Diogo Ribeiro

Any saying is better than "You must gather your party..."

Wizardry 8. Minimal voice sets allow for multiple male and female voices, the regulating difference being the personalities. There are several pre-recorded voice sets for different personalities (moody, intellectual, backstabbing, etc). The reason i don't see this being incorporated into TSL is simply the cost and work associated with recording several types of voices. Given that apparently all speech will have voice over, it's likely that there will only be one voice set for either gender.

There are endless things one could throw to the discussion. One would be what is art meant to be, but we already know the lack of consensus in that. Still, what exact definition of the word are we aiming for here? Art as in the accepted definition that reflects works which are universally accepted as being art; or art in the sense of depicting human ability itself, of being artful, of having a certain skill in a given field? If we're talking of the later, than likely everything we produce is likely to be art (with the possible exception of the afforementioned items geared towards survival or reproduction), because they are testaments to human skill. If we're talking about the former, then how and when did videogames qualify as being art? There are various forms of digital art (computer generated art being an example), but why should videogames qualify? Lets suppose that one of the reasons to consider videogames art would be the 'art' (as in, human skill) involved in creating long, efficient and elegant code that would in turn create the proccesses which run the game. If this would be the case, then why not consider any other computer program as art, too? Either one runs along due to said code. Perhaps it is the end result; the ability to create a compelling form of media? If this is the case, then we'd have several other computer programs to contend with as well, based on that concept (image producing, 3D model-creating, audio composing, etc., all are able to create an end result which can be quaified as art). Or is there something else? From a personal point of view, i believe that videogames cannot be considered art (with some exceptions) for several reasons. For one, the medium is very young and its potential has been barely used. While other forms of art were born, lived and age well, videogames are still giving baby steps. The medium hasn't established itself as a medium capable of presenting forms of art, or at least, forms of art which could be universally recognized as such. Videogames aren't the suffer with this kind of perception, tho'; the first steps of cinema were marred by inflamatory remarks by elitists who claimed that movies were for the mentally inept, uncapable of relying on a book and needing images to understand things. Second, neither players, publishers or developers are seriously considering the issue that the medium can be more that simple entertainment. The majority of gamers are interested in entertainment (*); the majority of developers are interested in complying with that line of thought; and publishers enforce this mentality by generally rejecting risky, out-of-the-box propositions. I feel the medium is severely put to waste by mass market mentalities. This isn't to say that other forms of art do not have different attitudes in their midst (how many painting styles failed to capture the attention of art appreciators who were more interested in painting's aesthetic aspects?). But the focus of the industry is basically that of mass market, which, under any context, promotes a standardization of ideas and a rejection of innovation and experimentalism (which to me is more important to the development of any form of expression). Also, my (hopefully) last point is, that i think that the interactivity videogames provide somewhat dillutes the concept of art (or of what i would perceive as art). Now, interaction between the public and the artform isn't necessarily bad; the dadaist Happenings were precisely that - an event which involved the audience and usually had them contribute to the creation of a final art form (i think this was a dadaist element, but my memory may be playing tricks on me). But when taken into context of videogames, that interaction from the audience is no longer there. The audience is not throwing random conceptual elements into something that will become a whole due to their input; the end result (the game), is already there. This results in the videogame being created with the primary concept of interaction, and in different ways for the player to interact with it. Its no longer about carrying a mesage, its about how the player will look at the theoretical message and understand it. It may seem weird that i am mentioning this as a problem, because the meaning of art, and the understanding of meanings adjacent to a form of art are dependant of the viewers' 'interaction' with the artform itself; but there is a reason. I believe art, in order to be understood, requires a keen perception of both the artist and the audience. However, i see videogames are created in a way which makes them easy to understand from the get go, which inherently facilitates the audience's perception, thus ruining the effect. But perhaps this is the way art will be re-evaluated in the future; the fusion of several art mediums into a single one, with the viewer's interactivity with the new form of art being the primary factor which defines the object's relevance. (*)I believe that, while some gamers are discerning enough to compreehend some developers' goals when placed into a videogame (such as, say, Hideo Kojima's fears of the digital age included in the more recent iterations of the Metal Gear Solid series), most gamers simply do not care. Kojima can express himself in his creations, but most gamers will simply not understand, not relate or simply not care with it. They prefer to be entrenched in the concept of gameplay than in the concept that there might be something more than that. Games like Deus Ex carry a concern towards the abuse of power, the concept of choice, the analysis of what terrorism really is; yet, players make online polls about favorite weapons and sneak guides. While i don't think Torment would be a good example of an artistic game (though in my mind it successfully combined visual and literary ideals into a single, definite form), i would also avoid nominating Syberia, Riven or Silent Hill 2 as artistic games. To me, games like Vib Ribbon, Ico or Rez (and perhaps Torment, though at an inferior level) stand as good examples of artistic games, in the sense of providing several elements which blur and produce something more than a game, or that can be considered more than a game. On a more inquisitive note, what elements did you find in those games you mentioned that made them artistic, or more artistic than Torment? Having played the game recently, I'd be interested in asking what exactly would be considered innovative in the game, because i fear i may have missed it.

Lets not forget Bradley's attempt at trying to do away with repetitive and monotonous clicking... by providing a combat system that usually relies on that.

This relates to what you said to what i answered... how? The point isn't about playing someone else's character, Hades. You stated, quote: For one, you assume that feature would provide players with greater replayability... when the element of replayability doesn't need to depend on it. Replayability can exist regardless of how customizable the initial character is. I think this should be obvious, no? Second, that feature isn't the most important feature of any CRPG (though i would personally rank it as one of the most important, no doubt), simply because, if there isn't a logical creation of elements that respond to your decision while operating character creation, than that feature is wasted. Hence why i asked, what good would your most important feature be if the gameworld did not provided several elements that allowed you to use your character effectively (to roleplay, as it were)? You can't take it out of context just like that. It has to be weighed down with the rest. Thats why Fallout's character creation and application of your character's possibilities are one of the things that make it shine; character creation alone is not important. Torment has a neutered character creation, yet it provided other elements to succeed. And so on, and so on.

There's no "most important feature", Hades. It's a combination of several. What good would be your most important feature if the gameworld was flat, unresponsive to your actions, and the game was linear? Not much replayable anymore, now, eh?

And we're in!!!!!!!!!!!! Portugal 1 - Spain 0 Excellent match by the way, though Portugal was superior to Spain in the majority of the game.

Yes, i know. This was even visible, because when the script was being activated, the character makes a small movement (implying it'll make some action; in this case, the dialogue), but it just stood there, and then remained still. And this is also why it created problems. Ever had the Harpers track down Jaheira delayed until after the Underdark? This happened to me once. It involved going into the Underdark before the final Harper encounter was activated. As i stepped out of the Underdark and talked to the Elves, the Harpers appear, engage in dialogue, and decide to attack me... which also made the Elves hostile. Not very good, i might add. Hence why i used the dragon example, as it happened to me often. I don't think it's rightful to invoke "X feature is right because that's how it happens in real life" or it's "that's how people do it", specially in this case. In real life, if a group of people were in the above situation (ready to confront possible death by means of superior teeth count), i can't imagine someone suddenly bothering me about silly romantic notions, notions which have been discussed in the past. People usually are more discerning in such situations. This isn't to say that i'm completely against Bioware's approach on timed romance dialogues. As far as i'm concerned, both the romances of Torment and BG2 had their pros and cons; and in my mind, an approach that tried to include aspects of both sides would perhaps strike a balance, and a less aggravating experience. In fact, i've stated my feelings about this somewhere, some other time.

Wait, wait, wait... you're saying a duel between two player's characters - which is basically there to determine which character is better - would end the "my character's are better than yours" discussions? In fact, wouldn't this kewl idea just increase those discussions because now, players would have the opportunity to actually show how their characters might be good? Am i the only one that played "Spot The Contradiction"?

If the same kind of droll shooting sequence has to be included to appease whatever demographic, then i suggest doing the following. *Make the space combat actually hard. I dislike having my RPGs play like Quake on several ocasions, but if you want to test my reflexes, at least make it challenging. *Don't make this a mandatory thing. Wheter poor or challenging, make any possible space combat minigame optional. The Ebon Hawk was reputedly the fastest ship in the galaxy, with some powerful shields, yet, i had to go trough combat. Give players the chance to avoid the combat, but also include possible rewards if they want to engage in it. *Don't rely only on the player to solve the problem. I have other party members. Some of them might even have a more combat-oriented background than me. Give players the possibility to ask some followers, more suited to combat than the PC, to help troughout combat sequences like those. It's not impossible to program this, and it's credible from a story viewpoint to have someone like a Republic War Hero to help out a very low level wannabe Jedi. [/complaining]

You assumed i didn't understood what you meant, when in fact, the next quote: ...is precisely what i had infered from what you wrote back there. And my point was that romances should not be dependant on the plot, or related to it; they should be side events, unrelated. In my opinion, they shouldn't be forced into the main plot of the game. I guess we could go off on what is considered to be a plot, and what plot we're talking about (the main plot, or a would-be specific character plot). For reference i have been talking about the main plot. While not exactly good, it's apparently much more tolerable than Annoy-men. I know. That's why i mentioned my preference over the Torment romances (which weren't perfect, mind you; they just had the bonus of letting me decide when to move the romance forward, which, although not the perfect solution, was less irritating). I know that these romances don't force the player to follow them trough, but they use oftentimes annoying gimmicks. There isn't much criticism that can be pointed at KoTOR's romances (except, perhaps, their writing, or the "It seems character X wants to tell you something" dialogues), but Baldur's Gate 2 had annoying timed events with dialogues, which ruined the experience. I'm in a dark cave, half my party is near death, with few spells ready, and i'm about to confront a dragon; i don't need to listen to that wench whine about her freakin' wings for the 734th time. Even if i tell her to shut up, she keeps coming back. Again, i don't have to follow them trough, but i have to put up with inconvenient interruptions until she finally gets the message. And then some developers find it funny to have my character's love interest to be placed in dangerous situations, trying to make me develop more feelings for the character, an example being Bastila's rescue from the hands of Brejik. Its not romance related, but situations with a love interest are being forced on me.

Ah, the memories. I personally prefer to lead-fill the prostitutes, but hey, you gotta start somewhere; might as well be with the elderly.

Whoa, did someone implied Baldur's Gate 2 was as immersive, or more immersive, than Ultima 7? My mind is boggled. Anyway, i would vote for: NPCs more responsive to alignment, bigger areas, and more roleplaying options. I would vote for more options regarding immersion, but that field is usually broader and up to each one's interpretation, and i wouldn't want to vote for something which was the opposite of what i was thinking.

I've seen ocasions where the pro-romance stance wins more often than the more negative side, but never saw an absolute majority victory. Granted, i don't keep track of all threads in their boards (though i try, nonetheless).

I'd appreciate it if next time you'd think of your response before typing something and fixing it every five seconds. It just delays the process of giving a quick response. That it adds something that's apparently worth to many people is not what's at stake. Romance elemenents aren't even exclusive in whatever perceived worth they might have - as it would seem, many people also think that elements like jumping, climbing, horse-riding and swimming also add something to a game. So, why aren't they included more often? Likely, because any of those gameplay elements, tends to carry a marginal weight in a game to justify their inclusion. Even in the event of it adding something for a fair majority of people, i haven't yet seen much of a consensus in that regard. Most of the boards i visit - including Bioware's - happen to have disagreements over the worth of romances, and of the characters included in them. I'm sure you can. However, i'd like to know what game are you talking about, and when did the discussion of the quality of a game's plot entered our part of the discussion? Are you asking me to indicate anything that would indicate good plot in what - KoTOR2? If so, for what purpose? No, that's far from what i'm saying. Nowhere back there did i state they have to be contrived when included in a game; only that most of them end up being so. I wouldn't call the romance elements of, say, Planescape: Torment, bad or even contrived, because they were well done. Sorry, but i don't understand your point of view. You seem to be arguing that since a story has to (apparently) be contrived, than other elements are also excusable of being contrived? I would likely argue that, just because one element would *have* to be contrived, that it doesn't mean other elements have to be equally contrived. There's no reason to think otherwise that i can see, really. Of course it had to do something for the plot; it was integrated into it, and was pretty much unavoidable. I thought it was blatant i was giving my opinion. If you believe it necessary, i can lace all of my opinions with a big shiny IMO tag. Nice try at being condescending, but i understood what you meant from the beginning. Well, if none of the above was clear enough, then suffice to say that i don't think romances should be included at all in RPGs. Most of the time, the game's premise doesn't even lend itself to their existebce, as you're supposed to develop feelings for characters who have only been traveling with you for a very short time (and which you can barely relate to), and have to pay attention to their calls and needs while simultaneously defending yourself from attacks coming from all sides. If they have to be included for some reason - like pandering to loveless teens who want some virtual nookie - then they shouldn't be taken lightly, and should be mature elements.

I don't know if this was directed at me, so apologies if it wasn't. I'm not against character development, i'm against elements which are perceived as being means of character development, but which in the end are not. Being against a romance element isn't the same as being against character development. A main character can be developed in multiple ways, wheter in the statistical or social/interactive aspects. I just feel romances are perhaps the most pointless elements of character development. I think of them as being usually forced and contrived, and some are shoved into the plot in a way to make players feel like it's taking them somewhere with it. And have you asked yourself why this appears to be so? They're specifically made so the plot usually revolves around them if they are active. It's smoke and mirrors. This is similar to how the plot of Baldur's Gate 2 worked. When you confront Bodhi after the Underdark, if you were involved in a romance, the character in question would get abducted, thus throwing at the players another forced, additional concern in the game. Yet, it didn't changed the plot one bit; you were just given another element to add to the plot, a sidequest, so to speak, which was of little to no relevance. It's shallow, at best. Beats me, specially when Bastilla was a very ill-devised character.

Character development still exists. Real life situations are still depicted in games. Romance isn't the only real life situation in existance, after all, and there isn't much of a point in including it in every game. Why not? Why do you believe that if a man does not feel attracted to a phisically attractive woman, he's not human? I'd like to know the reasoning behind that one. Most of the time, it's because games are finite, confined things which cannot faithfully recreate everything you see in real life (and therefore, shouldn't try to). Not only that, romances are an element which is not important to a game, and as such, devs don't spend enormous time in it. They're simply distractions for some gamers, not a necessity.

Curious, because most people consider her one, due to her constant whining and holier-than-thou attitude troughtout Shadows of Amn.

At a point, Grom's writing style pissed the hell out of me and i couldn't get most of it. Now, it's all sun and flowers.

Quite the truth. Greece has been a surprise. While i'm supporting Portugal (despite their glaring flaws), i'm also following Greece with curiosity, and somewhat supporting them as well.

Portugal >>>> Russia. It's a fact.

That this is Star Wars shouldn't excuse the theoretical absence of a 'grey' path. Morality is always a wide spectrum, and trying to simplify it to Light and Dark, or Good and Evil, isn't right. There will always be people who will, to the best of their ability, try to remain neutral, even in the SW universe. If they achieve it or not is a different matter. And if they do achieve that neutrality, it shouldn't be by a clearly defined 'path'. That's one of the problems with assuming that everything must follow a path. Morally ambiguous situations can arise, and black and white situations can present a grey result, instead of a simple black and white result. Good intentions can go to hell and make a person lose faith in themselves, while evil intentions can place characters in a situation which would make them be perceived as good.

Two of the Gameboy titles are not Final Fantasy titles at all. One is a Sa~Ga title, and other is the first Seiken Densetsu (Secret of Mana) game. They were just renamed to Final Fantasy.

If you are interested in the Elder Scrolls, i'd suggest playing the second chapter - Daggerfall - first. It's the best of the series as far as i'm concerned, with Morrowind and Arena following it. The series is primarily designed to allow the player to be immersed in a gameworld, though much of that did not succeed in Morrowind. You do get a large world to explore, and many character creation possibilities, along with several quests and factions. The main problem is that it gets overly repetitive soon, and the character system is easily abusable (the skill-based system has it so skills increase the more you use them - need i say more?). The majority of NPCs have the same dialogue structure (understandable, if you realize that creating custom dialogue for every single NPC would be a daunting task; but still a detriment to the experience, nonetheless). Most quests revolve around killing or fetching (though to be honest, sometimes you do get some variety, like quests which involve fetching and killing). Combat is overly simplified as well. I recommend the game to people willing to spend hours exploring and gawking at landscapes and surrounding wildlife, but don't expect the initial awe to hold much longer. The winning ticket for Morrowind is that it is moddable. If you're one of those people that doesn't mind downloading free content to make up for the money you spent on an uninspired product, or doing the developers' work yourself, you might like it more.

CRPGs are far from being limited, as far as i can see. It's not a problem with CRPGs themselves, it's a problem with developer and consumer mentalities. They are the only ones responsible for those types of limitations set upon CRPGs. I believe this is wrong for two reasons, one being the fact that real life does actually give you complete freedom. You are always free to decide what you want to do and how to do it. However, complete freedom does not exclude or excuse the consequences of your actions. Second, because a sense of near absolute freedom in games has already been done in the past, the quickest example being The Elder Scrolls series. Absolute freedom in a gameworld isn't achieved more often because gamers (and subsequently, developers) developed a preference towards story-driven games.