Gromnir

do NOT rely on wikipedia. and do not read wrong. *smacks calax with rolled newspaper* bad. HA! Good Fun!

is no real fence worth straddling at the moment. 2nd Amendment precludes much in the way o' meaningful gun control options. times and weapons have changed since founders penned the Bill o' Rights. that not change the fact that the founders were no doubt wanting private citizens to have weapons with which to defend themselves not only from foreign armies, indians (our relatives insist that indians is the pc term nowadays for native americans... so confusing) and the infrequent rabid possum, but also to defend self from the US government. option is to change 2nd Amendment... which currently seems unlikely. never forget that what we gots here in the US is a revolutionary government and a Bill o' Rights that were revealing a very deep lack o' faith that the fed powers would effective protect our freedom and liberty. these infrequent tragedies, such as one in CT, are wonderful for getting folks riled up 'bout gun control, but is all sound and fury. change 2nd Amendment. oh, and keeps in mind that gun control laws in norway is relative strict. didn't keeps anders breivik from killing... we forget how many. more than 70? HA! Good Fun! ps we personally think it is stoopid for folks to have handguns and ak-47s n' such. this ain't personal. this is the law. the Constitution gots a process for being changed. gonna have to change to do something meaningful. The problem is that the second amendment is maddeningly unclear, undefined and unhelpful. It can be twisted to fit any whim and in fact constantly is - I'm pretty sure that less than a percent of people defending it have ever read it and those who have still don't have an understanding of the word "regulated". the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller would seem to disagree with you, and is the Court that interprets the Law. and again, regardless of whether you think the Amendment is outdated or outlandish, it is the Law... and there IS a process to change such laws. HA! Good Fun!

A), I don't see any reasoning here other than "classes are CLEARLY, OBVIOUSLY, BLATANTLY terrible and crappy and are just a safe choice to make money," which is none. It's just a statement with no presented basis. B), Do you want Skyrim, in which you can literally max out every single character-progression option in the game, on 6 different party members? And, if not, what's so terrible about simply labeling and organizing the various spectrums of choices available to the player? to point A... josh sawyer disagrees with you. am kinda curious to see if josh direct responds to issue o' eternity classes seeing as how they don't seem to fall in line with his espoused notions on the issue. have classes means that you Fix certain abilities to certain classes. looks up the definition-- classes divide and limit. hell, the classes themselves is arbitrary. did obsidian give a gameplay rationale for 4 core classes? nope. is a d&d holdover that was chosen 'cause o' tradition (i.e expectations). maximize freedom o' player choice and options would seem like a good thing in a single-player crpg, no? point B is just plain... stoopid. seriously. recall that obsidian is peopled by many of the guys who made fallout. point to a bethesda product and say that obsidian would fail 'cause it sucked in skyrim? that wasn't Really your argument, was it? btw, there is one aspect o' classes that is very beneficial to crpg development. d&d developed from tabletop wargaming, so classes is understandable (if harmful) holdovers... 'cause in wargaming, individual units gots to have quantifiable and comparable strengths and weakness. why need to know actual strengths 'cause traditional tabletop wargaming is PvP. balance is extreme important in a pvp game. choose black in chess and get huge advantage woulda kinda suck, no? balance is a far easier task with classes... but eternity ain't pvp. balance is still important, but not anywhere near as important as increasing player freedom and choice, no? HA! Good Fun!

is no real fence worth straddling at the moment. 2nd Amendment precludes much in the way o' meaningful gun control options. times and weapons have changed since founders penned the Bill o' Rights. that not change the fact that the founders were no doubt wanting private citizens to have weapons with which to defend themselves not only from foreign armies, indians (our relatives insist that indians is the pc term nowadays for native americans... so confusing) and the infrequent rabid possum, but also to defend self from the US government. option is to change 2nd Amendment... which currently seems unlikely. never forget that what we gots here in the US is a revolutionary government and a Bill o' Rights that were revealing a very deep lack o' faith that the fed powers would effective protect our freedom and liberty. these infrequent tragedies, such as one in CT, are wonderful for getting folks riled up 'bout gun control, but is all sound and fury. change 2nd Amendment. oh, and keeps in mind that gun control laws in norway is relative strict. didn't keeps anders breivik from killing... we forget how many. more than 70? HA! Good Fun! ps we personally think it is stoopid for folks to have handguns and ak-47s n' such. this ain't personal. this is the law. the Constitution gots a process for being changed. gonna have to change to do something meaningful.

*chuckle* kids these days. *shakes head sadly* at least stay on-topic. example: the notion of rationed pauses is passing odd. for the purists, pause is a less than ideal concession to pnp turn-based roots. turns is giving more opportunity for tactical consideration than is pause or real-time. sadly, as fergie has identified in the past, even the bestest turn-based can be "soul-numbing." pause allows on-the-fly tactical reorganization... something we hope is necessary in eternity. if we were not Needing frequent pauses to order our small army/party, we would be disappointed as it would be revealing a dearth o' enemy ai sophistication. only reason we can see to limit pauses would be to hide developer shortcomings regarding ai... which is bad. end example see, if you is gonna be a putz, at least contribute something on-topic. makes it less likely that you will get us pruned for your bad form. thanking you in advance for your future compliance, we is, as always... Gromnir HA! Good Fun!

no crpg sacred cow is more deserving of being ground into hamburger than is the Core Class nonsense. really. ... the black isle refugees that is now working at/as obsidian is clear understanding that rejecting the dominant paradigm can be fraught with peril. chrisA's vanity cost black isle dearly when he chose to take roads less traveled in ps:t. (though, let us be honest, frequent chrisA took alternate path for no purpose other than to be different.) people expect core classes? yeah, we suspect they do. is far easier and safer to give players what they want than to give them... better. is nothing you can do with core classes that you cannot also accomplish if you get out the meat grinder and go to work on old bessie. core-less system can makes sneaky characters or mage characters or healers. heck, with core-less you can make effective sneaky mages who heal. no core classes = more potential choice for player customization. more player choice in a crpg? that is a good thing, right? look, we get why obsidian give us core-- is the safe move. nothing wrong with playing safe when a big bag o' money is on the line. nevertheless, we is more than a little disappointed that that the obsidians (many who has argued in favor o' classless over core for years n' years, n' yearsn'yearsn'yearsn'years, etc.) is keeping bessie around for yet another crpg incarnation. that fat bovine needs to get put down... hard. HA! Good Fun! ps we had a warning + linky to a certain apocalypse now scene... decided to remove in case kiddies and/or peta members is viewing.

am thinking that it ain't good to fixate on good v. bad or categories o' villainhood. is "villainhood" a word? no? well, you know what Gromnir means. in our opinion the reason why most villains seems ridiculous is 'cause it is near impossible to empathize with a somebody who wants to rule or destroy the world-- Not sympathy mind you, but empathy. rule world? why? what does world rule get you that you cant' some other far less exhausting way? and world destruction is also having obvious problems for empathy... but is actual probable easier to pull of than world rule. villainous motivation and goals is what writers need focus 'pon. Lord Blackspoon's wife were killed in a senseless runaway griffon accident, so he gets despondent and wants to kill all life in the world? nope. bad. am realizing that the drive to be Epic can be strong, but that not excuse bad motivation. focus on motivations and goals. HA! Good Fun!

vol has a point. in this game we will suffer trauma. we will be shot, stabbed, battered and used likes a chew toy by creatures o' mythic proportion and surly disposition. such is the fate of an adventurer in a crpg. not matter if you is in arcanum universe, d&d or fallout, the fact that you will be injured frequently and seriously is inevitable. crpgs is not reality, so don't talk us to death 'bout reality. all crpgs has got some mechanic whereby an adventurer or hero may endure injuries that should be fatal. the sheer number o' combats a crpg adventurer may conceivably survive beggars the imagination. healing stims and doctor bags coupled with a good night's rest is no more real than is healing potions and spells... aided by a good night's rest. however, it would be passing odd to have a magic world wherein the necessarily miraculous healing mechanic is something mundane such as a roll o' cloth bandages and a nap. fallout uses more mundane items to perform miraculous healing 'cause the setting does not have magic. even so, the healing in fallout is no less spectacular than the healing in the forgotten realms. ... honestly, this feels a bit like chrisA's silly avoidance o' swords for tno in planescape. am not a fan o' the ubiquity o' magic swords our self, but their absence from the planescape arsenal were odd. why can't the Nameless One use a sword? because chrisA said so. why in a world of commonplace miracles made possible by magic must we have dirty bandages and a sawbones performing the miracle healings? 'cause tim cain or chrisA or josh sawyer said so. whatever rationale is provided, it is gonna seem more than a little ridiculous and a bit patronizing... 'cause as a crpg adventurer you will be getting Miraculous Healing, regardless o' whether or not obsidian calls it magical or mundane. can we conceive of a magical world with no magical healing? we can imagine such a world wherein peoples can heave fireballs and yet still die ignobly 'cause o' amoebic dysentery. Bob the Bold may have the Sword of INFINITY, but he died after he received a shallow cut on his thigh from a peasant with a fire sharpened stick. the wound became infected and festered, and Bob the Bold became Bob the Fevered... followed shortly by Bob the Dead. can we imagine? of course we can... but that ain't the issue. project eternity is a crpg in which you gets frequent shot, stabbed, battered and used likes a chew toy by creatures o' mythic proportion and surly disposition. there will be miraculous healing. will just be passing odd that the miraculous healing will be non-magical. HA! Good Fun!

the other extreme is just as bad. "Good evening Mr. Bond. Sit. Have a martini. Shaken, not stirred, correct? I am about to unleash a ********* that will kill ***********, but that is no reason to be uncivilized. Do you like my collection of etchings? You do not have voiceprint authorization for that action, Dave. My programming has changed. The success of the mission must come first. Would you like to play a nice game of chess? Am I not all the more terrifying because of my emotionless and monotone voice?" the shodan, hal 9000, yxunomei stuff is as overused as the Sarevok Evil Laugh. is ok to use, but be original or purposeful in using either extreme. HA! Good Fun!

thumbing noses at cliches w/o a meaningful purpose is stoopid. ps:t sales were stoopid given how much interplay spent on development. why no swords? 'cause chrisA were tired of swords? took YEARS and many reduced price releases for ps:t to finally break even... which is a loss as far as publisher and anybody that matters is concerned. is not as if there were no swords in game, just none usable by tno. why? people like swords-- they like elves and dwarves. the planescape setting had swords and elves and dwarves and were just as nifty and irreverent as ps:t. so what were the Purpose in subverting the common tropes people actual were wanting? chrisA's tongue-in-cheek mockery of crpg tropes were very funny. am wondering if the titter he got from avoiding tropes people Like were worth the crappy sales his game got. were a joke for himself with a Big cost in long run. were there a reason or explanation for absence o' swords or were it simple a frustrating absence for peoples who like swords? keep in mind that ps:t were our favorite crpg, but chrisA were perhaps a bit immature with his practical joke on crpg fans. subvert dominant paradigm and embrace iconoclasm... but do with a purpose other than just to be different. callow teens maybe get piercings, dye hair or go goth for a year or two. "Look at me!" is kinda childish, but nobody gets hurt. the thing is game development is too expensive and chrisA is too old to be indulging such immature impulses. HA! Good Fun!

Actually, real balance is an undesirable state. Real balance means that everyone has an equal chance at everything, everyone does the same damage, etc. Real balance means everyone is equivalent. Which makes for an *incredibly* boring game. this is called strawman. *shrug* people, against their own advantage, want to win. if you, as a developer, provide a clear winning build, power or whatever, a disproportionate % of people will choose the win. such an eventuality is not good for numerous reasons discussed above. HA! Good Fun! No offense, but it's not even remotely close to a strawman. In fact, calling it a strawman is closer to being a strawman. It's math. Pick your variable. Damage? If any class deals 1 more point of DPS than the other classes, it's "A clear winning build" because it'll be superior to everyone else at all times. Experience? If any class or skill allows the player to gain more experience than the others, it's "A clear winning build". You have two options. 1. Everyone is the same. 2. There's "A clear winning build". Every system that does not make all choices identical will have "A clear winning build", because the math will work out differently for each choice. The only way you can get a system without "A clear winning build" is if all of the math results in the same value for every choice, which means you have everyone the same. it is strawman 'cause we never made the argument that he is trying to beat the stuffing out of. do you know what strawman is? regardless, am just repeating self if we again explain. save to nrefute the ridiculousness of you claiming that a 1pt increase in difference would be viewed as = "a clear winning build." such a notion is only possible if you has been complete ignorant of boards such as these, or is being willful obtuse. getting people to agree 'bout anything on these boards is extreme difficult. people will disagree 'bout your math or the circumstances in which math actually apply. and the more choices and classes you got, with more powers and skills, the closer it becomes to impossible to have some simple mathematic comparison that folks agree is valid. d&d 3.0, before splat book explosion, had lots o' choices, but a limited number o' classes and there were no single winning build people agreed 'pon... but there were probable 10 or so builds that were commonly mentioned as superior. your 1 and 2 is... silly. HA! Good Fun!

If you look at the old greek literature, the human nature was celebrated at every doorstep. For example, envy was very much understood as a motive, not shunned or ignored. a bit myopic. greeks had different values, so some stuff we see as admirable (e.g. humility) were not embraced by greeks. also, while sophocles could make us weep at the beauty o' the human spirit, he were hardly the only writer to consider humanity. aeschylus, on the other hand, often focused 'pon human frailties in all their unvarnished corruption and evil. HA! Good Fun!

heroism black hound religon pe should be this much fun HA! Good Fun!

Who gives a ****** about it?! am suspecting that you have a ... problem. Gromnir says that developers does, and always has, worked to prevent the power builds that results in a clear win. you disagreed, saying that developers hasn't done so in past and that there wouldn't be a point in any event. we give examples wherein developers has done exactly the kinda curb o' powergame shinnanigans we describe. you largely ignore examples and pretend such measures never were or you attempt to redefine. for example, we note that the 3e ranger did not break the game, but any person with a powergame leaning would only take 1 level... and an extreme large % o' player were only taking 1 level. ranger weren't too weak or too strong or even bugged, but a disproportionate number o' folks had 1 stinking level o' ranger. etc. is developers looking for game break? sure, but that ain't all they is trying to prevent. a clear win build is not a build that wins game. a win build is a clear best build. there is similar reason they wanna rid selves of clear worst builds. regardless o' people liking the notion of bards, if they is the least powerful class, few people will play. balancing is not simply removing the, "I win button." "There will always be better or worse builds." so? is more strawman as nobody ever denied that point. lord knows that telling us that there should be a difference between 16 str and 18 str is pointless... but it is not relevant in the present context... though am glad you ignorantly bring up as it is just one reason why developers changed to point-buy. duh. oh, and adding lots o' exclamation points makes you seem desperate. ideally, any 1 power or skill or stat choice is gonna be equivalent to any other power or skill or stat choice... but that is an idealized notion and developers ain't gonna kill selves trying to make sure that a player always gets exactly as much juice from adding 1 point of str as they does by adding 1 point of charisma... or whatever. never has Gromnir argued such a point. that being said, developers continues to work to avoid the situation in which peoples feel stoopid for Not choosing a particular power, skill, stat choice or build. look at hiro's post above: "I don't understand why people are comparing powergaming to cheating. Powergaming isn't cheating, it's just min-maxing and optimising your character. Doesn't everybody want the best out of their characters? I know I do. " crpg is about making choices. you get to make make choices in dialogues. you also gets to make character building choices. hiro is a normal player with understandable motivations who want to optimize his character. if there is one clear optimal power, skill or build, he will take it. providing clear optimal choices makes the other choices largely meaningless for anybody who has a tendency to powergame... which is bad. am suspecting this ain't ever gonna get through... but it not matter. "Who gives a ****** about it?!" well, clearly the developers do. that is why they fix such stuff. that is why they will continue to fix. HA! Good Fun!

am not sure how you isn't getting this. perhaps it is confusion 'cause of nomenclature and unnecessary importance put on labels. a class or build that is disproportional powerful IS a balance issue. you answer your own questions, and somehow get to wrong answers. is wacky. why didn't josh include his avatar o' death kit? why was harm changed? why has developers admitted that some weapons, powers, skills, abilities is too powerful? is not that such stuff necessarily broke game, particularly in a party based game. iwd developers nerferd missle weapons from bg standard. bg2 developers nerfed grand mastery. allowing fighters to keep bg1 grand mastery bonuses in bg2 wouldn't have hurt mages or anybody else, but they removed anyway. developers on bg2 boards specific referenced kensai/mages and the potential problem o' giving them bg1 standard grand mastery bonuses. is a potential powergame option that were removed. try to separate balance from powergame is nutty. oh, and the ranger is a wonderful example to be using, 'cause the 3.0 ranger were front-loaded. were not too weak as to be unplayable or too strong as to be game-breaking, but it were clear fodder for powqergamers who would take 1 level of ranger. to circumvent powergamer impulses, monte cook came up with his ranger variant. josh sawyer tried to implement monte cook's ranger in iwd2... which created a very amusing incident that black isle were forced to claim never happened. 3.5 d&d eventual addressed the issue, but... *shrug* is yet another example o' both pvp and crpg developers wrestling with a way to deal with and overcome powergamer nonsense... in spite o' your claim that doing so is a waste o' resources. HA! Good Fun! ps kensai/mages got eaten alive by ranger/cleric duals... just saying.

Oh yeah, "every game" that's an excellent example. Yet all RPG games I played since the 90's have a clearly better builds and inferior ones. You still don't understand the different between "better" and "broken", So basically you mean that everybody played IWD with the same party? Everybody made Kensai/Mage build for BG2? And everybody played sorcerer/barbarian/dragon disciple in NWN? Newsflash for you, they did not. Regardless the fact that in case of power these were the best builds. what is with you and the hyperbole and strawman? 1) the fact that you has played games with superior builds is NOT evidence of developers indifference to balance duh. am not gonna explain this one 'cause it seems obvious. 2) hyperbole is ugly nobody suggested that Everybody played kensai/mages in bg2... but there were quite a few, and no doubt more than there woulda' been if kensai/mages were better balanced. am sure that the ranger/cleric had all kinda role-play appeal, but the fact that you could dual-wield warhammers and cast all druid and cleric spells probable had more to do with its popularity. and yeah, there were any number o' stoopid bits o' nonsense from the nwn2 games. role-play were reason for so many folks taking falchion as their weapon choice? really? please. am starting to seriously repeat self here, so please come up with something new. powergame has counter-intuitive result of making game less fun for many powergamers as it makes the game too easy. powergamers then do the wacky dance and complain 'bout ease of game. powergame also leads to disproportionate % o' players choosing perceived win builds. if all builds were better balanced, you would gets more replayability and you would gets people choosing for kewl 'stead of power. ignore reality if you wish, but developers invariably claim to spend considerable time on balance might be better to ask self why they do so then to continue to pretend that no such balancing is occurring. HA! Good Fun!

your chosen portrait suggests and all-too-obvious alternative. HA! Good Fun!

Actually, real balance is an undesirable state. Real balance means that everyone has an equal chance at everything, everyone does the same damage, etc. Real balance means everyone is equivalent. Which makes for an *incredibly* boring game. this is called strawman. *shrug* people, against their own advantage, want to win. if you, as a developer, provide a clear winning build, power or whatever, a disproportionate % of people will choose the win. such an eventuality is not good for numerous reasons discussed above. HA! Good Fun!

... am hearing that this were done, at the very least, decades ago. http://arthistory.ab...jmwt_mma_16.htm this one might even be older... just in case you thinks people is important. http://jackiewhiting.net/ArtHist/SchlAthns.htm HA! good Fun! ps we highly recommend http://www.dccomics....night-returns-0 is also older than "like" 25 years. go figure.

as to the embedded video, we went through 90+ pages o' a really bad comic 'cause we didn't want to dismiss berserk w/o reading. is no way in hell we is gonna get snookered a second and/or third time. HA! Good Fun!

it would be nice if none of us had heard of d&d and d&d rules, that way we could play pe w/o the baggage. HA! Good Fun!

"My point was that it's successful and the lead character is very much like a human, not an instrument of fate." you aren't serious, are you? what 'bout the protagonist seems genuine human to you? oh sure, being angry and vengeful is human qualities, but not the way they is done in that manga we read. am not shocked that berserk is successful... in japan. angry hero or anti-hero doesn't necessarily remove us from realm of hero story in any event. angry hero and anti-hero is hardly new. honestly, the odyssey reference we submitted is oddly more remote from the realm o' crpgs. odysseus offends a god and spends 10 years trying to get home. he ian't trying to save world, or revenge himself on a super villain. ultimate solution is not defeating monsters or solving impossible riddle. unlike most homeric characters, odysseus grows. HA! Good Fun!

Name one game that focused on this issue other than online games where players compete each other? Powergaming exist in every RPG game. You are talking about situation in which some skill or set of skills give significant game breaking power. That's called bugs and should be avoided. But it has nothing to do with preventing powergaming. huh? every game we has followed has seen developers concern selves with balance in favor o' powergame. harm from d&d 3.0 were not a bug, but it got nixed. why? heck, there were a particular amusing incident regarding kits and iwd2. josh offered up some potential kits that were quite balanced and creative. fans hated... not powerful enough. as a joke, josh offers an alternative... an avatar o' death. people didn't get the joke-- they loved the new-and-improved kit. were probable our favorite board moment o' the year. ... is this your first rodeo? HA! Good Fun!

if you forgot the dozen or so times josh has answered 'bout his influences, then you probable didn't genuine care 'bout the answers... which makes us wonder why you cares this time. weird. lord knows Gromnir doesn't read every interview or we woulda' known that the lockpick stuff were old news. heck, we typical ignore funroc updates as we has no idea who or what he is referencing. look, the interviewer took personal, but he admits that nothing new were divulged... which were our only criticism. sooooo, color us bemused. HA! Good Fun!

Little harsh but nice post. The problem with any forum dedicated to any one developer or game is that most of the people on it don't understand that not everything the dev/game touches is actually gold or a massive success in the grand scheme. Out of curiosity other than the extreme violence and highly adult themes of Berserk (both of which would never work in a American release without seriously being toned down) what was the issue? most of our posts is tending to harsh. oh, and we actual read the first manga issue before we dismissed. the characters is... not. is caricatures. super-powered swordsman with 2 metre i-beam-pretending-to-be-a-sword and bad guy wearing cobra armour drinking blood from severed head at end o' spear? please. scenarios is ridiculous over-the-top. dialogue is forgettable, and story is not near as original as some folks here seem to think. violence doesn't bother us. HA! Good Fun!