newc0253

I think WOTC are yanking gnomes from the PHB because they want to put an end to all this gnome-on-gnome violence. also gnome porn.

Fiscal Year 2009 Q1 actually starts in April 2008, not 2009. They have a weird way of naming their fiscal years.. that's what newc meant, i.e. it will be out no later than april 2009 since it is "during FY 2009" which ends april 2009. thanks taks, i'm pleased someone understood me. my point was that even if 'fiscal year 2009' means 'sometime before april 2009', that still means that DA could be as many as fourteen months away. in other words, while i'm sure i'll be be psyched to finally play DA when it comes out, it's hard to get excited in Feb 08 for a game that might not be released for more than a year.

My objection to the new-fangled playable races isn't that they're overbalanced (although doubtless it will be said that some of them are). Nor do i think players should be forbidden from playing PCs with unusual or bizarre backgrounds. if someone wants to play a monster PC, then so long as the DMs cool with it, then fine. My main objection is that swapping out gnomes for tieflings and half-demons, etc, invites a default campaign in which half-dragon PCs are the norm, rather than the exception. Sure there will be some settings in which those races would be more usual, but it hardly seems to encourage a low-fi approach. Then again, this was all preordained years ago as soon as the FR introduced the drow as a playable race. They've gone from being creatures of myth and rumour to something more commonplace than starbucks. The same will happen with tieflings and half-dragons until, someday, someone will put out yet another edition and gnomes will finally be all the rage again.

not just any tech demo, sir! an award-winning tech demo, no less! NWN might have been trailed long in advance, but at least it didn't win no stupid awards years before its release, e.g. best hype 2004! to their credit, though, Bio have been careful about promising too much with DA, i.e. they've given out approximately zero info about it despite its lengthy development time. looks like they learnt at least one lesson from their experience with NWN.

Actually, who has ever seriously declared that DA was vapourware? I mean, I know this is the internet and folk will say anything, but i've never seen anyone seriously claim that the game will never be released. The main complaint about DA has always been the fact that Bio announced it ridiculously early. I'm sure they had their reasons but, from a customer's point of view, it's kinda pointless to be told about a game that will be really cool three/four years hence. And another thing: who ever really 'throws in the towel' on a game? Can anyone think of a game that they were interested in playing but never did because the developer took too long to release it? No, didn't think so.

you mean it will definitely be released by april 2009? wow, you know what else is coming soon? frakking Christmas.

yeah, you wouldn't believe how hazardous scuba diving can be once those makos start firing their heavy artillery cannons. the mako was fun most of the time, until you hit a patch of serious combat: then it was just frustrating. they could have made more of the exploration, though: some of the planets were distinctive enough to be interesting and occassionally you'd hit upon an interesting side-quest but most of the time it was <prospect mineral x> plus <recover artifact y>

feh, Greyhawk is the only true D&D setting. Or possibly Blackmoor.

you mean, like that table in the 1e DMG? 01-10 Slovenly trull 11-25 Brazen strumpet 26-35 Cheap trollop 36-50 Typical streetwalker 51-65 Saucy tart 66-75 Wanton wench 76-85 Expensive doxy 86-90 Haughty courtesan 91-92 Aged madam 93-94 Wealthy procuress 95-98 Sly pimp 99-00 Rich panderer

FR has an older fanbase? You mean, like 18 year olds?

drow anti-paladins get a bad rap. i think they would work well in a Gamma World/Boot Hill crossover campaign.

My post was on-topic, talking about 4e. you're the one that had a little hissy fit about ADHD. Seriously, dude, let it go.

Which just goes to show that even with its cosmology, geography, demography and everything else completely overhauled and radically changed, the Forgotten Realms are still as munchkin as ever.

he started it.

Hey buddy, I was gonna read that link you sent me but then i saw a squirrel and started chasing it instead.

Ritalin is a prescription stimulant commonly used to treat Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD. It contains methylphenidate, a dopamine reuptake inhibitor, which increases the level of the dopamine neurotransmitter in the brain by partially blocking the transporters that remove it from the synapses. I'm sorry to hear that, dude. Really I am. *yawn* Yes, because i do that all the ... ooh, look at that! Shiny!

i was serving time for armed robbery & they don't have internet access in prison.

Is it my imagination, or is 4e just a way to streamline D&D for the WoW generation? I understand the dilemma, given that PnP D&D has its work cut out trying to appeal to the kiddies in this age of the new-fangled computers. I also get how lots of additional arcane and specialised rules can make an RPG charming and full of character, but also irrational and - in practical terms - much less playable. For instance, as someone who never invested in anything past 1e, I nonetheless appreciated how 3e completely revamped the rules on multiclassing, opening up much more potential and flexibility (at the same time, i despised how 3e simultaenously made a mockery of all that with the introduction of endless, silly, hyper- specialised prestige classes for the l33t crowd). So, generally speaking, i salute the drive towards greater simplicity and flexibility in the D&D rules. If 4e delivered on that, that would be great: making combat simpler, reducing the impact of alignment, etc, all seem worthy goals. But most of what i've seen of 4e seems less about simplicity or rationality, and more about appealing to a generation of kidz off their ritalin (c.f. solo monsters! less gnomes! more tieflings!) and simply change for changes sake (c.f. revising the structure of the planes for no apparent reason). Of course, it was probably always too much to hope that the folk who brought you prestige classes would see the light of reason, but it's a shame that 4e seems to be at best a missed opportunity and at worst a sign of further degeneration in the game.

The uncanny valley is a bunch of crap anyway. There's no valley, it's just stuff looking fake. And that looks as CGI anything in Beowulf (which, actually, i thought was pretty good but still CGI).

Hmm, i'd respond at length but I think Tigranes put my point perfectly (thanks, dude). Physically, yes, they're the same person. But there's an interesting philosophical debate as to whether we are psychologically the same person we were, say 10, 20 or 30 years ago. For instance, I think that my 10 year old self liked Knight Rider a helluva lot more than I do now. And possibly I would have been able to write a cooler Knight Rider episode back then when I really 'got' Knight Rider than I do now. I didn't say THX was better written than Star Wars, nor that it was a better film. One of those films I've seen about 3 times and one i've seen probably more than 30 times. Can you guess which?

My point was simply that the success of BG and Bio's subsequent domination of the story-driven segment of the CRPG market (because, let's be honest, Diablo was the runaway success of that period) wasn't due to Bio's particular style so much as (i) the general, more generic features they introduced and (ii) the D&D licence. Why? If the individual or company has shown little or no evidence that they can produce anything different in terms of their writing style, i'd say i'm perfectly entitled to assess their capabilities based on their past performance over time, just as i'm fully entitled to predict that George Lucas probably won't write a good Galactica episode. Of course, such assessments are necessarily imperfect (there's always the possibility i might be wrong) but hardly impossible. On the other hand, you seem to think an assessment of another's capabilities is only possible with the invention of telepathy. clearly we will have to agree to disagree. Hmm, I think i've been fairly clear over the years about what I like and dislike about Bio games. If you're really bored, you're welcome to search their BB archives for all my past praise and criticisms of them. I understand it may seem odd to you that someone could like some things about their games but dislike others but there's nothing inherently contradictory about what i've said. You misunderstand. Obviously KOTOR was different from BG, and JE different from Mass Effect. My point is that the story and writing, etc, are recognisably from the same stable of Bio writing. Yes, Mass Effect is different from BG - one is space opera and one epic fantasy - but you could probably write a thesis on the many striking similarities too, not just in the sense that both are broadly heroic tales (yay!), rely heavily on exploration, etc but in the recognisable Bio elements of the writing, tone and NPC characterisation (especially the NPC romances), just as you can tend to pick the similarities in CRPGs written by Obsidian or Bethesda. Indeed, I think Bethesda's Fallout is the perfect example of what I'm talking about: most Fallout fans think that Bethesda don't have what it takes to write Fallout 3. Personally, I think Bethesda deserve a chance for at least trying something different. I also think writing a sequel to a well-established property is very different task than inventing something from scratch. But a lot of people think that Bethesda's Fallout will just be Oblivion with guns, by which they don't just mean the mechanics of the game but also Bethesda's peculiarly-limited approach towards NPC characterisation (in Oblivion, there was only two memorable NPCs in the entire game, and they were voiced by Patrick Stewart and Sean Bean). Given that Bethesda have spent over a decade producing game after game in a particular style, there are entirely reasonable fears that they lack the capability to deliver a rich, story-driven game. Hope this makes things a little clearer.

i'm not saying he couldn't write for Galactica now. if he offered to, i'm sure they'd jump at the chance. i'm saying the George Lucas of 2008 no longer has the same instincts and sensibility of the George Lucas of 30 years ago, so a Galactica episode written by the 2008 Lucas would in all likelihood be inferior to one written by the Lucas that wrote THX 1138. it's a fair analogy as far as it goes, and Lucas's control or power is pretty much irrelevant to the case at hand. it may be that there's some writers at Bio who are capable of writing something different than usual Bio fare but we're talking about the 'controlling minds' at Bio, and - in the case of DA - Gaider in particular. which just goes to show my earlier point to Di that the actual content of games like BG are every bit as 'dark' as the Witcher. i think the real force of Di's complaint about 'darkness' in games is that she dislikes the tone. Horrible things happen in BG but the overall tone of the game isn't all that 'dark'. the actual complaint about Bio's writing being a little too 'bright and simple' isn't really about the content, as though all DA really needs is a few more child-killing dwarves and moms commiting suicide to be genuinely successful. I'm sure there's more than a few fans of 'dark' games that think that, btw, but it's not what i'm talking about. Yes, the 'bright and simple' point goes to things like tone but also other issues like motivation, characterisation and a degree of psychological depth. It's not just the difference between, say, Star Wars and the revamped Galactica but the difference between a vanilla hero type like Luke Skywalker and a slightly more complex hero type like Lee Adama. Both have a lot in common, e.g. both have daddy issues and both strive to do what's right, but i think we both know that Bio would be much better suited to writing Skywalker-type characters than Galactica-style ones. I stress again that I'd hate to see DA try to be 'dark' simply for the sake of being 'dark', e.g. more suicide! more infanticide! incest!!! What would be much more interesting would be if Bio set out to do heroic fantasy without the crutch of the usual conventions of heroic fantasy: something with a little less vanilla and a little more bitter coffee.

Okay, you didn't say that the boundaries are blurring but you acknowledged that some developers are trying to blur the boundaries which I think is a pretty strong indication of the way things are going, since - hey - they're the ones making the games. I agree with you that slapping the CRPG label on an FPS doesn't make a game a CRPG. But I think the boundaries *are* beginning to blur, whether it's shooters with stronger story elements and character development, or action CRPGs that are so minimal in terms of actual story, they might as well be frakking shooters. I agree that in gaming terms 'pigs' and 'roosters' are still very distinct at this point, but the game developers are working with more than just feathers and glue here. Sooner or later, they're gonna start breeding the pig and the rooster, or go into the lab and start mixing their DNA until they get something that crows at dawn and produces great-tasting bacon. As many other posters have pointed out, BG didn't establish CRPGs. Fallout preceeded BG and Fallout was preceded by the goldbox games, among others. Hell, the chronology of CRPGs on wikipedia stretches back to 74 (something which surprised even me). Of course, the BG series was innovative. It gave a huge shot in the arm to the CRPG genre, not to mention the D&D licence. But it's important not to confuse BG's innovations (e.g. strong NPC characterisation) with Bio's particular style, just as it's important not to confuse what was groundbreaking about the film Star Wars with George Lucas's particular writing style. Hmm, I don't think George Lucas would be able to write a good episode of Battlestar Galactica. Now, I don't have access to his personnel record, or the work history and resume of everyone at Lucasfilm. Instead, I'm basing it on the artistic output of George Lucas in general. Now, it's not in itself a criticism of George Lucas that he's not writing Galactica episodes, anymore than i'd criticise Chinese food for not being Italian enough. George Lucas writes what he writes, and he's clearly successful (Indeed, I think the George Lucas who made THX 1138 would have written a great Galactica episode, but that's not the George Lucas we have today). It is a criticism, though, in the sense that a lot of people also have problems with Lucas's stuff and praise the writing on Galactica. In other words, this isn't people who like italian complaining that Lucas only makes chinese food. This is people complaining that Lucas's chinese food isn't as good as the chinese food across the street because he uses too much sauce or something. It's the same with Bioware. Over the years, the writers at Bio have put out some great stuff but they've also come to be known for a very specific style and type of story, one of the criticisms of which is that it's a little too bright and simple. You would obviously disagree and you're entitled to. But you can't deny that Bio have also had many opportunities to try and do something different, yet haven't. Maybe Bio will startle us all with DA and maybe George Lucas's next film will be a period-drama adaptation of an EM Forster novel. But somehow i doubt it. I don't know that it's such a criticism to call a writer a hedgehog rather than a fox. It's simply the difference between being able to do a lot of different things and only being able to do one thing, but very well. I think the folk at Bio are very, very good at writing a CRPG with a particular kind of story and characters. But i can hardly praise them for their range or versatility if all they do is write broadly the same kind of game, over and over. I'm not trying to prove Bioshock isn't a rather dark story. But i'm scratching my head trying to understand why the option to harvest the DNA from child zombies is intrinsically darker than the option of killing half your party and soliciting your wookie companion to kill his friend for sport. If Bioshock is a 'dark' game for this reason, then so is KOTOR and every other game with an 'evil' path. No worries, you're welcome.

To be honest, i don't think we're really talking salads and burgers here. the difference between a game like Baldur's Gate and a game like the Witcher is really the difference between Big Macs and Whoppers. In fact, Witcher is overall more like the BG series than, say, Torment. Some people like their fantasy CRPGs shiny and heroic and some like their fantasy CRPGs flame-grilled with gritty helpings of 'realism'. My point is that Bio would happily give the customer more grit in DA, just as if the Whoppers start outselling the Big Macs 2:1, then pretty soon McDonalds is gonna start pushing Quarter Pounders or something to compete. Okay, i've reached my limit with the food analogies here. Didn't read the entire thread, no. But i hardly think the fact that 1/4 of bio boardies complained about too much darkness signifies much of anything, nor the fact that Gaider et al made soothing noises to calm them down. About 1/4 of bio boardies can be relied upon to say pretty much anything, at least until their lithium kicks in. Gaider's backtracking is more interesting. Personally, i'm mighty indifferent to Martin's stuff but they could do worse than take BSG as inspiration and it's a shame they seem to have rowed back from that. But, let's be honest, it was never gonna be Blood Meridian with elves and orcs or anything. The writers at Bio are hedgehogs, not foxes.

Bioshock's sold at least 2 million since being released in mid-2007, so i'd say their well on their way. You're right, of course, that the market for shooters is far larger than CRPGs, so we're hardly comparing like with like, but you also acknowledge that the boundaries are blurring, with more story-driven FPS like Half Life and Deux Ex. What would be really surprising, though, is that the taste for so-called 'darker' stories (btw, i really hate that we've somehow settled on using that term because i really think it's hopelessly off-base) is somehow restricted to the larger FPS market whereas somehow people who play CRPGs mostly like up-with-people storylines. I also think the success of Bio has to do with their emphasis on story, rather than the particular tone of any particular story of any particular game of theirs. They have a particular strength in characterisation and a style of humour that's very popular, but their dominance of the CRPG genre probably has more to do with the way they've capitalised on the success of the BG series (and the D&D franchise) rather than the particular appeal of their writing. For the record, I've never played the 'evil' path in any CRPG i can remember so you're hardly an anomaly there. I've sometimes made the occasional self-interested choice here and there but I'd be as unhappy with a game that gave no opportunities for heroism as one which overtly encouraged them. I think in fact you'd be suprised at the prevalence of the 'heroic' path even among games you label 'dark' (hence another reason for hating that label). In truth, even the shadiest of shades-of-grey game usually has a heroic path, even if you sometimes have to work for it. But I think there is a market for games that eschew obvious heroism for a greater degree of social and psychological realism or whatever (i'm not sure that's any better than 'darker' as a label, but it's one I'll try for now) and I think you are in a minority in eschewing the tone of games like Bioshock or STALKER. These things are a matter of taste of course, and there's nothing wrong with wanting more Bio-style games. I'd prefer to see as great a range as possible rather than have all CRPGs be as dark as possible. I also might be wrong about my sense of the general tastes of CRPG players - like i said, it's an empirical question - but the popularity of games like Torment, Fallout, Witcher, etc leads me to think I'm more likely to be right. Really? I don't think I've ever said I dislike Bio. I liked the BG series, the HOTU expansion for NWN1, Jade Empire, KOTOR and Mass Effect. But I don't think they're perfect and I think they go for a particular kind of writing which, over time, shows its limitations. As for whether liking or not liking their games forbids me from judging their abilities, I'm not so sure about that. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, I don't have to be a carpenter to judge whether someone has made a ****ty table. And while I like most of their games, no writer or developer is beyond criticism. Tolstoy they ain't. No, but I'm well aware of the possibilities for following the Dark Side in KOTOR. But are you saying that possibility therefore made KOTOR a darker game overall? And, if so, why do you seem to find Bioshock distasteful but not (apparently) KOTOR?