Gromnir

or you coulda' just said, do portraits like ps:t. saves on digital trees or something. HA! Good Fun!

already noted: the scars were added after boardies complained that bg2 portraits should be more "dark" and "gritty." simply adding scars, piercings and peculiar hair accessories struck Gromnir as mockery of board request, but the interplay fora populace seemed to like sass' improvements. HA! Good Fun!

vol is as wacky as a bag full o' wet cats, but being impervious to reason does not mean a person is incorrect. vol as "only one making any sense"? HA! that is ridiculous. still, we concede that he ain't necessarily wrong just 'cause he is embracing an alternate reality that none o' the rest o' us will ever experience... thankfully. HA! Good Fun!

we were gonna write a viscous denunciation o' d&d 2e character generation and progressions. the thing is, we knows of at least a couple folks at obsidian who is even less fans o' d&d 2e than is Gromnir. so, no point for us to do the knacker's work on this particular horse as chances o' pe character development or progression resembling d&d 2e in any meaningful way is approaching nil. HA! Good Fun!

am not sure what "less forgiving to females" means in the present context. is worth noting that before bg2 were released, bioware made available the new bg2 npc portraits as done by mike sass. am thinking it were sass, but we might be wrong. initial reaction from boardies were not kind. original minsc, in particular, were drawing ire. portrait of minsc had this big open-mouthed smile that were making him looks far too similar to a special olympics winner for some posters. too much with the pastel and bright color palette. too Not jason manley (iwd had recently been released). too cartoony and not "dark" and/or "gritty." am thinking that perhaps as a bit o' gentle mockery o' the board critics, sass re-tools most o' the bg2 potraits in very minor ways-- give'em scars, piercings and and additional stuff in their hair. minsc were only portrait that got a significant alteration. kinda reminded us o' josh's revised iwd2 kit suggestions in that instead o' boardies getting the joke, most seemed to like the improvements. regardless, if "less forgiving" is in reference to bg2 portraits looking as if characters had seen hard times, then that were a specific change as result o' board input. HA! Good Fun!

another bad of arcanum: gender stat difference. females got -1 str and +1 end. this clear misguided choice alienated a goodly number o' female gamers. troika developer arrogant response to female gamers who complained further alienated women. such a small thing, but am understanding why some women not wanted to be bound by developer's notions o' realism in a fantasy game. HA! Good Fun!

when these kinda vanity appeals arise, we ask self: what would we want the developers to drop from the game to make ____________ possible? is not a hard zero-sum analysis, but if somebody is devoting resources so that players might see and interact with their trinkets, baubles and trophies, it means they can't be working on something more substantive. am clear not the target for this however. for instance, we is complete baffled by the appeal o' xbox achievements. nevertheless, pretty much every game xbox game gots achievements and the players who seek to gather. collect and display treasure, we suspect is having similar appeal... or maybe not. am guessing folks like to sees some in-game validation that looks kewl. ... clear we don't understand the appeal, but we recognize that such player desires, while alien to us, is real and powerful. am just not sure what should be sacrificed to actualize. HA! Good Fun!

*shudder* the japanese anime/manga aesthetic gives us the heebie-jeebies. creepy looking lemurs is what your idealized imoen looks like to us. HA! Good Fun!

being a bad-guy hero hardly decreases scale of epic. even fo:nv has your choices determining the fate of new vegas and altering the power balance 'tween cal republic, caesar's legions and odo from star trek. fallout? not epic? what you do decides if master and his mutant army succeed or fail. bg? bg2, heck, even planescape the writers has you saving towns in outlands that a cheesed-off angel wants dragged into a "hell," and ps:t sold poorly, so try to distinguish is an epic fail in any case. *shrug* am not thinking epic is needed, but developers appear to disagree with you. HA! Good Fun! ps please note that observing that you can play protagonist as a bad guy is actual reinforcing our observation 'bout need to make such a protagonist vague. character needs to be written so he/she can be all things to all people... which is a stoopid way to try and write a compelling protagonist.

writers o' crpgs has got a conundrum. there is seeming universal belief that players want to be doing epic. players want to be heroes who save cities and nations and more. right or wrong, this belief is a given. this leads to issue we broached earlier 'bout villains-- 'cause villains gotta be as epic as the heroes. why should epic heroes and villains be a problem? 'cause regardless o' scope o' story, you is trying to get player emotionally invested. a hero fighting to save folks, or benefit self? such motivations is not all that deep or profound, but most folks can "get" those kinda motivation. but what about villains? how you write an epic villain that folks not see as campy or over-the-top? perhaps villain wanna take over the world or achieve immortality? perhaps villain is angry with god/gods for some slight? is no natural common ground most of us has with such characters, so they very frequently is seeming fake. our hero, while easier to understand, is written vague so that wide-range o' people can make their own. bob wants to play hero as prototypical champion o' justice. joe wants to play as a kinda good-natured rogue who is in the hero biz for girls and gold. writer of crpg writes game hero so both players is only marginally dissatisfied-- call it a win. the crpg story is borked a bit from the very start. you force writer to has a vague protagonist and a villain with whom nobody will naturally empathize w/o considerable development, and chances are you won't get opportunity to develop the villain much as we is talking 'bout a game and not a novel. gosh, why is crpg writing typical bad? HA! Good Fun!

I hope they try to do that to Lanfear. dave said she were somewhat humorless 'bout her inclusion. being charged $1k might just result in a teutonic rage spiral o' epic proportions... or a hizzy fit. HA! Good Fun!

game is functionally over for us after you confront jedi masters on dantooine... is all downhill after that. ultimate resolution with kreia is handled no better than nihilus. is a crying shame too as first 2/3 of kotor2 is still our favorite game from obsidian, and we not even like particularly star wars. HA! Good Fun! ps am admitting that we liked first 2 star wars movies and didn't hate the third. other star wars stuff? not so much.

darth nihilus is horrible. is the faceless terror kinda villain, but developers were using poor judgement in giving him a face and a voice like something from an evil peanuts cartoon. no real dread, and his threat is only abstract. step onto bridge of dying ship. whack him with lighsabres a few times. nihilus is dead. thus ends threat to the galaxy. you wanna create a sauron kidna threat? then at least learn from manner in which tolkien used such a villain. HA! Good Fun!

these games, wherein the protagonist gains superpowers and can kill dragons or reapers or whatever, is doing stuff o' epic proportion. developers frequent try to avoid the Save The World nonsense, but that is near impossible as they necessarily needs create a villain worthy o' the hero. the villain who simply wants to be left alone? nope. the villain who wants better sanitation and more police responsiveness in the slums? not gonna happen. creates a villain who is worthy o' the hero and is Not a major threat to populace o' the city/planet/galaxy is harder than it sounds. from pov o' the writer, we would always be starting with developing the villain rather than the hero ('cause it is scope o' the obstacle that defines the hero,) but is tough to do that in a crpg in which the hero is gonna get superpowers. one wonders how to do a smerdyakov (brothers karamazov) or even an iago (othello) in a crpg setting w/o making such characters threats to cities, land masses, planets, and innocent puppies everywhere. so, we end up with crud like darth nihilus or the reapers almost outta necessity simply 'cause our heroes is needing to be... big. HA! Good Fun! ps gonna clarify that we were actually thinking the reapers worked as a pretty darn good villain for a game like me1. sure, scope was enormous, but bio did the epic with aplomb in me1. later mass effect games... not so much

"Arguably, pursuing art is a noble effort. It follows, then, that funding art would be noble, too. Whether the people doing the patronizing, or the artists themselves, were noble in all their actions is beside the point." a curious syllogism. is the artist somehow noble 'cause he is doing art? is a game developer worthy o' being called an artist? how 'bout writer of jingles for tv commercials? am thinking that you takes a complex question and try to makes simple. no doubt you sees game developers as noble, but you ain't actual supported that notion. Gromnir am not so shallow as to simply throw the cloak o' nobility over the shoulders o' all artists... has known too many. furthermore, as inherent nobility o' artists is suspect, should we not at leas ask why the patron is paying the artist? is the cigarette manufacturer who were trying to make himself looks less like a merchant o' death and spending millions o' dollars on ad campaigns and building parks (with some o' those dollars going to artists) going to gets mstark label of "noble?" what if you pay artist to make self look good for the church or maybe to mock a political rival? if you can be answering "yes," then we see why you would consider medici, sforza, borgia and others to be noble because of their patronage. no doubt there is historical exceptions, but it is a fact that pursuing/supporting art for the sake o' art is a relatively modern concept. oversimplify is rarely a good option. HA! Good Fun!

wonder if guys like mencar pebblecrusher and del (were included in bg2) knew that getting an npc named after them were worth $1k. "interplay," such as it is nowadays, just might try to bill them. HA! Good Fun!

well, see now this makes more sense. "faergus, send me to Rome. i need to get the feel of the Sistine Chapel for that next game we are doing." "c'mon, send me to machu pichu. there is no way i can know enough about incan architecture and culture without experiencing it." "that trip to the south pole Is necessary. i will bring you back a souvenir t-shirt, i swear." "now try to stay open-minded. Richard Garriott has already been to space..." etc. HA! Good Fun! ps there actually is a gift shop that sells t-shirts at the south pole.

1) am not gonna begrudge folks spending their disposable income how they will. if a fan wanna spend $1000 for a signed baseball card or to gets a video game made, we think that is swell. over the years we has probable spent many thousands o' dollars on games, and ridiculous sums on entertainment. not gonna be no hypocrite. 2) if it is similar to the artistic patronage during renaissance (which it ain't) then am gonna suggest it wouldn't be particularly noble. history o' artistic patronage in at least italian renaissance is frequent very ignoble. example: indulgences were selling at an all-time high for church. some art patronage were effective church blackmail-- rich guy is accused o' something like usury and to atone for "sin" he commissions building or painting of a church.our "noble" patron is then granted indulgence. were also very practical and political reasons for most arts commissions. 3) we is talking video games, no? honestly? *shrug* some guy who makes $50k a year donates $10k to a promising but underfunded lukemia study. that is the kinda thing strikes us as noble. spend $10k on game development maybe is nerd-kewl, but am gonna refrain from calling it noble. HA! Good Fun!

we likes fresca. is a beverage we first saw in the 70s back when tab and rc were big sellers. anyways, we like fresca and buy in large quantities. we bought those 24 packs til recent. reason why we don't buy 24 packs is 'cause coca cola don't sell'em no more. coca-cola sells 20 count boxes... and charges same price they were recent selling 24. Gromnir wants fresca, so while we groused a bit 'bout functional price increase, we still paid for 4 less cans o' soda. publishers is no better than coca-cola. publishers ain't offering dlc to makes the world a better place-- they is making Money. dlc is a scheme that works to get you to pay more money for their games, 'cause like we need fresca, you'all need dlc. force everybody to pay more than $50 or $60 or whatever is basic standard day 1 price is gonna result in lost sales and lost dollars for publisher. publisher has no doubt figured out with a very small margin o' error, just how much money they lose by increasing cost of basic game. similarly, publishers know that some folks really need fresca, so they sell ce units and day 1 dlc folks to some folks... make optional. you know, we bets some junkie who is stealing tvs and breaking into cars for loose change is gonna complain if his dealer raises cost of daily fix, but the junkie is still gonna find a way to pay. bet the junkie complains loud and long, but dealer knows the dirty little hollow man is gonna pay somehow, someway. *shrug* publish games has gotten less lucrative in recent years and so dealers is gonna find ways to get their consumers to pay more... oops, we means publishers, not dealers. profits from successful games is having to cover inevitable loses from other games, so publishers has necessarily gotten creative in ways they squeeze blood outta you. is no ethics o' day 1 dlc or such nonsense worth considering. is business. gotta deal with it or get clean... filthy junkies. HA! Good Fun! ps pardon us while we grab our 3rd fresca o' the day.

Why am I the only one that makes fun of the popular usage of "lore?" I went through that list just hoping it would be there. So alone. What's the popular usage of "lore"? I like making fun of the word "immersion" myself. am adding realism/realistic to our list. List: immersion curling canon (particularly fallout or star wars canon... "that isn't what a basilisk war droid looks like" becomes a multi-page thread? really?) realism in reference to game development romance threads... that invariably become gay romance threads discussion of pets dark (often used interchangeably with "real" when discussing theme) twilight books/movies/fans etc. no doubt some folks is hopeful they makes our list *squint menacingly at fellow posters* go ahead, we dares you. HA! Good Fun!

You seem to be under the impression that research is only done for realism, and that realism is the ultimate goal that the developers are trying to achieve. *groan* "keep in mind we has said that first-hand knowledge o activities and serious scholarship may improve writing where author uses details to makes more evocative." "we never claimed that josh or some other poster argued specifically that reality should be a goal" "but again we feels the need to repeat as it keeps getting lost by folks with short attentions spans or those who is intentional obtuse. we is not arguing against research and first-hand knowledge. personal experience may add to flavor o' writing. sadly, some writers/developers get lost in the details, particularly if they genuine believe in the "super-duper" importance of such details." etc. half such responses is directed at you, so am not knowing why you is being so darn obtuse. HA! Good Fun!

No............... I'm asking for further examples of this movement away from realism, since "decades of cRPG development" is a decidedly vague citation. For me, the realistic mechanics that you mention have largely been removed for the sake of accessibility, which is sort of a competing drive at times. Also, things like food, sleep, and wound care have never moved beyond the hyper-abstraction stage, so I think you could consider this a trend towards re-evaluating mechanical abstraction bloat, rather than a departure from realism. Such things suffer from an uncanny valley of sorts as their implementation doesn't constitute realistic simulation, and neither do they tend to be supported by other realistic aspect's of the game's simulation (such as nutrition, degradation over time, poison, disease, and so on in the case of a food mechanic). I will admit that realism can be a bit of a slippery slope; as you introduce realistic elements you oblige yourself to include certain other realistic elements as support, but I don't think that this is a reason to dismiss the potential for fun with more realism. You seem to identify the cRPG genre with the conventions of their execution, such as a reliance on abstractions and a certain way of controlling combat, but I'm more interested in the genre's intended purpose, whether it be interactive storytelling or full-on roleplaying (which is where it gets its name from, after all). I guess that we will have to simply disagree about what defines the RPG. Realistic combat is complex, and potentially fun; it's just a different kind of fun and complexity than the typical abstraction-based approach (which you seemingly inexorably associate with the RPG genre). I'm not going to bother responding from the rest (as I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself), other than mentioning that in fact reality is precisely where we get our precious definition of internal consistency from. clearly at an impasse. you not see food consumption and realistic gold weight as necessarily being attributes o' realism. is no good reason why you think realism is good if oft noted items to include in aspects o' more realistic approach is discounted by you as bloat. your notion o' realistic seems very personal and is more o' a chinese menu approach. you like certain features and others you do not. if you don't think a feature is improving game, then it don't deserve to be included in penumbra o' realistic features. that ain't going for realism so much as it is including stuff in games that You like. likewise, you has chosen a seeming non-definition of crpg such that we has absolutely no notion what you means. you tell us that a sp role-play game don't have to be as we described, and thus our analysis is wrong. you do not however offer any alternative... and use "role-play" to define role-play is... well, am not gonna be rude. "but I don't think that this is a reason to dismiss the potential for fun with more realism." yet again. this were never said by us. scroll back up and find. like most folks, we like some aspects o' reality in our games and is happy to do without. is not necessarily that more realism is good. is surely not that more realism is offering more complexity. conversely, You said, "the thought that- for the sake of being "fun"- cRPG's should be less realistic than PnP RPG's just makes me cringe. " HA! food consumption, weighty gold, wound tending and a host o' other largely anachronistic crpg features mainstays o' pnp games is aspects o' an attempt to infuse reality... and regardless o' you wanting to dismiss such features as largely irrelevant to the present topic, we is thinking you is on a very lonely island with this one. HA! Good Fun!

every time you post, we gets more confused as to what you wants. first time we spoke o' the theoretical game with complete fantastical elements you ask for an example and we gave. then you somehow lift ""cRPG developers' opinions" and "decades worth of cRPG development"" we used to indicate that in many respects, developers has pulled back from reality as computer capacity has increased. and is now somehow using this language as validity for demanding specific examples o' the complete fantastic game. *puzzled* those comments you lift from us is kinda like lifting a comment by us in which we says "our favorite flavor o' ice cream is vanilla. vanilla is most popular and that is what people want most bast on statistics and manufacturer production," and inserting underlined portion into a thread to damn us for suggesting crpg developers is making vanilla. developers has pulled back from reality in many ways. weight of gold. wound care and management. food consumption and sleep. previous stuff woulda' been commonplace 15 years ago, but is now so rare as to be virtual unicorns. " that doesn't mean that combat in a realistic virtual environment can't be fun" which is again, complete unresponsive and misses earlier point. first, you keep seeming to ignore that we is talking crpg. we has noted this aspect a few times. crpg combat is taking at least some o' the control o' the avatar outta your hands... is the point o' having abilities and attributes. if is avatar that is fast and has some kinda lightning double uppercut ability, then it not matter how fast you can hit buttons or if you know how to lands uppercuts. also were sympathy o' realism and complexity you were belaboring. we noted that realistic combat were not particularly complex, particularly in crpg scenario. but all those abilities (akin to magic powers) one gives avatar is making potential complexity limited only by developer whim. can combat in a virtual environment be fun? sure it can, but that ignores Your earlier points. am also gonna note that fact that a cartoony game may have basis in real world physics and settings, nobody in their right mind is gonna be looking for or criticizing the realism o' the physics or environments in such games. can be totally looney tunes, as long as is internally coherent. am not even gonna try and deal with emergent ai. we got no knowledge o' such stuff and as it is not a here-and-now kinda issue, we feels our near absolute ignorance is hardly limiting in a discussion o' complexity and realism in crpgs. HA! Good Fun!

am honestly not understanding what you is trying to say at this point. " "but the point is that Infinity Engine games (and other games that utilize DnD-based rulesets, which were of course first intended for PnP) are about as similar to PnP games as cRPG's get." am not picking nits. seriously. am utter confused. earlier you is talking 'bout capacity o' computers to provide more realism and complexity, but you seems to be fixating on d&d rules and mechanics in games. is kinda a disconnect. tabletop rpgs is bounded by nothing save player imagination. complexity and realism o' a computer game is, in this period o' time, functionally bounded by what graphics will allow, and practically bounded by belief of developers that too much complexity is discouraging, and too much reality is boring. all of which gots nothing to do with d&d per se. sure, neverwinter nights mp had functionality that made it approach pnp and had a graphic component, but the old text-based mp rpgs is gonna be far closer to pnp and they not necessarily is weeded to d&d. am also kinda confused by your simple dismissal o' combat while actual observing the ubiquitous nature o' the element in crpgs, and am not sure what you is getting at with the following: "However, there are plenty of people who enjoy boxing and other combat sports, and I'd suspect that number would be even higher if people could obtain the experience without any of its drawbacks (such as black eyes and broken noses)." is the suggestion that a CRPG boxing simulation would be appealing to boxing aficionados and would somehow reaches the level o' superior complexity you yearn for in a game? in a fighting game, skills is left up to the player, so you got the player mix the 4 basic punches how he chooses, and allows 'em to do own footwork. a crpg is gonna necessarily takes some o' the boxing away from player and replace it with player choosing abilities or skills or whatever... then watching as avatar boxes. by making boxing a crpg activity you is pretty much reducing complexity from reality. how you ADD complexity w/o reducing reality? give a vast menu o' super-power skills and abilities that each has counters and defenses? 'course not. that is what current fantasy and sci-fi games does, and while it would increase complexity as far as rules makers is wishing to take, it sure decreases reality, don't it? as for a theoretical game using complete fantastic elements. okie dokie, you is a quasi conscious bubble o' gas "living" in red spot o' jupiter. goal is to grok. does this by "exploring" a complete alien environment with no discernible up or down and including a few o' those additional, albeit small dimensions beyond those we humans is familiar. enjoy. sure, we gotta have some frame-o-reference so that us persons o' matter can comprehend such an abstract game, but setting and challenges can be complete fantastic and only the most obtuse expert o' jovian environments is gonna get twisted 'cause game doesn't match reality. too abstract? fine, make a game based on cartoon logic and physics. is a new mmo that is looking like it is going more cartoon than realism (wildstar) and it seems to be much anticipated. is distancing itself from reality and gaining fans before it is even released. "I also don't think it has to be all-or-nothing when it comes to realism." irony. am reviewing the first sentence o' your post. and am struck by how last sentence directed at us is so full o' irony. HA! Good Fun! ps might as well simplify as this is getting pretty far-flung. am disagreeing with you 'bout capacity o' computers to do complex and real better. am also not getting the d&d stuff. that being said, from time before Gromnir has posted, some folks has asked for greater realism. nevertheless, developers o' crpgs has avoided realism that is commonplace in pnp rpgs... stuff that once were common in crpgs. as developers capacity to do more has expanded exponentially, many aspects o' realism has been abandoned. such is not coincidence. nevertheless, there will always be peoples who want more realism, and that ain't necessarily bad. regardless observing that peoples claims that "cRPG's should be less realistic than PnP RPG's just makes me cringe" is unfortunately puting you at odds wit decades worth o' crpg development. additionally, am gonna reiterate that complexity and realism ain't got no direct correlation or even sympathy, particular in a crpg. we already noted how realistic combat is not gonna be more complex in a crpg. similarly, while magic is usually linked to combat in crpgs, the magic system itself may be as complex as the developer cares to make it, and the realism o' such magic can approach nil. should magic be internally coherent? will many players demand that a magic system follow its own game logic? of course. that is not same as being realistic. sadly, am just not certain that wecan find points o' agreement as we are disagreeing fundamentals

our next tweet will be our first. 140 character limit, yes? is not a medium suited to our disposition. such spontaneous ejaculation is vulgar and invariably disappointing. also, as it is an internet kinda thing, there is no "take backsees." you say something stoopid and it is out there, forever. 140 characters probably not gonna lead to serious reflection, so am guessing that people is frequently spreading their premature... thoughts, all over the interweb. we looked at linky and all we could see were that dave's cat is back... he is trying to quit smoking... there is a new Devil's Dictionary for kids o' the information age that we has been blissfully unawares. how the hell you get 9k people following such stuff? am doubting dave's tweets is worse than anybody else, but lord knows we can't bear to read such. HA! Good Fun!