Gromnir

Quite a crass depiction of my point. You chauvinistically assume all women do not wish to explore themes of sexism inherent to feudal societies and you naively believe people only play as their own sex. Anyways I too am tired of this argument (for tonight at least) and am going to bed. To be fair Gromnir he isn't saying that actually no, he ain't. we offered alternatives earlier. sexism as a theme can be explored quite easily without subjecting those who has been historical victims o' misogyny to simulated misogyny. he wants realism. you said: This brings me to my next question, what is the reason you are asking for this? Is it purely because you want a realistic game that captures the real themes of the feudal system? he said More or less. It was part of the structure hence I'd rather explore it rather than ignore it. Outside of that it's also because I'm a feminist and I find the history gender inequality and its structural manifestations interesting and worthy of examination. HA! Good Fun! I know it may seem that he his contradicting himself but I don't think he is. He is a feminist and but wants a realistic feudal themed game. Sexism was part of the feudal system but just because he is asking for that it doesn't mean he is supporting it. These types of issues raise awareness we ain't saying he is aware o' what he is doing. that is what makes it kinda sad. is so few places in real life that women gets treated complete equal, so why subject 'em to misogyny in a fantasy game? 'cause is maybe realistic in a Fantasy feudal setting? 'cause somebody has a social agenda that they is promoting? fallout were set in an alternative future reimagined from 1950s Americana. http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-movement woulda' been a very different game. would it have been a better game? heck, as opposed to racism, sexism coulda' been just as easily a major theme o' fallout. you honestly think that fallout woulda been better if players who choose an african american or female avatar woulda' gotten "special" treatments more in line with 1950s America? and even if you genuine were thinking that game woulda' been better that way, do you really think that adding such woulda' been fair to female and african american gamers? some might appreciate the honest portrayal, but you think lack o' choice would have gone over well? do you think such disparate treatment woulda' gained some negative attention for fallout in press and elsewhere? to make fallout and not have race be a central issue actual took effort. ask self why the developer/publisher chose that route. HA! Good Fun!

Quite a crass depiction of my point. You chauvinistically assume all women do not wish to explore themes of sexism inherent to feudal societies and you naively believe people only play as their own sex. Anyways I too am tired of this argument (for tonight at least) and am going to bed. To be fair Gromnir he isn't saying that actually no, he ain't. we offered alternatives earlier. sexism as a theme can be explored quite easily without subjecting those who has been historical victims o' misogyny to simulated misogyny. he wants realism. you said: This brings me to my next question, what is the reason you are asking for this? Is it purely because you want a realistic game that captures the real themes of the feudal system? he said More or less. It was part of the structure hence I'd rather explore it rather than ignore it. Outside of that it's also because I'm a feminist and I find the history gender inequality and its structural manifestations interesting and worthy of examination. HA! Good Fun!

Quite a crass depiction of my point. You chauvinistically assume all women do not wish to explore themes of sexism inherent to feudal societies and you naively believe people only play as their own sex. Anyways I too am tired of this argument (for tonight at least) and am going to bed. and you chauvinistically believe that they should have misogyny forced 'pon them in the game? being confronted with your own hypocrisy is a hoot, no? HA! Good Fun! ps how many people do you actually see being specific interested in sexism in feudal societies?

the "feminist" says he wants women gamers to have their characters experience misogyny... 'cause that's real... er, real in a fantasy world. we already crossed over into the twilight zone, so don't feel bad. HA! Good Fun!

such attitudes is not necessarily inherent o' a fantasy feudal system (you know, one with powerful women mages, safe and reliable birth control, etc.) and such attitudes simple might not be advantageous in a game with a fantasy feudal system. *shrug* but as you say, no common ground. HA! Good Fun!

Advocating? I have never seen such a thing. Instead they will dismiss the setting will say "Oh but we don't have X" all the while still having the internal contradictions. None the less, as you are a firm believer in the "fantasy ergo anything" mentality whereas I am completely the opposite I believe we simply lack enough common ground to bother continuing. am not advocating that anything goes in fantasy. but with imagination and some small effort, internal rational is not so great a hurdle. but again, it is a Fantasy Game. fantasy, by its very nature requires deviation from reality. the fact that poe is a game also requires concessions. but yeah. we lack common ground if you can't recognize why in a fantasy setting it is just as plausible to have fantasy feudal system that is matriarchal or quasi-matriarchal or complete equal as one that victimizes women. give women the magic and suddenly everything is turned upside down or backward or... whatever. am also lacking common ground if you cannot recognize that as poe is a Game with women players, forcing them to endure endemic misogyny might be a poor choice for developers. *shrug* reality is rare a sufficient reason to include anything in a fantasy game. realistic combats? realistic flora and fauna? realistic disease and infection? realistic economy? make any o' the aforementioned genuine real in a Fantasy Game, and the whole thing collapses. so why the need for genuine society that has no possible genuine analog in a fantasy setting with magic and undead and freaking monster? is there advantages to some kinds o' verisimilitude? sure is, but realism itself should no more be a goal than being different. HA! Good Fun! ps just for the hell of it, consider one tiny change made possible by magic: safe and reliable birth control. is something seeming incredible small, but imagine the impact on primitive societies all the way up to industrial age. women is no longer forced by nature to spend many o' their adult years either pregnant or rearing children. possible decreased birth rates impact societies how? women is more likely to be getting educated and using education as adults. etc. if we insert reliable birth control into poe via magic, literal everything changes. and that is just one change. am thinking magic can makes more o' a difference than some people might s'pose.

I already addressed this. to take your turn o' phrase, "Oy vey." again, is a fantasy setting. as noted above, with a single stroke o' a pen the the logic you see in existing societies can be altered and changed and kept wholly rational and internal reasonable. arguing reality as basis is doomed. the fact that poe will have racism and class conflict does not mean that such will be mirrors o' reality, anymore than poe combat will be mirroring reality, or that poe flora and fauna will have realistic biological basis. is fantasy. and again, we already addressed how gender is different. HA! Good Fun!

This made me laugh because there are certain people who believe this is the case now "How about a tribe of brutal lesbian women who humiliate other racial groups but particularly white males?" altered thus it sounds a bit like Berkeley when we were going to school. "Nevertheless, the various Native American nations were not feudal thus the point is moot." actually, you is missing the point. as we has now said numerous times, poe is a fantasy (quasi) feudal setting. so such examples is as relevant as any other. and again, while it has been more common post 1970s to identify iroquois and hopi as quasi-matriarchal, there is still considerable scholarly support for such a label. regardless, links to wiki is = 0. HA! Good Fun!

oh geez, not another wikipedia link. freaking feels like a boot to the head every time we see these. there is 0 intellectual integrity in a wiki link. Iroquois were not simply matrilineal. political power with Iroquois rested primarily with women. is as many sources that argue matriarchy as gender-equal, but you can find many reputable experts who claimed matriarchy. *shrug* regardless, wikipedia will garner you zero respect from Gromnir... or any quotes we see lifted from wiki. if we never see another link to wikipedia it will be too soon. HA! Good Fun!

the iroquois were a horror? or the hopi? benjamin franklin were extreme impressed by the iroquois federation and their constitution. is really worth exploring if you is unaware. "Rather I'm advocating that the setting itself depict the primitive reactionary values inherent to feudalism and its consequences on the population. " and Gromnir says, why? to be real? is a fantasy setting. real is what the developers says it is. you ain't in favor o' stat penalties, but you cannot be seeing how a woman might not want to have her character treated like crap in a game simply 'cause she is playing as a woman? ... women being treated better in fantasy feudal settings is Not the result o' ignorance o' how women fared in historical feudal settings. am suspecting is 'cause developers believe that women don't want to be treated in a game the way they were treated in feudal europe. show that women had it bad? why? we know they had it bad. women still have it bad in many places. why is there a need to treat 'em bad in a game, a fantasy game? wanna show evils o' gender inequality in a feudal system, then your best bet is probable to reverse. have men victims. do all same evils and misfortunes. the dehumanizing aspects o' gender roles in feudal systems can be portrayed just as easy with male victims, and as is a fantasy setting, it is entirely plausible. if goal is to show the wrong, then why not reverse? no? why not? HA! Good Fun!

Depicting inherently bigoted, oppressive and sexist systems as bigoted, oppressive and sexist is not antagonizing. Of course it can. Plenty of fantasy settings dismiss the logical structures present in primitive systems in favour of creating what amounts to an idealized modern world with fantasy coating. Pillars however seems to be examining the logical structures present in societies (institutionalized racism, class conflict and so on) and actually exploring them. there has been more than a few real world matriarchal societies... you is aware of that yes? and while Gromnir would not be bothered if PoE had gender disparity in which women or men were treated poorly, we sure as heck would not recommend that the developers make it so that a gender were suffering some kinda functional penalty by playing their own gender. seems the better part of valor to avoid altogether. what would be point? so developers could be teh rheal? to show that gender inequality is bad? we already know that gender inequality is bad. as for what PoE is doing, we suspect that if a race in PoE were having physical resemblance to sub-saharan africans, and that race were victimized by slavery in the PoE setting, obsidian might suffer some negative backlash. obvious? well, why do same thing to women? to be more real? depict class conflict between nobles and bourgeois in PoE and who the hell is gonna possibly get offended? nobody. heck, obsidian can, if clever, do the metaphor shtick, but class conflict, particularly for north american purchasers o' PoE is hardly gonna be controversial. fantasy races suffering fantasy slavery? is not controversial unless obsidian tries to make slavery seem like a good thing. but treat women like dirt? why? it frequent sucks to be a woman in rl. is many situations wherein women get treated like second class citizens. am seeing no reason to subject women players to that in a game 'cause o' anachronistic notions that such stuff is required in a fantasy setting. am recalling alfa project. it were one o' the larger planned nwn projects. had literal thousands o' members at one point. d&d drow were a popular race choice, particular for women players. we loathed drow and never hesitated to point out their shortcomings, but we can empathize with the women who wished to play as a member o' a matriarchal society. PoE is a game-- a fantasy game. is not a novel or a movie, and is surely not a reality simulator. troika couldn't figure out that it was stoopid to give women a strength penalty in arcanum even after many women complained. why should obsidian be making a similar faux pas? HA! Good Fun!

functional gender equality in a GAME setting makes perfect sense. there is absolutely no reason to antagonize 50% o' your potential fan-base by adhering to antiquated gender notions, even if such notions is reasonable in a given setting. we is talking 'bout a fantasy setting, so reality can always be reworked with a simple act of will on the part o' the developers. that being said, am agreeing that as this is a new setting, there will be an urge to do things different to set PoE apart. social progression is not bothersome to us, but different is not always better. do same old stuff the same old way will never be better, but different ain't inherent positive either. with ps:t, for instance, the developers made a point o' doing things different, but the goal itself were to be different. that were foolish. ps:t were not made better because it didn't include swords or elves or whatever else the developers were thinking were cliché in fantasy crpgs. we liked ps:t. in spite of its flaws it were/is our favorite crpg. nevertheless, we hope obsidian guys has matured and come to realize that doing different is having value only if you are believing that doing different will improve the game. HA! Good Fun!

"I really want a game set in Evil Slaver Blood Mage Empire," am supposing this is your obstacle. how do you write the "full-throated supporter" o' guys who has been written as over-the-top evil? it works for a comic book villain, but it is tough to write as a companion. alternative, is likely that you could create an eyes-wide-open supporter o' tevinter that has either personal or practical reasons for his support. is still not an easy write, but it is a bit easier than vandal savage. HA! Good Fun!

am realizing they is doing different, but is some similarities to what we envisioned. "wounds would damage both health and fatigue. health would require medical and/or healing magics to regenerate" past a certain threshold, a "hit" would damage health as well as fatigue. sounds similar. am curious to see how is actual implemented... and am optimistic that in future games they could improve. as we said, am waiting for beta. HA! Good Fun! ps am thinking it goes without saying that Gromnir approach is better, but one expects baby-steps from obsidian. am kinda joking.

Yes, yes it does. ...And that's a feature because...? Only if you lack imagination. They send a moron out to get killed if you create a character with low INT, the overseer has specific dialogue for this occasion. There are many reasons for being chosen, they're not all about being the most capable. Well, the validity of other character concepts doesn't make the lacking-in-imagination character concepts invalid, does it? is just not worth the effort. you is fighting against +10 years o' inertia. we fall into same trap every year or so and try to make headway, but is futile. heck, we got folks trying to compare fallout and special to bg/bg2 and d&d... which wholly ignores what we thought were the oh so obvious fact that the developers o' a d&d game is stuck with d&d license. fallout is not a game- is a religious icon. fallout's existence and features is used as proof o' the right way to do things in a crpg... in all crpgs. is kinda mind-blowing. fallout is not a game. your mistake is you is arguing as if it is. HA! Good Fun!

we has been lobbying for years, with virtual every new ip from bioware and others, to have a health and fatigue mechanic. hardly any new ip from obsidian, so has rare been an issue. manna strikes us a silly and potential unbalancing bit o' magic nonsense, but we has always envisioned fatigue/stamina as functioning similar to manna. constitution, endurance and/or whatever is frequently a dump stat for mages, and even for some ranged fighter type characters. have all actions cost fatigue is not only making sense to us, but is resulting in players having one less obvious dump stat. sure, poe will probable still have dump stats, but those dumps should be costly. for us, fatigue would be regenerating quickly, particular out of combat. wounds would damage both health and fatigue. health would require medical and/or healing magics to regenerate. special abilities would allow a player to use precious health points to boost actions. etc. we had whole systems worked out for health and fatigue and we found that they worked quite well in pnp. 'course, when we made health and fatigue, it were always built 'round tb pnp. if action A cost 3 points o' fatigue, and action B cost 6 points, it would be easy to track and compare and plan out action ques. rtwp wouldn't be ideal for Gromnir notions o' health and fatigue. also, as is a typical flaw o' Gromnir rules mechanics, we could make things a bit too complex. but that ain't an inherent quality o' health and fatigue. obsidian health and stamina is not same as Gromnir notions, but has enough similarities that we is pleased. however, am waiting for beta to see how it actual functions before we says yea or nay. HA! Good Fun!

complete disagree. again, as we has beaten this issue to death many times, we will be brief. we will not discuss everything that is wrong with bioware style romance. is not important for the nonce as we is only speaking o' how we can see as a pro on a pro v. con list, yes? so, moving forward... first, a considerable amount o' resources that could otherwise go towards companion development is wasted on romances. using bio as an example, if they took all romance resources and used them to improve the individual companion dialogues and quest material, Gromnir would benefit greatly as we never use romance save as infrequent and rather painful experiments to be seeing if bio has changed. is never gonna be a 1:1 kinda resource allocation, but regardless, what isn't going to romance is going elsewhere, and as romance is necessarily bad, elsewhere at least has the possibility o' good. is not complete analogous, but am thinking it might help illustrate. if we learned that the us post office were gonna stop televising commercials for stamps we would be quite happy. the us post office has been operating in the red for years and yet they pay for national televised commercials for stamps... in prime time. is not as if Americans got an alternative to buying stamps, so what is the point? if Gromnir finds out tomorrow that the post office has stopped p1$$ing away money on stamp commercials, we would be happy... would be a Pro. next, obsidian is looking to make poe into a successful property-- is not envisioned as a one-off. for some inexplicable reason, as terrible as they is, many people like romances in the bio games, and the romance fans is one of the most (if not the most) vocal segment o' the bioware social network. the following is Not hyperbole: every thread about a party npc in a bio game posted at bsn eventually becomes a romance thread. furthermore, if the thread in question exceeds some relative small critical mass, it will become an alternative lifestyle romance thread. ... is fine for folks who like such stuff, but they already has bioware games for that kinda thing. for folks who want a high density o' romance, weird romance, deviant romance and just plain sick romance discussions, bioware social network is a haven o' sorts. bio has made folks comfortable with discussing any and all matters that relate to sexing up any and every potential companion. calling that kinda thing romance actual offends us a bit. we don't want such. if obsidian were to add romance, we foresee it as a potential opening o' the floodgates for future poe games. hey, perhaps the obsidian boards would remain largely the same as they is now even after they hypothetical included romances in poe. is not as if the tob discussions and nwn boards were all that different from the bg and bg2 boards. it genuine took years for the bsn to become what it is today. nevertheless, every time an obsidian game doesn't have romance, we sigh with relief. furthermore, romance is not just a random issue. more than a few folks on these boards lobbied for romance. we were genuine concerned that in spite o' some obsidian developers having voiced their concerns 'bout the viability o' crpg romance during past developments, that they mighta' caved to fan pressure, particularly as this were a fan-funded project. finally, is not as if there is an alternative Pro for romance absence. abandoning vancian magic requires some other kinda magic system... if a magic system is part o' the game. if Gromnir were happy 'bout about abandoning ie/d&d vancian magic, we would have the new magic system to identify as the Pro, yes? is not the case with romance. absence o' romance does not result in some clear and superior alternative, but from our post above, one must concede that we is clear relieved that romance is not included, yes? am hopeful this satisfies. regardless, addition by subtraction is not a concept limited to sports teams, excessive gym workouts, or elimination of marginal clients in business. get rid o' romance is a Pro. HA! Good Fun!

reply/quote is not good for you. we say, "it's not a good example" and then explain why is a bad example in next two or three paragraphs, but you has already replied asking us why is a bad example. is ... annoying. at very least read entire post before reply. *shrug* "No ~of course not. I can use Fallout to prove itself ~it IS itself. I'm truly boggled that this is really an issue for you. What have you against self-evidence?" and this is so completely false. the fact that there is text describing what power armour should do or be like in fallout is neither evidence that pa should be implemented thus, or that developers o' other games should implement as power armour were described. the rest is so utterly repetitive that we will concede that even our preternatural patience has been burned into nothingness. in the battle o' attrition, you is the weiner. we predicted this eventuality back in post 13 of this thread. this will be 59. am thinking we deserve a cookie for sticking with it this long. HA! Good Fun! ps you want back to channeling bester? "Or that in every RPG the PC should start with their best weapon ~by contrived chance?" be better than that.

we gave rather brief explanations for both our pros and cons. given our difficulty with brevity, full explanations o' our thought process regarding Ten separate features/aspects o' poe woulda' been... excessive. as we pointed out, we has detailed why we loathe crpg romance elsewhere, so at least that aspect is well-tread ground. HA! Good Fun!

I find this sentiment interesting, because I personally have no interest in playing an "evil" character. Evil quest paths and the like will be game content that I never see if it is included. However, I recognize there are people out there that love "evil" stuff, and so I'd never say it shouldn't be included because I personally don't like it. I am kinda curious why people don't take a similar approach to in game romance. well, some o' this is having an obvious answer. raise your hand if you has ever encounter a game npc that simply annoyed you or tried your patience past endurance? everybody? maybe you didn't choose the, "slip a dagger between his ribs" option, but the fact it were there were enticing, and perhaps you even utilized such options on subsequent replays of the game. ironically, evil options makes choosing the bright and shiny path more palatable for Gromnir. that being said, some o' the inherent flaws with evil is indeed same as romance-- some. evil typically gets done as impulse driven and psychotic. this is done for gaming reasons. each evil act is, perhaps necessarily, insular. if you is gonna have the opportunity to good next time encounter, the evil you do in this one must be limited in scope. also, as developers wants you, the player, to embrace the illusion that you is making the choices and moving the action forward, it is difficult to create smart evil. what we mean is, smart evil is gonna have a plan, but how do developers give evil players a chance to plan? even if developers does work a clever evil plan into a game somehow, it is gonna be the developer's plan and that is possibly gonna annoy players. as such, one great flaw o' romance is same as evil-- it is insular. but to answer big question o' why we is seeing abandonment o' romance as a positive, that too should be obvious at this point. is many features in games we is unlikely to ever use. the aforementioned evil is one, though we has played evil in past. there is likely gonna be weapons and spells n' such we never use. chances are there is features in the game that even after a dozen replays we will have no interest in exploring, but we don't begrudge their inclusion. so why is romance different? because romance can't be good. we like romance in stories, and that is the problem. as an insular and tangential companion side quest, we can envision no way to improve such romances significantly. best writing in the world won't overcome what we see as insurmountable hurdles. results, regardless o' the best intentions o' the writers, will be juvenile and insulting. is not like druids or dual-wield flails or other such stuff we is unlikely to make use of in multiple replays, 'cause romances can't be considerable better than we sees now from bioware, and to us that guarantees their suckage. we may never play a druid, but we don't see the resources used to implement them as a waste. however, if we knew with absolute certainty that the time resources going into the inclusion would be better used so that cain or avellone could take up salsa dancing (perhaps together) on the company dime, then that would be wasteful, no? am not in favor o' including features that must necessarily be bad, 'cause those same resources could be used to improve the game in other ways. HA! Good Fun! ps we could go into all the reasons we thinks crpg romances is irredeemably flawed, but we has done so soooooo many times that we suspect more than a few is tired o' hearing our reasons yet again. we can indulge, but for purpose o' our response here, suffice it to say that romances is a waste o' resources.

The answer to 1-2 is, I guess, partially "it's supposed to be an IE successor game" and partially "thematic coherence". I think there is value in differentiating between characters who draw their special powers from their connection with nature / personal faith / study / martial practice, even if they all fuel this with the power of their souls. Also, you can have fun class-based reactivity you couldn't otherwise. Also, godlike (especially death godlike) are awesome. As someone has so eloquently put it, "(they have) bony scabs that have grown over the void that exists on the Death Godlike's face, the hole from which all that darkness leaks out. I think if you removed the bony growth all you'd see is darkness tingled with the essence of death leaking out from a hole in thier face." You could totally write at least half a black metal album's worth of lyrics around that side note: one practical advantage o' classes we failed to recognize is that frequent the developers o' classless systems is not always doing a particular good job. fallout gets held up as kinda a great example o' a classless system, but obsidian developers has noted in the past that there were a bare handful o' common builds that were actual played by the overwhelming majority o' purchasers o' fallout. am not certain o' how they came up with such conclusions, but am not seeing any advantage they woulda' gotten from misleading us. thus, a poor balanced classless system may only provide an illusion o' unlimited customization when in fact it is providing fewer practical options than a similar class-based system. if you gots a class-based system with 10+ classes that is all genuine appealing, then perhaps you end up with greater replayability than at least some classless systems. 'course, such a situation presupposes that the developers could not develop a more... egalitarian (?) classless system. HA! Good Fun!

there is a dorian thread at bsn, but it appears that it very quickly turned into a gay-romance thread, so we kinda lost interest in reading further than page five of 240+. HA! Good Fun!

am recognizing that class were part o' ie traditions. that is the reason we mentioned 'bout "meeting expectations" o' the fans. that being said, we see no value at all in the thematic stuff. is no reason why any character in game should be prevented from choosing to identify as a priest o' _________ or thief from ________ or whatever. could very easily add a list o' professions and/or backgrounds that the game would be equal reactive to w/o having special powers attaching to them. such a method would be far easier for developers to add such, and would allow more freedom for players-- same reactivity. as for godlike... am as much disturbed by the name as anything else. godlike? seriously? get a room full o' 8-year-olds with a box o' nilla wafers and some milk and we bet they come up with a better name before nap time. HA! Good Fun!

C'mon, he looks cool. In sort of a shady porn actor-y way, but still. ... we thought the mustache were a joke, so we went to the bioware site and sure enough, the mustache seems to be legit. have seen better mustaches with wooly willy. http://www.patchproducts.com/aimg/x2_a25a785142da9f3b16a8c1038b809c81.jpg HA! Good Fun! ps perhaps june 26 is a kanadian april fools kinda thing?

sadly, this is true. HA! Good Fun! ps as to ann coulter (who the hell is ann coulter... she is that woman who wishes she were bill o'reiley, yes?) we took the article as being a bit tongue-in-cheek, and some observations were clear ridiculous, but she managed to get a few chuckle-worthy snippets in as well.