Diogo Ribeiro

This doesn't need to be the case with all games. Torment was actually the reverse of this, and Fallout had it so depending on what you chose, experience was balanced (not perfectly, o'course). Using diplomacy in some situations would be as rewarding as killing off everyone that moved.

I think this is hardly about pleasing hardcore gamers; after all, they have improved their game design over the years, and their games are still financial successes, despite what 'hardcore' gamers tell them. Its only in their interest to improve and fine tune their game design; there's only so much a company can present in the form of stale gameplay or stagnant design choices over and over and over until it bites them hard.

Kneecap biting is a good tactic.

There's a difference between saying they should define the role, and saying they are the ultimate form of defining one. Which one passed by unnoticed to you, i wonder? And what was the lame joke i apparently stole?

And who said they were the all/end all of ROLE-PLAYING? Apparently, no one. Ooops. Also, your rhetorical questions (as you so kindly pointed out) are moot. There's no number that defines your emotional state, but that wasn't my point either. Read closely what you're answering to; i'm not stating that numbers are defining of everything you do (because they aren't), they can simply allow character to have added expressions in the gameworld (i point out to the "acting a certain way" part of what i posted). But the point of it was pretty much what you said so already, that they're not t3h w1n!, but that they help define the role. Taking a cue from yourself, Period.

It's too bad those "silly little numbers" are what define your character's possibilities of acting a certain way in a CRPG.

*rolls up sleeves* Here we go again. *sits back and watches intently*

Rampaging across the plains, wielding gilded boxing gloves, cometh Role-Player! And he gives a spectacular cry: "I'm going to pummel you all the way to Old Bonny Scotland!!!" ..... WTH?

It doesn't really feel TB at all, but yeah, sure. Those factors aren't hard to factor in, the problem is making the game appeal to the RPG fan and the twitch gamer. Morrowind managed to pull it off on one hand (some twitch elements with stats and skills), but the end result was arguably flawed. But KoTOR doesn't feel like a SW game as far as combat goes, something Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy pulled off very well. The dynamic and fast-paced combat, plus very well done lightsaber implementation are a big plus for it to feel like an SW game.

Being a "pacifist" is no more fun nor different than being any other type of character that can do other things. Its just based on character skills and planning you decide to use in the game. Its not an ultimate tactic, its just a tactic like any other.

Being a pacifist in a game is more of a fun thing to do than a necessity, or a must. Combat is always present, and as far as i'm concerned, that's a good thing. I like combat, i just don't like combat at every turn. Various options to solve a situation is what should be aimed for.

Well combat doesn't have to be difficult. It just needs to be challenging, and fun. While no doubt there's always people who found KoTOR's combat fun, it was likely more due to the cinematic presentation and not for its simplicity (after all, many Bioware fans liked combat in the BG series as well, and BG2's combat was deeper). For instance, i liked ToEE's combat, but if the AI used more combat abilities in combat, it'd certainly be more challenging. Combat was cinematic, but i don't think that combat should be like that. I found the cinematic presentation just made it feel shallower. No amount of Hollywoodesque embelishment around it hid the fact it was a shallow combat model.

Disregarding those that didn't like the style of combat itself, the combat was in fact too easy, and mostly because of what tri and newc0253 pointed out. Simply because the combat was apparently liked by many people doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved.

As long as PS:T's deficient combat model isn't taken as an example as well, i agree with that.

I never actually managed to play Rifts

Dude migrate to Portugal now, we have lots of sun here. And it`s 22:03 Yeah we have lots of sun... but the cold.... jeebus, the cold that's been making lately. :ph34r:

I received a notice that a new topic had been made in the Gaming and RPG Discussion forum, because apparently i had subscribed to it, but i didn't. I also received a notice saying that a new reply on a thread had been posted but i also didn't chose to subscribe to it. Which was why i was asking this.

They definetely shot themselves in the foot with that decision.

Great, another game with pretty much the same promises. I wonder if there's an on-going flyer circulating around company offices with mandatory buzzwords and concepts for devs to copy and paste onto the description of their games?

I've just received 2 forum subscription confirmations. This would be ok, if i actually had made the subscriptions, but i didn't This isn't the first time either, and i'm wondering why is this happening.

Sorry to bring down that lovely assumption, but I wasn't even talking to her, much less teasing. Yes, pointing out the obvious to people impervious to it definetely makes me stupid. I should stop trying, honestly.

Thanks for worsening my headache with that use of colorized text.

I think this depends. If it was thought that there would be a sequel, certain things in a prequel could be tailored to that. Knowing that beforehand, you can adjust the game better. If you have say, a game divided into 3 parts, then you can't make the first or the second games have the character reach incredible power levels, gather ph4t l3wt, and all that. If Arcanum had a sequel using the main character its power levels would have to be severely lowered to allow for balance. But if ToEE had a sequel it would work better. BG managed to pull off some measure of balance from BG1 to BG2 and into ToB (despite really being monty haul for the later half of BG2 and the full length of ToB).

Apologies if i don't plan my posts according to possible exacerbated reactions on behalf of radical minorites, but as can be easily seen, if only one person out of 678 is offended, i think its obvious where the problem lies. Also, there's a difference between being a feminist and just being desperately grasping for straws to try and attack something which is clearly nothing more than a personal problem. Or maybe your vision of being a feminist is more radical than that of all those feiminists i've personaly met (the most likely case). Whatever the case, i'd suggest taking things easier in the future, and to avoid these kinds of petty attitudes for things which don't really call for an attitude at all.

While depth is not the same as choice, some also lack depth. Specially earlier console RPGs. EDIT: Also don't forget that some of the worst dialogues ever in videogames come from console RPGs. FF7 is quite likely the highest representative of that problem.