)" whatever the name of the Chinua Achebe book. In regards to the general idea expressed earlier in the thread of, "Am I getting the content I kickstarted for?" I would be rather thrilled to be surprised by the end result of a game. For the last couple of years, I have had problems playing a game longer than a couple of hours because as soon as they lay out their core game mechanics I feel like I can see the entire game to the end and get bored immediately. I'm more excited about T:ToN in this regard (even though, ironically, I haven't donated anything to it because I'm broke).

Wait.. What?? What did I miss!? Guide me, oh enlightened backer!! A girl somehow connected to video games happened.

You think that's a good idea considering who's currently doing the job? Maybe we'll get a fanservice menage trois with the new BG.

ERMAHGERD JERSTERN SWERT

Well, I've conceded that the game will require fighting. I'm not altogether averse to tactical fighting (I quite enjoyed what little I've played of both of the Baldur's Gate games, I intend to reinstall them from GOG soon), so I don't mean to complain. Railroading players into fighting, however, has more to do with, I don't know, the "scope" of the writing. I won't even provide a counterpoint to your example but only ask, "Why are the orcs attacking the town?" I'm less interested, in this case (being that it's a completely hypothetical scenario in a hypothetical game), in the actual answer than the actual motive. What if a select group of townspeople are kidnapping orcen(?) children are summoning demons to inhabit the children's bodies? What if the townspeople are stealing food and conducting clandestine raids on the orcs because of racial prejudice? What if there aren't enough resources to support both populations etc etc etc. I think one of the reasons many (if not all) of us enjoyed Planescape: Torment is because it took genre conventions (or even those of the medium, in this case violence as "the answer") and turned them on their head. I really, seriously, whole-heartededly don't mind that there will not be a pacifist completion option in the game for my sake; I never have completed a pacifist run in any game, and I can't remember if I've ever even tried! What I really take umbrage with is the notion that a conflict can necessarily have less gravity because the resolution isn't to be violent. But most of the time, you shouldn't just be presented with a clear cut mission where you have exactly one option to choose. I want to clarify that I do have more faith in the writing that will be presented by Project Eternity. I'm just making an argument about the nature of conflict resolution. I like having options.

I voted for BG portraits, but I'm also a big fan of animated portraits like the ones in Jagged Alliance 2 (I think another game I've played recently has them, too). Blinking, mouth moving during dialogue, etc.

I just don't see any consequences shy of "You can't actually finish the game," or "the main story is crap." 1) You just skip around all the threats that can only be removed/affected via force, thereby not really having much of a story. It's like saying "Well, you can 'beat' the game." Like failing to get the water chip in time in Fallout 1. You COULD say that was the "anti-water chip run." But, really, you just lost the game. You played it for a time, and now it's over because you failed at something that's the whole point of the game's story. That's a pretty good example of what I was after actually. There's several ways to get the chip, the "best" and canon way to do it is to fight yourself to the stuff needed to fix the water pump, so you can take the chip without causing undue distress to the community. But the "pacifist" way is to talk your way past the supermutants and just steal the chip. Hooray, mission accomplished. The downside is you just doomed the community you took the chip from and helped to spread supermutant influence that much further. Might stretch someones definition of pacifist. But many things do. Couldn't you conceivably get through MMB before the Necropolis changes?

I just don't see any consequences shy of "You can't actually finish the game," or "the main story is crap." There are certain people in the world who simply cannot be affected by anything other than violence. And that's WITHOUT magical relics and soul powers and whatnot. So, an actual pacifist run will always run you into 2 walls: 1) You just skip around all the threats that can only be removed/affected via force, thereby not really having much of a story. It's like saying "Well, you can 'beat' the game." Like failing to get the water chip in time in Fallout 1. You COULD say that was the "anti-water chip run." But, really, you just lost the game. You played it for a time, and now it's over because you failed at something that's the whole point of the game's story. 2) You just never have anything in the world/story that ever is bad enough to REQUIRE force to overcome, again leaving you with a pretty diluted story. http://www.the-spoiler.com/RPG/Interplay/fallout.9.html Read the Pacifist section, it's brief. You can, optionally, get the water chip and complete the game, but it appears that you may have to shoot someone in Junktown once (but don't kill him). The run does, however, require you to cheat people, steal things, and casually "screw Keri." Why you need to do that, I don't remember/know. So, both major conflicts in the gameworld can be solved at least without killing, if not total pacifism. That said, P:E will absolutely not have a way through the game without combat so it's a moot point in this case.

Well you're just a regular Medici, aren't you? We should get you a Patron of the Arts forum title!

I'm of the opinion it's better when they don't design for it, but when it emerges.

To do the Fallout pacifist run essentially required foreknowledge of the location of The Glow (and the radiation resistance items in the Hub, I think it was) as well as the location of TBS base and a high speech skill, iirc. I never did the run so I don't even know how you stay alive long enough to get to TM. Lot's of sneaking, I guess? A strict policy of nonviolence was critical in both the decolonization of India and the Civil Rights movement in the United States. It isn't the whole story, but it is a great deal of it. There were, ironically, violent consequences (Ghandi and King were both assassinated). Also, I believe desegregation was a result of political bargaining by LBJ. I believe Deus Ex had a pacifist run possible, but you had to use grenades to glitch a door or doors that were supposed to remain locked during an encounter. Consider that there might be unintended consequences of pacifist play: a villain is not killed/debilitated and slays an important NPC or group of NPCs, a corrupt politician or administrator isn't assassinated and takes control of a governing body or region. I don't think pacifist options are a lesser option, but they require imagination. If anyone is particularly interested in pacifist play, I believe there was a guild and possibly a website dedicated to pacifist playthroughs of World of Warcraft (1-80 at least). I believe it also precluded other players killing things for you.