saintfrancisnudecenterfold

Except for well implemented games with a wide selection of weapons, abilities, and spells. Usually speaking within AD&D, a single nonspellcaster character *does* develop a single method of fighting, but other roleplaying games permit that characters have fighting tactics. Generally speaking, roleplaying games that permit alot of spells, a wide plethora of fighting tactics that vary as per weapon and have pertinent effect on battle. Despite advice to the contrary, Troika did not develop a long list of spells for Arcanum nor a long list of inventions of all levels. It was pretty much videogame fare, the inventions, mostly having to do with combat, recovery, with the scant exceptions being inventions that had positive effect on social interactions. And what if enemy *tactic* or fighting method (not fighting style) differs momentarily and the enemy outguesses the player (or vice versa). Really, Arcanum used a very limited system when the game setting suggests that more variety should've been used. Very true, but this happens so very rarely and often seemed as if enemies had to be "special" to have attack patterns that made any difference whatsoever.

Ok. Here's a game (edit: which will help give Obsidian Entertainment an idea of what new characters might be popular). 1. Each person replying to this post mentions a character appearing in a Fallout game or in a Bioware, Black Isle, Troika, or Obsidian Entertainment game. 2. Then give this character a single adjective and a modern profession (in three words or less not including adjective) that they'd probably end up working at were they contemporary and real rather than fictional. 3. Now describe an (adjective) (profession) that you'd enjoy seeing in PNJ that can either resemble the original character or not. Five sentences or less. 4. Give a typical motto or saying that is associated with this character. I'll begin. 1. Xan. 2. Pessimist High School Teacher. 3. This is a pessimist high school teacher who drives a transport vehicle around a metropolitan area as a hobby, broadcasting dramatic tales of horror over ham radio. Although he has no feasible combat-related skills, he is quite perceptive and people feel easy around him even with his tendency to draw all conversation into horrific descriptions (some of which are descriptions of rare but fatal situations that a character can end up in). 4. "Of course, I might be devoured by banana slugs while the ghosts of my parents laugh at my weakness."

Writing wasn't always crappy. More to the point that characterization was not plumbed but referred to in shallow ways; I know they were thinking, "Wait, guys who fight monsters together don't sit around whispering like schoolgirls about their private lives..." but in battlefield situations, people do talk, do ask for advice, do try to solve eachothers home problems (when it's not too personal). Also, plots never went deep into issues described and with Troika never seem to. For instance, with Arcanum Troika was trying to exposit their world briefly but I think they were aware they'd never get a second shot at it, not really. Make the public want more? Man, churn out those FMV of bikini clad women and muscular men in tight tunics, that is what gets people to notice every single detail written. You see, Troika never found out something very essential. First you bring out a topless vestal virgin to do a bump and grind, then have the muscle men do their dervish dances with turn of the century excuses for a burlesque -- you do that every once in awhile. Between these points, have excellent gameplay including ethical situations and combat, romance and pastoral moments, horror and intrigue, blah blah blah. It's not just killing that draws people to a game, it's burlesque that a person doesn't have to squint to see, it's intellectual content, it's drama, romance, action, exploration, comedy, companionship, tragedy, "every damn trick pulled in literary works since before Gilgamesh and every struggle to keep it together since Finnegans Wake." The damn thing is, Troika wouldn't have done this. You got one guy scribbling out deep, fascinating campaign world stuff and comedic dialogue and plot, one guy thinking "ok, let's shower a bunch of monsters wherever I'm allowed to", and one guy doting over adolescent trifles such as devil gods and brothels with sheep. Three or four guy away team parties do not make a good creative design team. Everyone in the concept, writing, and area design has gotta have it -- or they're dead weight. Same could be said of technical design teams: if a guy is claiming that simple value interactions are "too complex", that guy is begging for more hourly wages and overtime for napping. Look, it's really all very simple: everyone who gets an hourly wage has to work for a living. Guys who don't work for a living are on Social Security, which doesn't let a guy buy a supercomputer or pay auto insurance unless they cheat, and if they cheat on Social Security, they go to prison or get fined money they don't have. Yeah, it would be really nice to have a cush job, but everyone has some work, even if the work is trying to ignore expensive entertainment or send their kids to a nice education.

In one comicbook, Sister Psyche kicked a few children who were supposedly thinking of her in a way that offended her. In Final Fantasy VII, notice the way everyone dances around after combat? Why do they look so joyful about having willfully slaughtered something? On the alt.games.final-fantasy usenet group, a long time ago, I wrote a bit about how this seemed a tad bit weird.

Personally, I'm just wondering when companies will wise up to the grand scapes of campaign worlds that have already been fashioned, such as Glorantha, Oerth, Tekumel, Harn, and other wonderful creations. Hey, even City-State of the Mad Overlord would make a nice setting.

Who can refuse to reply to Enoch, Uḥnukh, who later was Eroch, who later was Eraq? Ahem. Sorry about the Hussar, friend. I remember having great hopes for Arcanum, but the problem was that the mid-level path was difficult to find. Dangers were plentiful without chance to actually find safety. The rings of the citadel were poorly formed in that game, it was almost as if someone had frozen a freeform game in action, a game that freely develops with NPC interacting and choosing goals from what appears available, and the present situation was dire for the law of cities and quite excellent for the forces of opposition. The characters were designed to have depth but did not have any in execution, and the story appeared broken. As if an idiot were given characters with depth, a story plot, histories, texts, and quite a bit of information, but because they were typing verbotim from the equivalent of a GURPS supplement and novelization, they did not have much else besides loose bits of dialogue, an indepth map, scattered characters, and quests. All very vulgar in execution because apparently none of it actually was meshed and knitted together in the way it should have been, with other options besides walking off the path or following a loose strand. What could they have done? Planned the darn thing. Now, as to VTMB, that game really showed the limitation of their method. No indepth preplanning. I remember Troika talking about their plans for their characters: pretty damn loose and without form, not in the taoist sense, but in the sense of sleeping through half of D Day. If I had only a short time with a graphical engine and it's not there, it's not there, it's coming but not there, I'd spend ALL MY DAMN TIME doing dialogue, plot, characters, and planning gameplay features that depend on dialogue, plot, and characters. Graphics can usually not mess with dialogue, and the sort of gameplay that focuses on what is possible to direct and change in the game is good. If it can be graphically represented, all the better. If not, compell the player's imagination. What could they have done? Planned the darn thing. What was Troika good at? Troika? The people involved are probably as good as anyone, any janitor or car salesman or pizza deliverer or astronaut or president. However, Troika as a company did not inspire confidence in me or many people. I know a few people who mock the RPG community and call it "smoking pot", and call themselves Christians. If Christians or anyone want a roleplaying game based in their culture, community, or faith, the best way of doing it is to learn the games, play them with their paradigmal redesign, and fashion a game with a friendly motif. An education helps in this, as does great familiarity with many aspects of roleplaying games and roleplaying game design (and war games and war game design). And for Pete's sake, plan the darn thing before jumping into it!

What Troika brings to mind (and what they probably were not doing) is the old tactic of smithing a half of a horseshoe perfectly and nailing it on the path to the village, an old form of advertisement. Well, ok, so it was a form of warning, but it still could serve as an advertisement. Now, we have several games by Troika, all of which seem half-perfect, or with partial goodness and quality, but all these games are also flawed in a certain respect. Each would make excellent licenses to buy because of the setting or the way of handling UI, or other reasons. Yet Troika no longer stands. Where is Troika? Who forged this half of a horseshoe? How might we obtain such a horseshoe but whole? If a person does not have sufficient funds to sustain their own company (or who are not being well fed by their lord), they might form a game that is attractive yet somehow unfinished, to call notice to all who like that fashion of work, all who might have need of them. Eventually someone will notice and eventually someone will hire them. Also, to the one who owns the rest of the horseshoes (the licenses), they can stand to make a sum from licensing. So here is a way of handling ones pathway through business: half-formed horsehoes that are perfect. The beautifully concieved worlds that everyone wishes had endless sequels. We follow the path, hoping the horseshoe wasn't truly indication of brigands. (Another warning was a knife thrust pointfirst into the ground, handle snapped off, but this could also be seen as an advertisement. Honest.)

Perhaps we should start talking about myths again? I've noticed a very unpleasant myth starting to perpetuate, the myth of the happily violent hero who isn't portrayed as anything but a hero. I notice especially in computer games and a few comic books (oddly enough those based on computer games) contain heroes and heroines who relish hurting people (even innocent people), they apparently love it. For example, the City of Heroes comics, where "heroes" often enjoy kicking children or cavort in the pain they cause mere underlings of a villain. Final Fantasy VII, where the characters rub the gore of the dead over their faces and bed in their foes intestines. Very ugly stuff. And there isn't a bit of notice that this is ugly nor abnormal in a protagonist portrayed in the story as upholding principles, a good person, a person who is purportedly a standard of chivalry and virtue. Oh, and to answer... The only real difference I've seen is in graphics. I've not seen the first edition DM's Guide random tables used to create an ANSI game, although they could feasibly be used this way, and also so could the entirity of first edition rules. If a random wilderness, city, and dungeon generator were developed on the basis of these random tables along with behavioral guidelines for creatures and NPC, this would make a far more interesting game than the run of the mill CRPG, with story or without. Then again, rules for keep ownership and such might be beyond the scope of a designer who thought to simply put together a D&D ANSI without much thought or effort, this being so very similar to the mental state of the average CRPG designer (not the blessed companies that actually do seem to think about story structure and such). Of course I normally concieved of the idea of this sort of game as mixed with a story-based CRPG as something that allows players to continue the game after they win, sort of a neverending story kinda allowance. A truly interesting freeform CRPG as put together by someone with the brains of say, a Bioware, Obsidian, ex-Infocom, or ex-Troika employee would probably have quite a few kitchen sink features and probably be a good seller. I wonder what they'd do, if they put together onesuch. The vast majority of linear and storybased CRPG are not very well designed and I'd hazard that I'd prefer to play nethack and omega to many of these. Nethack, Omega, The Prisoner (an old Apple II game), the early Ultima series (y'know Garriott was just an enthusiast before he linked up with EA), the first Civilization, and quite a few others. You are aware that the first Final Fantasy and subsequesent Final Fantasies up to IX used rather archaic graphics in typical gameplay? VIII and IX reminded me of Sierra game graphics, whereas VII seemed a bit like it was generated with a lego storytelling design game. The FMV were good, but without these, the games were nowhere near the equivalent of industry standard in graphics. Yet these games remain popular, as do the older games. I admit a fondness for Final Fantasy Tactics, at least the storyline, but would also enjoy the game should it become without any story whatsoever and adopt a concentration on strategic gameplay such as appears in the Total War series. It's not graphics that sells a game, really. From what I can tell, it's a combination of quality freeform gameplay and quality story that sells a game.

If there is not sufficient reason to believe ourselves and our family are going to be safe and happy, with a promising future for the young, it is only obvious that the computer games we are designing are worthless. Ok. I understand that one. It's not just meat and potatoes, it's diplomas. Interestingly enough, Atlus and Square-Enix are still in business despite having been leagues behind US computer games in terms of graphics. Polish and quality are usually in the lack of bugs, the quality of gameplay, and the entertainment value, not in graphics and music, although graphics and music can be excellent if good artists are found, even not those who are well known within "commercial art" cliques. Hey. Hey. Is that a -- internet. An internet?! Wait, I can download a game from a designer I trust and admire? For... money? Say, is Square still selling those subpar 2D graphics games? Quick, call the mallrat mob, subpar 2D graphics games FROM JAPAN! Yeesh. It's planning, man, it's all in the ideas. Once you've got a text-parser, go with it. Also, you know what? I'd play a text based MMORPG presuming quality gameplay values and writing of excellence. As to mods? I never met a mod I liked since before 1999. The Bhaalspawn thing wasn't the best mod, you know, but it was a mod. Wrong paradigm entirely. Yeah, Bioware and Black Isle and Obsidian have done the whole cinematic storyteller bit. Problem is, instead of allowing their story to be partitioned by open strategic gameplay, they have videogame stuff, monster after monster, in sequenced quests, without the feel of D&D exploration. RPGs were founded from tactical miniature battle rules. What we should be looking at is how computer strategy games incorporate roleplaying traditions (such as experience, attributes, traits and such) then instead of modding, consider what is pleasurable about a strategic game and approach the creation of an open-ended roleplaying game with story elements. Ok. Back to Baldur's Gate. Now, along with having characters spout dialogue based on quests that kindasorta fit into a story, allow that these characters will report what goes on around them in ways that also kindasorta fit into the story, and maybe allow them to take independent actions that make sense based on personality traits, situation, and character sheet stuff. If you want a slower intro to this kinda game, try including a new NPC type besides merchant, quest-giver, atmospheric, partymember, and enemy: the independent hero. I guess you could see CRPG as advancing to the next stage after reflecting on what lessons MMOCRPG have granted: how to deal with multiple independent heroes without making the individual player feel as if they're losing potential victories and playing a shrinking game. Just keep the independent hero away from story-specific quests and in situations where there is a massive dungeon. Funny, it might also work to set up a game without much of a story but provide NPC with independent activity as a hero. Do you know how many years I've been trying to explain this idea? Since before Baldur's Gate, even into the eighties. Ech. Some professional games are designed by enthusiasts, which is why these games are good: because the designer loves their job. You are defining enthusiast as "untalented unenthusiastic amateur" which pretty much summarises the breadth of unenthusiastic and unskilled module design, often designed without love, without enthusiasm, without unique substance.

Pensig. It really should be televised internationally.

Actually, I usually eat a baked til browned ready-to-cook pizza, watch some webcam, play a bit of TW, then get some sleep.

Very easily, if you're talking about a CRPG based in the porn industry, set to some very magic realist and fabular themes, and it needn't have much to do with banality and crudity. If you are considering a CRPG based on the MMORPG industry, that could work as well. When I first heard of D20 Modern, I thought, "Wow! I can't wait to see what they'll do with technology here. Mass production of magical items, telecommunications technology amplifying magical range, fighters who specialise in aeronautic battle, special forces developed specifically to maintain and defend national interest in outer plane regions..." And I was summarily dissapointed. D20 Modern should have relied on the D&D books and offered new technology applications and changes to professions based on the modern age. A Grayhawk Modern should've been implemented along with it since Greyhawk is the official campaign setting. Of course, Wizards of the Coast had used up all their invention points, to borrow a Villains and Vigilantes term, or they were taking a break. In any case, CRPG based in a magical and thought-provoking porn industry, in a fantasized MMO design and publication industry, are all so very possible. Playfulness and invention are important in any undertaking. Social commentary of the sort that encourages people to take creative strides for the betterment of the entertainment industry (and the world) is also important. That games be fun is often a good thing. However, this does not mean that any sort of game will change the world, simply that games can be encouraging. That game designers have fun in the making of these games can be important too.

Well, how many CRPG do you see about MMORPG design? Glorified and filled with superhero themed activities, CRPG about designing and running an MMORPG might be really, really popular. Porn would also work well, although I can see this working better within FPS/CRPG alloys. For anyone who has seen the glorious short film "The Crimson Permenant Assurance", you can imagine how brilliant the battles between MMORPG design/development teams might be. MMORPG desdev teams are often stupid, brutal, and dangerous; the same could be said of many porn stars, especially amateur porn stars, especially amateur porn stars that lead dual lives as secret, shameful MMORPG desdev employee (admittedly they look cute flying around in the black trenchcoats with bloody swords in their hands). You'd be surprised what goes on behind the scenes as "aggressive corporate activity" in MMO companies. I'm not going to name any names, besides the fact that I'm going out with a girl who looks remarkably like the daughter of a certain MMO design celebrity nicknamed Provincial Man or somesuch who I managed to best in konjutso, nor the dirt I have on a certain self-styled reagent of North France, besides the well known fact that he's a notorious scoundrel who runs a few underground camguy websites and has singlehandedly slain five hundred cybernetically enhanced manatees. There is terror and chaos in the world, but it's fun when it's in a CRPG. So why not put the wicked, wicked world of MMO desdev into CRPG format? Think of the money, man, the money.

This being said, notice what stupid games sell largely because the target audience has little better choice within that category: this would show a bored and sad target audience. Notice popular themes that are usually poorly wrought. See what is accounted as the two best expressions of this theme and game type. Hit the market with something better. Of course, actual consumer interest in a type of game and corporate self-purchasing might be two different issues entirely. What's to stop a rich coproration from buying a substantial portion of its own game just to give the market analysts a bad idea of what's being bought and sold, hence skewing the viewpoint and strategies of smaller independent companies. It's probably best to approach the game through what you objectively notice is interesting and probably entertaining and what others in your group of friends honestly enjoy. Ever play Top Secret, the spy roleplaying game, or the more recent Spycraft? This could suggest a multilayer (not multiplayer) spy game, perhaps one of the most involved and interesting type of CRPG, and the closest game to this is Republic: the Revolution. Now imagine what would happen if a game like Republic: the Revolution were a spy game instead of a rabblerouser game, had an FPS element, chase tactics, and allowed player-defined objectives and player-defined missions (that is, as a spy administrator, the player would note what information was available, send spies on missions, then play these spies if they prefer. Now, add in actual personalities for the spies and for important NPC, add in large game events that accrue into a story, and you have a CSRPG thematic to spycraft. The same can work for a computer game about stuffed animals too, or about superheroes, or about sports teams, or entertainment (the porn industry and MMORPG design industry included), or really any theme and game subject matter.

"Be soft warm boobies to others and they'll be soft warm boobies to you." - an old truism, not always true though I agree. Michael Moor**** and Poul Anderson must be included together, as Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions is *probably* more influential on the Law-Chaos alignment issue. Poul Anderson's equation was simpler: humans were of Law, of Scientific Order, while faefolk and magic was of Chaos. Mr. Sawyer, I'm afraid that you really, really are showing evidence of having never read the longer alignment descriptions in the first edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide. Put down that second edition book now. Pick up the first edition DM's Guide, find the subject of alignment in the index or contents, turn to the pages til you find the long descriptions of alignment that contain many anglic uses of Greek and Latin words, and READ THE DAMN THING. In any case, to delve deeper than that: in D&D, Law is often the outlook that organization and unity of purpose often result in a strong and orthodox result that cannot be shifted from preferred situation quite so easily as Chaotic resolutions. Law seems firmer to the Lawful, more absolute and everpresent, as the primary effort of the Lawful is to make Law everpresent. That viance occurs among Lawful beings is only indication of the need for space and distance, an agreed upon convention that occurs whenever other conventions cannot be utilised. More often than not, Lawful beings do arrange tranquil contracts and assist eachother in systemization of the grand order, an order that might be considered to transcend individual interest and anything but perfect omniscience. However, medians, intermediaries, and partitions must exist as boundaries and these give every opportunity as well as extensive motivation for mutual respect to occur. Chaos in D&D is usually the decision to remain somewhat free of structure in the realization that whim and randomization, liberty and individual outlook offer much more exemption from unwanted situations than a declaration, unshifting hierarchy, and identification with universal order. Hence, a more fluid approach would be a self-determination and a freedom that follow suit with ones own nature, and finding niches in a wilderness of choice as such options are understood to exist without cessation (but not always locally apparent and individually percieved). You could stand to read through the long alignment descriptions in the DM's Guide first edition, Sawyer. Please. Read it. It's not Dianetics, don't worry. It's not math class for barbie dolls. It might save you the hassle of fallibility in matters of D&D alignment. One must also understand that in Greyhawk that even good characters were self-interested and focused on their own outlook and wants. However, I understand that each fantasist, each writer, each person has their own expression of these constants and themes. Sawyer, please read the first edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide where the alignment rules are covered, the long alignment rules. Do not stray, do not be distracted, do not interpet this in any other way than how it is meant. It is very important for your understanding of D&D alignment that you do this. My typical outlook on Good in D&D is that it extends from love. Provided that in the game of D&D wonder and miracles are substantial portions of the fiction, the names of all the dead can be discovered and the dead may be brought to life (even the evil spirits) and sheltered, nursed to kindliness, and kept safe. The urge to keep people safe, happy, living, intelligent, and healthy is indeed the basis of Good. Good beings in D&D (considering its functional and formative relation to wargaming) are often embroiled in battle, but interior to game reasoning is that without the defense of militarily powerful good beings, no end of suffering might be caused by evil beings. Eternal good beings of vast intelligence love for eternal reasons, due to situation of position, substance, experience, as well as in function. My typical outlook on Evil in D&D is that it extends from hate. The viewpoint that hate is more important than love can extend from a situation where safety is seen as never complete, never entire, and always vulnerable, with the extent of the situation being eternal, unsalvable situation in torment. To some degree, destruction might be chosen to call attention to a problem, or to necessitate negation of eternal suffering, but these gestures are often thwarted. One common solution is to serve that which hates, so as to reduce vulnerability or at the very least reduce ones unavoidable punishment. Evil beings needn't cause immediate harm, nor in many cases do evil beings wish harm at all, but they see it as inevitable and often the sooner acted on, the better to defend ones own needs. Of course, eternal evil beings of vast intelligence hate for eternal reasons, due to situation of position, substance, experience, as well as in function. Neutrality must be understood as neither insensate apathy nor cowardly selfishness per se, but these are possible among some neutrals or any neutral given appropriate circumstance; rather, entirely sensitive and inclusive feelings of inherant sentitiousness and inviolable essence in division from answering to inquiry and demand alike. It is not that Law is seen as a demand nor that Chaos is seen as potentially schismatic to identity, but rather that Law is seen as potentially schismatic from personality and Chaos is seen as demanding a structure where specific and observable need cannot be filled with an absolute variance. It is not that Good is seen as impotently reactive and inherantly masturbatory, nor is it that Evil is seen as implausible a defense due to violative antagonism that begs antagonism in reply, but rather that Good is overbearing and meddlesome and Evil is seen as extrenuating the imprisonment of pleasure against any expressed and real want and begging alliance for the distressed sadomasochistic relationships it forces. Of course, the reversal of these are true too, in the negating form. You're thinking about the D&D computer games, such as the versions of Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale I think you were involved with. D&D allows for villains to be likable, and individual creation within the vast situations presented by D&D allows for villains to be just about anything as long as they're in the antagonist or opposing situation to protagonal and virtue-seeking players. One situation I remember appearing in film and television of the seventies were villains that were more than likable -- they were in dire need of rescue from their cyclic situations that have no element of self-imposition at all. Another approach would be villains who are unavoidably set on a path which crosses those of heroes, only villains due to a conflict of interest. Of course, this is resulting from the issue of the designers working from a certain thematic unity, the theme of reflexive equation between selfhood and undeniable right of action. While reward for simple virtue and punishment of realistically probable wrongdoing did exist here and there, the primary attraction of many to the game was a permitted variety of behavior with recognisable (if not always believable) outcomes. I doubt that this is the message of Fallout. Rather, both Fallout computer games seemed very much computer games with standards that were recognisable, at times entertaining, and themes that fit into fandom influenced science fiction based on existing motifs and media before the last decade of the twentieth century (prior to 1990). Odd that no motifs and media post-1989 were part of that game. Wasn't there a set of computer games about post-apocalyptic situations that were designed almost to completion then cancelled due to final disinterest of any computer game publisher? Redundant. Where's the big soft boobies of ladies? I've been told time and time again, over and over again, the importance of semi-immersive emotional art to distract people from certain situations they could endanger and be endangered by without effectively assisting themselves or others. Then again, it's sometimes (sometimes not) best to approach this issue without what seems to be brain damage and what seem to function as pain killers. Where do I find these things? Where are the big soft boobies of ladies? Ten years ago? In 1996, a game might have cost about a thousand dollars for initial computer purchase and at that time there were still a few game designers who worked second jobs to support their game design. Ever take a look at Dungeon Keeper 2? Definitely around a thousand five hundred dollars of specific business expense to make that game, although advertising might have run a couple hundred in computer gaming magazines back then. In 2006, the games I see still don't seem as if they'd cost more than three thousand dollars of business-specific costs to make. Further, the gameplay quality and even graphics don't bespeak incredible cost. I've been told about this before (you know, I was raised by computer programmers) and stupid games usually are made by some dork wanting an easy buck. Usually, the most innovative and interesting games are made by a hardworking enthusiast who wants to share ideas. Usually the most charming games are made as an experiment while educating oneself in computer programming. Professional computer game entertainment designers are a new profession, comparitively. Tell it to Barnum and Hubbard. The prices of books, sports tickets, movie tickets, and just about all entertainment, food, and clothing are rising too. I've been told that it's all a health concern. Computer games don't cost that much to make but do take time and effort. The fifty dollar fee is probably approximate to the shipping cost. After all, we orbit the lunar cities in a massive space city. Without the fifty dollar cost, however, we might be seeing games leak out more slowly, as in, a relaxed but focused mutual effort by dozens of dual-job people to produce a game every year. The same issue appears to be approached by role-playing games, past and present. You know what sells the best? Well, whatever is new and interesting, involving and available. Most roleplaying game supplements sell on the basis of new game expansions containing interesting new information, new design possibilities within the context of the new information, stuff that can be added to the existing campaign. Computer role-playing games have yet to incorporate the sale of a body of supplemental gaming material. With Neverwinter Nights 2, you might try releasing typical expansions (depending on quality and quantity of employee staff and money): typical NWN expansions of tiles, creatures, classes, items, and also you might try releasing thematic expansions, such as modern age, science fiction, old west, etc. Real Chaosium-like, dig? I am very apprehensive to be writing these things, things that have been written before. I want to keep my soul.

If there are heroes that are emblematic of the mature modern, it is Leopold Bloom of the novel Ulysses by James Joyce and Molly Bloom of the same novel. Of course, they are Irish, but they are international without reservation. As to computer games, I notice that the games that lack immersion are often too foolish to capitalise on the discussion of ideas or even lack entertainment value at all, whereas the games that are more immersive for reason of intelligent application of art often do not communicate anything besides values that are worthless to hold, ideas that are shallow at best, and characters that are insipid or loathsome. The exception to this dullness is rare and in these, value is sporadic. What has been said before in a game review long ago is, "It is as if the game designers ask us, would you wish to participate in a life full of loathsome folk who are either pointedly stupid or pressured into sporadic brutality, live in a framework of social interactions largely devoid of thoughtful and playful intricacies, or would you prefer to play a computer game about the same problems?" The answer to this is, "Art is nurture." (who remembers where that quote is from and who coined it?) I am sad to say that every computer game I've played seems to describe the desire to become a hermit and suggest to players that there is no hope to find friendly intelligent people, no hope to create a beautiful community of friends, no hope to temporarily escape the fact that waiting amid turmoil must exist for a time. The terrible thing about this is, it transcends the events in the story to the very gameplay and structure, as if screaming inside the game designer's head is "Domestic Dystopia is the vision of the Celestial Rose!" Omnipresent dystopia is not verity nor sooth, is not true, is not a reality (although it could seem this way if a guy's being immobilised, beaten and pissed on). To consider the human reality as evil is a very odd paradigm because friendships are possible, beautiful communities do not always shatter, and life does not ask you to live a specific story. Yes, the world will devour us, but no, this does not mean that everyone is wanting to tear your flesh with their teeth. If you're a designer of intentionally crappy games, some people might be looking for just this, but let's not stray down that path right now. While there are worse things in life than crappy computer games, such as the (political comment deleted at forum user's discretion), stereotypic television corporations, and actual harm. Some modern gnostic faiths believe the vast substance of the universe is stupid, not evil, and the more intricate, specifically living substances are the intelligence of the universe, which is occasionally very stupid too yet is also occasionally very brilliant (and sometimes, perhaps rarely, nice). Computer games can be pretty good. I liked the John Irving stuff in Baldur's Gate. I liked the Space Opera elements in Final Fantasy VII that were so well mixed with Borges -- event was fairly well placed. I liked that Final Fantasy Tactics reminded me of Alexandre Dumas. I adored the gameplay in the Total War series, which is everso much like one of the finest of strategic war games (wasn't the wargame developed by H.G. Wells?). All of these remind me of what J.M. DeMatteis did in the comicbook Moonshadow, which was in essence a Science Fiction retelling of Candide with Aquarian Age overtones. Even these had very shallow and stupid portions, and I do not mean the combat. In Baldur's Gate, the characterizations and situations were not broken between comedy and depth, but rather comedy and pitiful melodrama. In Final Fantasy VII, the characters were silhouettes without evident personality and all dialogue was spurious, devoid of interest, and simplestupidtalk. Final Fantasy Tactics was also plagued with the simplestupidtalk and lack of definition in personalities. The Total War series only fails on certain technical interpetations. I must admit games such as Temple of Apshai, Alkalabeth, Ultima I, and Odessey: the Compleat Apventure were not so well formulated as Baldur's Gate, but also cost less. Text adventures had weak parsers and were often flawed in expectation of audience and delivery of response (and often playfully altered by computer store owners before the purchase). I look at computer games and think: if I were healthier, more energetic, with the resources, training, personnel, and money to put together one of these, I'd make one. Yet I fear that if I tried, even with these to back me, I fear I'd do no better, be subject to a strange affliction, and end up without a soul, without my own hands, without the sentiments and quality concerns I presently have. However, I suspect that there is a reason why certain elements in computer games are specifically weak. Is it that a corridor of advancement is pre-defined? Is it that we the consumers are thought by corporations to be walking through a trade camp that due to commercial tactic is arranged with both intentional finery and intentional flaws? Is it that some big ape is going to beat up game designers to a certain degree depending on how smart and know-it-all their work is? Maybe they prepare for the next generation and hope that by not covering all bases, they leave room for innovation? Is it an actual lack of time and funding? Is it that a legacy exists of primates, dolphins, feral adults, or toddling infants designing portions of computer games? Is it that money isn't really being used, and pseudocorporate presences are nostalgic for the time when money was worth something rather than being a mutual joke? After all, there is usually a reason behind human doings, either discomfort or jubilation, sometimes psychology or dogma, sometimes just habit. The reasoning behind all these outlooks and the reasoning as to alternate outlooks are not insensible, but human liberty, human intelligence, and human progress are usually good things. So is quality entertainment often a good thing.

Sort of a CRPG of Albedo RPG? Albedo would make a good CRPG, as would Elfquest, but Albedo has more potential in game replay value. One can only lead elf-riding wolves to their ancient, ancestoral cradle so many times before one hopes for a hentai version, out of sheer anxious boredom. Then again, with some imagination, Elfquest would make an excellent CSRPG.

A few spelling mistakes would be understandable if Obsidian were undertaking the fifth grade again. In a professional game product, in this day and age, it's unforgivable and also emblematic of the lack of common education in our US citizenry.

Which of these games would you prefer to see licensed as a MMORPG or CRPG? (Edit: GURPS is mentioned as a licensable RPG product -- but isn't quite so operative as a potential license for Bioware, seeing as SJG and Bioware haven't been happy together in the past)

A good idea to follow might be to make this new game (KotOR3) slightly different. One concept I've had for a roleplaying game for a long time is that the NPC leaders of various factions act independently of PC actions. That is, uninterrupted, NPCs would carry out a huge story. The simplest way of handling this is to create a huge war, so that NPC behavior will be very basic (NPCs are primarily potential companions, mission givers, opponents, busyworkers, or atmospheric, but with much overlap, depending on how much time is allowed). The best way of inviting PCs into this massive action is to place them in the midst of a mission as retinue (so they needn't know what the heck they're doing or have only their simply described military duty) but with the larger storyline being introduced as this occurs. Very simple rules for NPC reactions to changes can occur. If player resolution of events is pretty much limited to success and failure (as in most RPG) rather than gradiant success, and players can only move to certain areas, then gameplay needn't be so varied that the designers are inable to account for player solutions. Now, NPC missions offered can change depending on present faction needs, individual NPC needs, and NPC function. Consider also that a wider playing field with free movement in outside areas (instead of the room with doors model) would allow players to enjoy what feels like greater freedom. Now, most games work like this to some degree or another, but we most often see the open field in RTS and the open missions in MMORPG. Of course, most MMO do NOT offer changing NPC missions depending on game state and NPC role/situation in the game state.

And single-cell organisms produce likenesses of themselves at a speedy rate, splitting, devouring, and growing. They move with the medium they happen to be in. I understand that you might want Obsidian Entertainment to change tactics based on a dissatisfaction with their methods, but comparing them to dinosaurs isn't the way to do it. Actually, reptilian creation would be like designing a game but not releasing patches nor expansions. In essence, just releasing title after title, regardless of whether or not these titles resembled eachother. Mammalian creation would involve working with a game after publication, updating a game with new expansions, creating new situations for that game, and in essence offering optional changes to it until it pretty much feels complete. The initial comparison is flawed, where experimenting is compared to reptilian birthing and formula-following to mammalian nurturing. Experimentation occurs, in smaller or greater levels with any game design, but with the greater complexity of genetic structure, so do differences between originating organism and spawn increase. Whether or not any experimentation with a game is percieved as new is another issue entirely. The process that creates a more enjoyable game, like the original Baldur's Gate, like the original Baldur's Gate II, would provide a better future for all involved in the design process, improves consumer confidence, and barring management problems offers a bright future. Interplay falling through was not the fault of Black Isle nor its creative decisions (although I did not think Black Isle was terribly creative oftentimes, but that's my personal opinion -- I mean, respectful influence is one thing, but stealing ideas from old Call of Cthulhu adventues is silly). What creates a good game is love and nurturing, experience with crafting games and experience with playing games of the sort that's being created. Also, imagination, creativity, and professional ethic help immeasurably. As a sidenote, MMORPG should pretty much be super-mammals in this comparison: the amount of nurturing that goes into their creation almost resembles the nurturing that goes into the development of philosophical schools of thought: such things are never final.

There are a few grammatical and spelling errors in the game; of these grammatical errors, I am not counting those choices in phrasing which are deemed conventional English. However, in my humble opinion, the conversational choices for the main character occasionally utilise commonly appearing phrases in spoken English that have ambiguous meaning without accompanying tone of voice. The spelling errors could be swiftly corrected using spellcheck software on the dialogue trees. This would be very easy to do for a company like Obsidian. Lest you think this a baseless complaint, recollect the dialogue and consider whether or not Obsidian could use a better dialogue writer than those presently in their employment. At the very least, collegiate writing skills should be demanded, and at the very least, writing standards should be equivalent to what is offered in the Chicago Manual of Style (presently in its 15th edition, University of Chicago) and Elements of Style (Strunk & White). I've noticed similar phrasing appears throughout many of the most recent CRPG regardless of designers: Obsidian, Troika, Bioware. It's almost as if all companies hired the same hackneyed and semi-illiterate dialogue scripters to labour over the work with one or two people who possess more than scant writing ability also working with them. I do not believe that semi-literate writers should be employed to script dialogue for games that cost fifty dollars to purchase. I would be more willing to pay two dollars for this sort of writing, but probably would not purchase the game. There should be a warning on the game: this game designed, in part, by people who do not have basic grammar and spelling skills. Better yet, fire them or shoot them.

There are a few grammatical and spelling errors in the game; of these grammatical errors, I am not counting those choices in phrasing which are deemed conventional English. However, in my humble opinion, the conversational choices for the main character occasionally utilise commonly appearing phrases in spoken English that have ambiguous meaning without accompanying tone of voice. The spelling errors could be swiftly corrected using spellcheck software on the dialogue trees. This would be very easy to do for a company like Obsidian. Lest you think this a baseless complaint, recollect the dialogue and consider whether or not Obsidian could use a better dialogue writer than those presently in their employment. At the very least, collegiate writing skills should be demanded, and at the very least, writing standards should be equivalent to what is offered in the Chicago Manual of Style (presently in its 15th edition, University of Chicago) and Elements of Style (Strunk & White). I've noticed similar phrasing appears throughout many of the most recent CRPG regardless of designers: Obsidian, Troika, Bioware. It's almost as if all companies hired the same hackneyed and semi-illiterate dialogue scripters to labour over the work with one or two people who possess more than scant writing ability also working with them. I do not believe that semi-literate writers should be employed to script dialogue for games that cost fifty dollars to purchase. I would be more willing to pay two dollars for this sort of writing, but probably would not purchase the game. There should be a warning on the game: this game designed, in part, by people who do not have basic grammar and spelling skills. Better yet, fire them or shoot them.

There are a few grammatical and spelling errors in the game; of these grammatical errors, I am not counting those choices in phrasing which are deemed conventional English. However, in my humble opinion, the conversational choices for the main character occasionally utilise commonly appearing phrases in spoken English that have ambiguous meaning without accompanying tone of voice. The spelling errors could be swiftly corrected using spellcheck software on the dialogue trees. This would be very easy to do for a company like Obsidian. Lest you think this a baseless complaint, recollect the dialogue and consider whether or not Obsidian could use a better dialogue writer than those presently in their employment. At the very least, collegiate writing skills should be demanded, and at the very least, writing standards should be equivalent to what is offered in the Chicago Manual of Style (presently in its 15th edition, University of Chicago) and Elements of Style (Strunk & White). I've noticed similar phrasing appears throughout many of the most recent CRPG regardless of designers: Obsidian, Troika, Bioware. It's almost as if all companies hired the same hackneyed and semi-illiterate dialogue scripters to labour over the work with one or two people who possess more than scant writing ability also working with them. I do not believe that semi-literate writers should be employed to script dialogue for games that cost fifty dollars to purchase. I would be more willing to pay two dollars for this sort of writing, but probably would not purchase the game. There should be a warning on the game: this game designed, in part, by people who do not have basic grammar and spelling skills. Better yet, fire them or shoot them.

There are a few grammatical and spelling errors in the game; of these grammatical errors, I am not counting those choices in phrasing which are deemed conventional English. However, in my humble opinion, the conversational choices for the main character occasionally utilise commonly appearing phrases in spoken English that have ambiguous meaning without accompanying tone of voice. The spelling errors could be swiftly corrected using spellcheck software on the dialogue trees. This would be very easy to do for a company like Obsidian. Lest you think this a baseless complaint, recollect the dialogue and consider whether or not Obsidian could use a better dialogue writer than those presently in their employment. At the very least, collegiate writing skills should be demanded, and at the very least, writing standards should be equivalent to what is offered in the Chicago Manual of Style (presently in its 15th edition, University of Chicago) and Elements of Style (Strunk & White). I've noticed similar phrasing appears throughout many of the most recent CRPG regardless of designers: Obsidian, Troika, Bioware. It's almost as if all companies hired the same hackneyed and semi-illiterate dialogue scripters to labour over the work with one or two people who possess more than scant writing ability also working with them. I do not believe that semi-literate writers should be employed to script dialogue for games that cost fifty dollars to purchase. I would be more willing to pay two dollars for this sort of writing, but probably would not purchase the game. There should be a warning on the game: this game designed, in part, by people who do not have basic grammar and spelling skills. Better yet, fire them or shoot them.