Gromnir

... numerous meddlesome gods is a horrible idea. first of all, meddlesome gods who grant powhaz ruins Faith as a meaningful theme or element. also, a plethora o' gods just compounds our annoyance, particularly if deity choice for priests and/or paladins has gameplay impact. suddenly gots a legion o' folks worshiping Hilrad, the god of squirrels stuck down by speeding wagons, 'cause Hilrad's granted powers is most efficacious. meddlesome gods is an unfortunate addition to game, but as such gods will be included, we would likes if choice o' deity had negligible advantages. *sigh* of course, we recognize that people want groovy abilities to attach to their deity choices, so at the very least, keep the deity choices few as to be able to better balance. did we mention that numerous meddlesome gods is a horrible idea? HA! Good Fun!

am actually feeling some sympathy for chrisA 'cause playing arcanum "sounds pretty boring." tim cain is at obsidian, so am doubting we would get unvarnished reactions from chrisA regarding arcanum, but am suspecting that watching chrisA suffer would be marginally more entertaining than playing. HA! Good Fun!

In other words your point is....what exactly? That it's ok to chop the plot and leave large gaps in logic and that it doesn't need to be reasonable as long as they use words that people are familiar with because they evoke emotion? Sounds kind of like what BioWare did(specifically with Mass Effect 3 more than other games).....yeah, let's just go for the emotional responses, we don't need dialogue and a cohesive plot so let's just chop the ending...yeah, that sounds like a good idea. That always works out so well..... wow. beat on that strawman a bit more if it makes you feel better... makes you look a bit silly though... more silly than you star wars argument were. use of "soul" and emotionally heavy language necessarily leads to plot holes and unreasonableness? HA! wanna try again? HA! Good Fun!

*sigh* look. is easy to imagine malevolent deities, right? we got real world examples, and we can understand from pov of game mechanics, yes? so what is difficult about understanding the worship of malevolent game deities when they is meddlesome. is not imagined, but has genuine and tangible benefits to worship. we mention sedna above. is hard to imagine sedna demanding large numbers of drowning sacrifices? is hard to imagine a seafaring culture that might take to next step and resort to widespread evils to not only appease sedna but to garner her blessings? am not seeing the difficulty in grasping. game deities not depend on Faith. is tangible benefits to following tenants of faith... which is just one reason why we loathe game deities. HA! Good Fun!

historically, you are incorrect. is more than a few malevolent gods in real world mythology that followers attempt to placate. sedna is a good example if you is wanting am example. ... am hesitant to mention as it no doubt will cause problems. is a good argument that the judeo-christian God were a creation of jewish scholars as kinda a metaphor for chaos of the universe. ever read some old testament stuff and wonder why G seemed like such a wanker? anywho... lots of malevolent gods in rl mythology who gots "worshipers." HA! Good Fun! The difference between an 'evil religion' and a religion in which the god or gods in question come across as ***holes is important. Almost all 'real world' religions of any significance fall into the latter category. You don't worship the God because he's malevolent and go around doing horrible things for him so as to make the world that much worse; you fear him and try to appease him so he won't turn his malevolence on you. again. a large number real world mythologies include examples that reject your position. am not a personal fan of pantheons and game deities in general, but malevolent deities with followers and priests is a historical reality. ... kinda makes sense if you thinks about how terrible and brutal life can be in some places where people has lived. is not hard to imagine that god hates you when you lives in places with terrible weather or frequent plagues and you take shelter in mud huts and have fire sharpened wood sticks as your only weapons to fend off those beasties that lurk in the darkness. now imagine a world where you gots actual observable manifestations of god's ill will towards you and your people. worship evil deities to keep 'em from smiting you? is not much of a stretch for us. HA! Good Fun!

we replied to all you said, but we only quoted relevant. seriously, you is still trying to argue that force-as-antagonist is a major theme in the original star wars core movies? and you were the one who said you didn't want to discuss kotor2 shortcomings here. so, you got what you want. quit complaining. and again, "As I said, it's early in pre-development but I felt they were burning more bridges than necessary in terms of where they could go from here," is meaningless rhetoric. "soul" is a loaded word, but as much as you think it hinders, it expands. "apple" is not an emotionally charged word, but "soul" is. games ain't novels. can't use hundreds of pages to develop a concept. limited space. limited dialogue encounters. audience with a limited attention span. game developers need to embrace brevity. they likely need to use archetypes and familiar themes. they need to be creative, but they gotta use what players bring with them to the game. the notion that use of "soul" "burns bridges" ignores the fact that certain words cut straight to subconscious, and particularly in a game, that is a good thing. some people have an emotional reaction to use of soul? yes. duh. HA! Good Fun!

historically, you are incorrect. is more than a few malevolent gods in real world mythology that followers attempt to placate. sedna is a good example if you is wanting am example. ... am hesitant to mention as it no doubt will cause problems. is a good argument that the judeo-christian God were a creation of jewish scholars as kinda a metaphor for chaos of the universe. ever read some old testament stuff and wonder why G seemed like such a wanker? anywho... lots of malevolent gods in rl mythology who gots "worshipers." HA! Good Fun!

... is one thing that immediate comes to mind as more soul-numbing than watching you play arcanum: playing arcanum our self. buggy, unbalanced and unforgivably dull. we can handle any number o' shortcomings in a game, but dull is a deal breaker. HA! Good Fun!

weird is fine. when developers stop at weird, it is bad. far too often the obsidian writers work to make their companions weird w/o developing the Character. fall-from-grace is memorable as a reflective/chaste succubus, but not 'cause of what she says or does. don't even get us started on vhailor shortcomings. morte, on the other hand, is a fully developed character with a history that we learn incrementally. morte story is, perhaps, not as important as tno, but morte story enhances tno significantly. we feels great sympathy for morte when we learn the full scope of his relationship with tno. we see tno's character different than we would w/o morte. kreia is also a fantastic companion. is almost as if we get to have ravel puzzlewell as a companion. has the final (if not main) antagonist be a companion? that alone is noteworthy, yes? make weird is ok as long as you develop. HA! good Fun!

indeed it did. most of the games mentioned had some infrequent bits o' flavor related to some o' the deity choices. very few. HA! Good Fun!

your observation identifies at least part o' the problem. the "great selection" made it kinda impractical for developers to respond to your choice of deities in those forgotten realms games. our issue with game religion is different than yours, although you mentioned many times. faith is not a factor in the crpgs you mention... or any other we can immediate recollect. there was some lip-service played to questions of faith in dragon age, but that is as close as we can come without more thought. gods with tangible manifestations o' powhaz is an unfortunate trope. chrisA really wanna do some meaningful trope bashing? use faith in pe. HA! Good Fun!

Depends how much you care to read into the philosophy of the movies but it is there nonetheless.....takes a lot of cutting to make a movie fit in two hours. sorry, but cutting room floor dont count... and if you gotta "read into," then it isn't a major theme, is it? "it seemed like they are putting together a weak core for the lore" again, based on a snippet from an off-site preview interview? ... ok. regardless, we has seen obsidian deal with the freewill theme before, and they handled it with mixed results. motb? so-so. kotor2? pretty good. their failures with the freewill stuff is not related to some ambiguous notion o' a "weak core." HA! Good Fun! I don't think this has much worth discussing past saying the force is the main driving core of the Star Wars lore the part quoted above is the only truth you stated. is near nonexistent discussion of the force as robbing individuals of free will... and clear ain't a main theme. come now... argue to silliness does not help your position. kreia were claiming that the ultimate antagonist of kotor2 were the Force.... but we do agree it ain't worth discussing further. the thing we is trying to get you to state (and am failing to do so) is how the snippet referenced can somehow result in burnt bridges. from the fragment quoted, we analogized to Dune. we can see possibility of souls limited to id. we can see souls with ego. we can see the entire impact of souls left ambiguous but ubiquitous. given how little obsidian said, the possibility o' a bridge being burnt is negligible... and as imagination is hardly as limited as the army corps of engineers- there is theoretically unlimited places to ford your river of doubts. so... HA! Good Fun!

1) we disagree that the problem is the ridiculous axis the axis is kinda lame, but is not the attempt to create positive/negative options that is the problem... in our estimation. 2) insular evil is lame folks who does game-style evil frequently would end up ostracized or institutionalized. take old lady's purse, kick a puppy into on-coming traffic or sell your sister into slavery or... whatever. recognizably Insular evil acts is... petty. evil don' work so well in bite-sized morsels. need evil for a purpose to be seeming reasonable... fulfill some goal. would be interesting for obsidian to construct an Evil Plan for the player... would needs be almost a game-in-a-game. that being said, the dialogue mechanic with largely insular choices is the problem, not the axis itself. HA! Good Fun!

Depends how much you care to read into the philosophy of the movies but it is there nonetheless.....takes a lot of cutting to make a movie fit in two hours. sorry, but cutting room floor dont count... and if you gotta "read into," then it isn't a major theme, is it? "it seemed like they are putting together a weak core for the lore" again, based on a snippet from an off-site preview interview? ... ok. regardless, we has seen obsidian deal with the freewill theme before, and they handled it with mixed results. motb? so-so. kotor2? pretty good. their failures with the freewill stuff is not related to some ambiguous notion o' a "weak core." HA! Good Fun!

point out the genuine unique discussion on this board regarding a crpg feature or issue. duh. HA! Good Fun!

the star war movies do Not focus on free will as a major theme. incidental theme? perhaps, but is not a main issue. we got no idea what is explored in the plethora o' books, cartoons and comics, but the suggestion that free will and force is a major theme from core star wars material would be a gross overstatement. as to the complaint 'bout pe magic... huh? based on snippet you is presuming that the theme in question is not fully explored or realized in the game? hell, the pe notion o' 'souls' and free will is not even particularly unique. a famous example is the dune series and alia's struggles. am hardly worried that obsidian will fail to develop or explore. in fact, am more worried that they do the opposite. leave somewhat vague is better than doing some silly exposition to fully explain. let player fill in the gaps is better than attempting to answer all questions. HA! good Fun!

didn't read the whole thread, but we have no problem with the premise of past souls and free will. kotor2 had some problems, but we very much liked the exploration o' free will in a world/galaxy wherein the force could exert influence on individuals to create balance. not like 'soul' nomenclature? fine. 'soul' is a very evocative word given judeo-christian impact on western culture... am guessing that the impact o' 'soul' is very much intended. look at it another way. imagine that all magic in pe is tied to invocation o' spirits, and that ultimately there is uncertainty as to whether mages is controlling spirits or the reverse. not difficult to understand. eh? use 'soul' terminology simply makes the concept more evocative, but is functionally no different. oh, and as we said, we didnt read totality of the thread, so if we repeated what somebody else already stated, we apologize. HA! Good Fun!

these is the guys that made ps:t. chrisA did some stoopid things in ps:t. why no swords? was a good reason for lack o' swords? no, but chrisA were tired o' seeing magic swords in crpgs. lack o' swords didn't bother Gromnir, but there were never a good reason to exclude. again, these is the guys that made ps;t, and for anybody that followed the ps:t boards, they can tell you that people complained that there were no dwarves and elves and there were complaints that the protagonist was fixed and could not be a dwarf or elf... or female. chrisA were a bit immature when he made ps:t. he were tired o' seeing stuff in crpgs, so he did not include such stuff. the thing is, the people playing ps:t were not tired o' such stuff. would ps:t have been a worse game if it had elves, dwarves and swords? 'course not. the planescape setting included the aforementioned without any difficulty. the obsidian developers has no doubt learned that giving people the largely trivial stuff they want is a good idea. if the developers got a good reason to exclude popular stuff, then they should exclude... and will exclude. nevertheless, inclusion of elves does not necessarily make a game good or bad. how elves and dwarves gets implemented IS important, but bare-naked existence is a non-factor save that it makes a majority o' potential players happy. HA! Good Fun!

alignment is stoopid. really. as a game mechanic, it is just asinine to be including. please reference more than a decade of such threads on interplay/bis/obsidian message boards. paladins and priests... am personally not a fan of such as we thinks tangible expressions o' divine power ruin a meaningful and unexplored crpg theme: faith. that being said, the only way we would be complete happy with priest and paladin implementation in a god realized world is if a deity-specific code were being included for such classes. gonna get divine powers? then you gotta follow code. a 'good' god of war is gonna have different tenants and prohibitions than will a god of agriculture... and a goodly dwarven god o' war might have different prohibitions than a similar human or elven deity with a similar portfolio. ... the thing is, from a practical pov, we know that having a deity-specific code for each god or godling is... impractical? dunno. in a pnp game, a dm or gm typically forces the player to follow a code of conduct to retain status as a repository o' divine powhaz. gm subtly or explicit guides player so that they is knowing what sort of actions will attract divine wrath and repudiation. is easy in pnp, but am not seeing a good way to implement in a crpg. oh, and once again, alignment is stoopid. HA! Good Fun!

pong-- no developer story, but it created loads o' gameplay hours. we like story, but smarty developers know that a game with good gameplay can be engaging regardless o' story quality. reverse is not necessarily true. bad gameplay can ruin game. not matter how good writing is if gameplay sux. HA! Good Fun!

as much as we loathe the fanboi mentality, we suspect that such nonsense has very little impact on game quality. can fanboi's, with tacit support of the developer, chill debate on message boards? sure. if you is the seemingly lone voice o' criticism on a board and you is attacked and insulted by the TRUE minions of Cain or Bioware or Lucas, the average person will leave rather than endure abuse. am thinking that the bioware fanboi's were a bit amazed and appalled when the developers actually showed acceptance (and maybe even approval) of Gromnir's harsh criticisms of bg and bg fanbois. 'course that were a long time ago and the culture at bio changed. we got banned 'cause we wouldn't stop criticizing the mass effect dialogue wheel. go figure. nevertheless, to suggest that bioware game quality diminished in anyway because o' the absence o' more heated board debates would be a bit narcissistic and altogether myopic. reality check: message boards is more a cheap advertising option for developers and publishers than they is 'bout being an integral part of the game development process. message boards help build anticipation for games and they is a natural incubator for growing a diehard fanbase. message boards is far less expensive than tv commercials, but they help sell games. fanbois is a cancer on message boards (maybe call'em a Caincer as is nothing worse than a cain fanboi) but ultimately, a cancer-ridden message board does not necessarily result in a diseased game. a diseased message board that helps sell games is still a Win for developers and publishers. HA! Good Fun!

why "cleric?" rpg cleric is a d&d oddity. a priest (gender-neutral) that can be casting spells and can't use swords? is the kinda thing that probable gets a special chapter in the malleus maleficarum. am suggesting that obsidian drop the link 'tween priests and healing magic... and the repelling o' undead and demons. exorcist ain't some kinda sacrament either-- is a lay occupation. want healing mages or alchemists or arcane scienists? why not, but don't limit to priests... and definitely don't limit to "cleric." HA! Good Fun!

1) crap ending interplay/black isle/obsidian has been consistent world-beaters in one category. is not storytelling, game stability or engaging game mechanics. nope. the obsidian guys tends to do lousy endings. really. the only game from these guys in which we had a genuine satisfying conclusion were, oddly enough, iwd. now, perhaps we can blame publishers for the way kotor 2 were concluded, but most o' the rest o' their catalog is equally anti-climactic. so... avoid craptacular endings. number 1. biggie. 2) dove/visas mar is some obsinatie npcs that is just written gawd offal. is as if the writers come up with the quirky concept, and then quit. even worse, they tries to add depth by adding pseudo-philosophizing dialogue. for eternity, make characters that DO compelling rather than say compelling... 'cause the stuff obsinaties sometimes has their characters say is just terrible. don't need characters that is actually a highly sophisticated clockwork, or is some kinda colony o' slime molds that has take human form... not if they is gonna spout fortune cookie dialogue. 3) +3 greatswords that do electrical damage & stun iwd had this nifty random weapon drop, and it were freaking ridiculously unbalanced. were hardly the only weapon that were unbalanced in that game. am s'posing that as guys who likes to play games, the developers wanna make kewl weapons as much as we want to find kewl weapons. the thing is, a kewl weapon can seriously mess up game balance. fo:nv had a couple such weapons, so is not as if the obsinaties has left this obstacle in their rear-view mirror. as nifty as ultimate weapons may seem to be, please make'em a bit less nifty in eternity. obvious best weapons that everybody wants, should be avoided. 4) end boss with nine lives is not necessarily an obsidian thing (not solely) but am not sure when it became popular for developers to make bosses with multiple lives. gotta kill material form, then energy form, then spiritual form... or some such nonsense. no respawning from stasis cocoons, or using corpses to reanimate self or anything remotely similar. 5) eating is an exercise in the tedious. make us carry food and occasionally eat is just a waste o' game time. same with drinking. am pretty sure such stuff were optional in fo:nv. were considered hard-mode or ironman or somesuch. *snort* we had quick travel, so what were the point? even so, at least in fo:nv it were an optional thing, so if you includes such silliness in eternity, make it optional. ... gonna stop at 5 for now... much more and we might seem like we is grumpy. HA! Good Fun!

am not liking the call of the question. is tragedy more dramatic than... what? need context. ... am s'posing it is ultimately irrelevant. given the setting and genre, we will assume that eternity gots a heroic tale... just as did bg, iwd, ps:t, fallout and all other games from which eternity is 'posedley drawing inspiration. the Real question, in our opinion, is whether or not eternity story will involve sacrifice. heroism and sacrifice is necessarily intertwined. am guessing that some folks will debate that point, but for the nonce we will assume that it is axiomatic. regardless, game mechanics makes some heroic sacrifices far less meaningful. run into burning building to save a child is heroic 'cause the hero is placing his own life in the balance, but in a game with reload, we know that the hero won't genuine die. is much more difficult to makes for meaningful sacrifice when you gots functional immortal heroes. am recalling discussing this point in the context of the, "dragon age will be more mature and dark" threads over at bioware boards. we were genuinely shocked by the feedback we were seeing. Gromnir suggested that to be mature, dark, and meaningful heroic, the writers would be necessarily forcing the players to make hard choices with no obvious easy win options. we further suggested that such choices would needs have genuine costs that would not just be borne by the character, but by the Player. we were stunned at the numbers and volume of dissenters to our way o' thinking. maybe not a majority, but something close to 50%, were not wanting any hard choices in DA, and they sure as heck didn't want any meaningful sacrifices. we were informed, quite forcibly, that da were a Game. games were 'posed to be fun... escapism from real world hardships. rare is Gromnir shocked by fan feedback, but we were genuine shocked at the response to DA claims o' dark & mature. so, leaving aside the near impossibility o' finding a generally accepted definition o' dark or mature, we instead focus on sacrifice. heroic tale need heroic sacrifice. those sacrifices should be considerable fuel for Drama, but the real question is whether or not the eternity fanbase is the same as the da fanbase: do you actually want hard choices and sacrifice? well, do you? HA! Good Fun!

see, the thing is, the romances really is that shallow. they is optional. they is tangential. they is necessarily brief. we got no idea why folks like them... but that doesn't change the fact that people do like them. while they seem like a horrible waste o' resources that will, at best, result in a childish and immature romantic side-quest, as long as they remain optional, we will not complain too much. HA! Good Fun!