Diogo Ribeiro

I have to agree with that assessment and confess that unfortunately I fell prey to this. I was given a celular phone under the pretense that it would be helpful (not that it would make my life easier - to get that, I'd have to be blasted off the planet). And it really was useful during the first months but then it started to become more of a problem. The credit, the battery, having to lug it around, etc., and all for what basically amounted to the type of situations you describe. However, I should also point out that in emergency situations it has been very helpful... But thankfully these haven't been many (except in some instances during the last years with relatives dropping like flies).

That would certainly justify your post count.

Apparently you failed to read Moose and Lancer's posts. I set the tone by making a civilized opening post which invited to civil discussion. The people responsible for destabilizing the thread were not exactly civil in their posts. They didn't exactly ask to be clarified - they claimed I was wrong and failed to even account for anything I said, instantly making assumptions and accusations. Yet I set a tone which doesn't invite to casual discussion? Riiight. I'd be surprised if you were doing anything but.

You refuse to partake in personal attacks, yet personally attacked me by stating I said something which I didn't and leaving it at that without any proof whatsoever. You refuse to partake in personal attacks, yet told me to grow up. Perhaps 'grow up' really wasn't an adequate response. 'Stop being a hypocrite' is likely better suited. EDIT: No. Post a link or a quote. Don't presume to have the moral high ground because you assume I meant something when I clearly didn't.

After the matter has been settled? You accused me of sounding immature by assuming others were homosexual just because they didn't agree with me. I asked you where did I say this in this thread. You didn't answer. Yet, "the matter has been settled". You accused me of bickering trough the pages of this thread instead of explaining myself when I have been doing almost nothing but explaining myself. My last post had me paraphrasing my posts so you would understand the same post under different words, to which you reply it's "a meaningless argument". Yet, "the matter has been settled". To quote your very own post: grow up.

So, where did I say this? This has been in page 1 from the beginning: Translation: it unfortunately seems that 'getting better' only shines trough in combat-related skills. Your whole point of discord was with the use of the world "only", not with the meaning of the sentence.

Is this the part where I should point out who started sounding immature because they disagreed with me by making posts which consisted of nothing more than a sleeping smily, or the assumption that I think too highly of myself simply because I don't agree with you? Ooops. I said it seems that pressing forward to get 'stronger' or 'better' only has an application in combat-related skills. This doesn't mean that only combat-related skills increase or are useful; rather, that only combat-related skills seem to be only ones which are ultimately more important. So do tell, what is the actual issue?

See, this is why I mentioned your own condescending attitude. It works terribly with your inability to post something without exagerating it. If you bother to read the contents of my posts, it's pretty clear that its wrong to state that all I'm doing is talking down on people who participate. Not only because that's not all I'm doing, but because I'm not acting that way towards all the people that participate. Examples. Just because I'm not accepting this particular criticism doesn't mean I can't or won't accept criticism ever. No, I'm "ruining it with crap like this" because of the crap others post. Look at the very quote you mention - it is addressed at your previous post, which has you coming out of the woodwork telling me I'm being condescendent. *That* is the "crap" that's actually ruining the thread. I'm sure I could just accept any and all things people may call me, but that's not how I'm wired. Yet, you gave enough of a flying rat's ass to come here and tell me I'm wrong by association of what others said instead of presenting your own reasoning for it, to call me condescending, and to make assumption after assumption regarding my posts and the intentions behind them - only to then claim to not care anymore and hint at a departure. If you look closely, you might see the irony of accusing me of trolling and baiting. But I doubt it. Thanks for your insight. I'm sure the lack of evidence to make this claim will make it a success among your peers.

Sorry but I'm already engaged. I have no reason to be or feel proud, really; at least not in regards to anything in this thread. I would have, if I could make people tell me why they feel the need to click with one specific part of a post but conveniently forget what came before.

Well, congratulations mkreku. I'll be sure to take a note of that for future reference. Now it only remains to be seen if you agree simply by association, or if instead you actually have an intelligible point to make regarding what was being discussed. If I'm being condescending then that would make us four, since you're not exactly a shinging example of humility. Three people. Wow. You make me cry, people. You really do.

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.