Diogo Ribeiro

I once found someone who I thought was the perfect girl. She was special in her own way, but it would not have worked for neither of us. Although I can honestly say, without a doubt, that I have found the perfect girl. Perfect to the point where I'd be willing to give up my doubts and perspectives on marriage and being a parent, and just dive headlong. And I also don't intend to lose this one.

Quoted for truthness. That does sound very fun overall.

Yes. Nobody, out of two people, agree with me. A truly shocking revelation which will disturb me for years to come.

And it should be a blind date to boot.

Buy a taser and some duct tape. Much cheaper, much more successful.

If I thought too highly of myself I would have validated your assumptions and would not try to clarify my points. More than likely I would flat out ignored you. Yet, I did the opposite. You're free to believe what you want regarding the intent behind my actions, though. I've said why I believe I wasn't wrong by indicating that the word "only" was not used exclusively and that the word "seems" preceding it doesn't allow the phrase to be taken as an absolute. If you can prove me why the word "seems" should not be taken into account then do so, but don't expect me to accept I'm wrong just because you feel like saying so and leaving it at that. And all you seem to do is repeat the same sentences when lacking anything worthwhile to post. Condescending? I wasn't the one that kept repeating someone was wrong just because, and assuming I owed you something simply because you read my thread. Since when did you became the mouthpiece of Obsidian's forum users?

I've made no claim where all RPGs only use statistics for combat-related skills; I said "seems" precisely because I know all RPGs don't do this, but instead that's how most "seem" to work. You're right. If the meaning of the word escaped some people the first time, I should've assumed it would keep escaping them. When I add in the world "SEEMS" before "ONLY", it makes sure it isn't meant to be unquestionably interpreted as an absolute statement. If I'm telling you an acquaintance of ours "seems to only go for the highest stakes in betting games", that's not the same as saying "he only goes for the highest stakes". The former deals with what is apparent or possible but is not (or may not) be absolute, the second strictly deals with what is absolute. Likewise, telling you "it seems we can only go forward" is not the same as telling you "we can only go forward". I always do my best to clarify my points when people want me to. I quoted a previous statement of mine with a bolded word precisely to do that. Now, if people assume that "seems" is nowhere to be found and that "only" is the only (lolz) word that matters, followed by accusing me of not clarifying that part, I honestly wonder what it is I should be grateful for.

Tends to rely != always relies. Thank you. Good night. God bless.

You misunderstand. As I clearly pointed out in the initial post, the aim of this thread is not to attempt to define what is a roleplaying game. As the very first paragraph stated

This thread is inspired by an ongoing Codex thread regarding character progression and the minimal elements of an RPG. While this would likely spark a discussion of different perspectives regarding the subject, initially I wanted to know your opinions on what kind of character progression do you prefer to see in computer roleplaying games. This isn't about deconstructing the RPG label so let's avoid going there. One of the distinguished features of character progression, and one that is more often used is trough purely statistical advancement, which is based on characters increasing in abilities which are set on underlying character systems such as experience, skill or improve by use systems. This method tends to rely on expressing character growth and power trough increasing statistics and abilities, which in turn allow characters to perform better in given fields. While there are advantages to this system it unfortunately seems that pressing forward to get 'stronger' or 'better' only has an application in combat-related skills which considerably undermines the whole point of a diverse statistical progression by only focusing on some skills which are arbitrarily defined as necessary to succeed in a game (as opposed to allowing a much wider range of skills to contribute to success). On the other hand we have another feature of character progression in the form of personal development, which is based on character knowledge, personality and choices which are meant to show character improvement in a non-statistical way. This method tends to rely on expressing character advancement by allowing players to define their PCs by interactions and situations which may provide a different level of advancement and sense of increasing abilities and possibilities. Sometimes a PC may accomplish something which only has information, allegiances or favors as rewards. I'd argue that this also helps establish the growth of a character in the context of a changing and influencing entity in the gameworld. In the end, do you require that 'experience' be a numerical value which is statistically represented in your character sheet, and thus be much more easilly recognized; or can you accept that 'experience' may not be always defined trough statistics but sometimes by meaningful interactions with the gameworld which can advance the character in the same way a statistical increase would? Character progression requires that the character grows in some way - but can you accept that a character of high moral fiber developed across his decisions in the gameworld is as strong as a high level warrior with high attributes and skills? Would you find it acceptable that overcoming numerous hordes of enemies could be replaced by overcoming numerous character decisions, traumas, and introspection?

Something which not all development houses have at all times. A title which is developed with the mainstream in mind is likely to succeed more from a financial standpoint than a title that doesn't. Fallout, the Icewind Dale series and Planescape: Torment may have been good games yet their gameplay was not geared towards the mainstream crowd. Look at the result - acceptable financial success but not enough to keep Interplay alive. Look at Arcanum, Temple of Elemental Evil and Vampire: Bloodlines: at least the first two (but especially the second) were not for the average gamer. Admitedly, there were some pretty piss poor management behind both companies but the profit these games made was in part influenced from not being as mainstream-friendly as, say, Bioware's titles. Not necessarily. There's several companies out there that started out with one type of game and decided to explore other gaming genres along the way. If we were talking of a company that would only develop action RPGs then that would be likely, but this isn't the case nor was what was suggested. In fact, the suggested attitude was to develop action RPGs parallel to computer roleplaying games, with the first type of game being viable as a financing for the second type. Then it's apparent it's a title not necessarily aimed at that segment of the fanbase, but possibly to some other part of it, or a whole new fanbase.

They didn't necessarily sold well because they were "real" RPGs. There's several factors to account for their success, such as advertisement, production values, and associated brand names. Because creating unique intellectual properties and developing them requires time, resources and adequate financing. By producing commercially successful titles - regardless of them being action RPGs or not, but action RPGs was the provided example - they can generate enough revenue with which to finance risky endeavours such as going with an in house IP which is less mainstream. "More profound" RPGs aren't as commercially successful as more mainstream RPGs, and trying to develop them without any considerable monetary backup can be damning. Trying to establish reasonable funding from titles which may be commercial success is better than trying to establish reasonable funding from titles which may be commercial failures. There's always a couple of genres or subgenres which are saturating the market but still turn more profit then what we believe.

Being motivated to do more action RPGs doesn't mean the financial success they provide will only motivate them to develop action RPGs.

I'm hoping that Obsidian are capable of creating action RPGs that sell well in the hopes the profit will enable them to develop unique and less mainstream CRPGs.

I don't enjoy 50Cent, but I'm not certain if this is due to my dislike of the whole gangster or thug rapper attitude, or because I don't enjoy how rap is generally done.

I'm very happy someone is deciding to resurrect the Action RPG genre. I was getting tired of all those roleplaying games with turnbased combat that plague the mainstream.

If you happen to have the early builds of TORN, Fallout 3, and The Black Hound we should talk...

Dungeon Masters are hot!

"I wanna have sex with her." "Okay!... Gimme a roll."

wait what

Happy "To think that some grave out there is one year closer to getting my name on it"day!

Which can very well mean "You can go left or right, and use a standard or silenced pistol". While I think Bioshock sounds terrific and will very likely be a good game, these feature lists stand somewhere between juvenile ("This is what I want my game to have!") and standard marketing hype ("let's make some vague statements and use trendy catchwords so they'll be sucked right in"). It's kinda like those Amazon products list, where features can go from "For PC" to "Many dungeons".

It's got less quality than most short porn movie previews you can find on the net, and it barely shows anything other than shadows, some character models and vague one liners. But hey it's only like, 4 megs or something so why not. Tormentness without the messy reading lolz.

It's just that I don't find myself as eloquent and as well versed in the subject matter, and any such attempt to become either would provide, in the face of the superior argumentation brought up, too little and too late. Besides, I've always thought of myself as a demagogue rather than a pedagogue