Zero

I think a mix of interactive and Old School would be good. Pop-ups over stats that tell you what they do vs. say an all out tutorial.

Black Hound FTW Plott Hound Plott Hound 2 Plott Hound 3 Scottish DeerHound Pharaoh Hound Non-Hounds Beauceron Beauceron 2 Black Lab

I think this would be the main problem. Gameplay-wise it makes more sense to go with an action/adventure format for combat and such if you are controlling a character who doesn't have much control over others simply because there is no reason for them to in most instances.

It would have been nice if there was an "Other Option- describe in thread"

I really,really,really just don't want to deal with any ****ing wolves. That's all I have to say on the subject.

Concept artists do seem adverse to having visible pants on mage-type characters. If people have been watching Game of Thrones, I could see mages in outfits similar to those donned by Littlefinger and Daenerys (the one with the pauldron) . Granted in the latter's case it would have to be in the right setting (e.g. desert-like).

I don't know enough about the world yet. But I would prefer it if mages could blend in as say a commoner, noble, adventurer or what have you.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090401223512/diablo/images/thumb/7/74/Archivist-ConceptArt.jpg/800px-Archivist-ConceptArt.jpg http://mythicmktg.fileburst.com/war/us/media/images/careers/socc_01.jpg http://eduardomedero.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/emedero-the-sorcerer.jpg http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqq4jnueOE1r1g5m2o1_500.jpg http://img.qj.net/uploads/articles_module/71642/Empire%20NPC%20-%20Wizard_qjpreviewth.jpg

Soul Watcher: Watcher of Souls

What would be wrong with having an option? Doesn't fun > realism ?

I wouldn't mind little animations near death where a person does get decapitated, someone frozen from a spell- crumble into ice, someone getting hit by a lightning spell getting fried , or some such. But I'd want it to be seamlessly integrated into the game as opposed to being a finishing move, for me it would be a nice little touch but hardly necessary .

I tend to agree with you. If diplomatic options are available that lead to rewarding alternative paths , then it is fine. But if they are gonna remain the antagonist and you are forced to ultimately clash with them in some form or another it can just be frustrating. You should be able to understand why an antagonist is doing something. But to sympathize with them will cause you to want to help them or deal with them in an alternative way ( that is the case for me at least). Which would make the confrontation even more emotional. The concept of an unstoppable force colliding with an immovable object is a good one. You may sympathize with the villain, but his goals may be completely contrary to yours. Just because you like him doesn't mean you should be able to talk him down. It depends entirely on context. It does depend on the context. If it a game that doesn't present much choice, it can work well. If it's a game that does and you are still forced to go up against them, I wouldn't say it would be bad - but it definitely wouldn't be a "villain you love to hate".

Three Words: Black Knight Armor

I tend to agree with you. If diplomatic options are available that lead to rewarding alternative paths , then it is fine. But if they are gonna remain the antagonist and you are forced to ultimately clash with them in some form or another it can just be frustrating. You should be able to understand why an antagonist is doing something. But to sympathize with them will cause you to want to help them or deal with them in an alternative way ( that is the case for me at least).

Missed your comment before, yeah you're not alone. My Sean Bean comment was a reference to Eddard