Azarkon

I want a fantasy version of this

I don't think it's even deniable that full voice acting, when done correctly, adds to the immersion factor of the game. But the issue that I do see is that full voice acting has several drawbacks in terms of production, and they are significant ones: 1. Voice actors: are often inconvenient when not integrated within the development team, because under a contract based relationship, voice actors add to both the overhead of a project and can become a serious liability in terms of how far down the line the project may still be changed, as well as consistency of voice acting throughout a series. 2. No room for imagination: the standard argument of the cinematic medium vs. the literary medium - films let you see and let you hear, but in the process you're deprived of an opportunity to imagine the situation yourself. Some consider that a good thing, the death of literature as one further step in an evolutionary process. Others do not. IMO, it's foolish to preconceive film as being better than literature or vice versa, and yet the predominance of the cinematic medium in games ensures that preconception. 3. Player expectations: perhaps the biggest problem with full voice acting is the players who come to expect them. As mentioned in #1, VAs increase overhead and they lead to problems of development cycles and also, importantly, with the modding community (again a problem of overhead). Development costs are skyrocketing, but games are not getting more expensive. What this means, ultimately, is that game development studios, in order to satisfy player expectations for triple A titles, will have to cut corners, and this plays directly into the trend in modern gaming of shorter games that are as casual as they can be in order to appeal to larger mass markets. Obviously, this also means that start-up companies (a source of major innovation) will have a rougher time because player expectations force them to undergo overheads that are beyond their financial capabilities. While this problem is hardly solely due to VAs, it's undeniable that full voice acting contributes to the problem.

Eldar: Well, if you want a topic in which I would probably disagree on a major aspect, you could always ask me about the value of nationalism . But hopefully not in this thead

Not your entire post, of course, only the part where you were arguing about healthy competition, physical activities, etc., which I didn't disagree with at all. The confusion, I think, lies in a matter of words. You quoted me stating that I disagreed with a world of "cutthroat competition" and "success at all costs" and argued that natural competition is a good thing. But see, that's exactly the interpretation I was trying to avoid by putting "cutthroat" and "at all costs", neither of which I thought suggested anything close to being natural. In my disagreement, I was specifically responding to the idea that "playing nice" and "no fist fights" were attitudes that should not be used on boys, because boys are somehow different than girls in that they just have to "play hard", so to speak, which I do not agree with. There's very good reasons schools have rules to break up fights and encourage dialogue as the avenue of problem solution, and the reason is the same for both sexes. Namely, when little Timmy grows up, we want to give him the signal that if his girlfriend is cheating on him, the best way to deal with the situation is to talk to her, not pull out a gun and blow her and her boyfriend's brains out. The same can be said for any situation in which physical violence maybe applied but is not necessary (a necessary situation would be a case of self-defense, or having exhausted all other avenues). Better that they learn early that physical aggression is a trait that must be suppressed in order for society to function, than too late and end up in prison.

Healthy competition never stays healthy in the real world, so you understand my inclination to be less than optimistic with respect to encouraging physical solutions to problems. Of course, there is a degree of straw man in your argument, as my post was in response to the idea that suppressing fist fights and violence is actually wrong because boys are naturally inclined to physical violence. It's been my experience and the experience of many researchers in the field that kids who grow up in violent environments become violent themselves. There are exceptions, of course, but most criminals have had a rough childhood, such as with abusive parents, bullys, violence in the streets, etc. As such, I completely disagree that we should encourage physical violence in anyway simply to placate some perceived natural instinct. If boys become girls in terms of physical violence inclinations, all the better. We, as a society, actively suppresses violent behavior (else we'd not have laws against fighting, murder, rape, etc.): that is a component of mutual community, not some liberal agenda. I do not want to live with violent people around me. I do not want to live with people who excuse their abuse of others as human nature. I would rather we played "nice". I agree with channeling aggression to some non-violent, physical activity, but that's where my tolerance ends.

So you would rather boys were allowed to beat up each other so that when they grow up they'll become gangsters and robbers and warmongers? Education, in all its incarnations, is social engineering, and I'd rather the engineering was directed towards a more peaceful society than one with cutthroat competition and an attitude of success at all costs.

IQ tests are not very accurate gauges of anything other than how well you do in IQ tests. Spatial reasoning / mathematics in real life != how fast and accurately you answer a test question.

JE not doing as well as NWN/KOTOR can have one of many ramifications, but which one Bioware will live by will depend on the success of DA. If DA bombs, it's likely back to Star Wars/D&D for Bio, whereas if DA succeeds, I can see a leaning on Bio's part towards PC games, which would be my biased preference.

Government workers are not civilians? Corporate workers are not civilians? You kill both in FF7, alongside the handful of corporate/government leaders. What are civilians then? People who don't work and stay at home?

The winners write history. Then a hundred years down the line the revisionists come along and lambast the winners, but that's just the guilt talking. What's done is done, and from the perspective of military and political leaders, that is what justifies any tactic.

Well, that's hard to say, but I've seen nothing but praises from critics and readers. Still, I'm the kind of person who understands that no story is capable of appealing to every one, so I can only offer my opinions and observations with that pinch of salt.

Paul Mooney <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What the heck is Battle Angel? Never heard. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnm Regardless of how much you like/dislike Japanese-styled comics, BAA/Gunnm is a masterpiece of cyberpunk storytelling, and should not be missed if you're at all interested in a good story.

I know theres a series of OVAs but I dont think theres a series. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There are two OVA's: Rusted Angel and Tears of an Angel. I'm waiting for them to publish the next part of Lost Order. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> James Cameron is also doing a cinematic adaptation. I think BAA can be considered an inspiration for his Dark Angel series, to a degree. Last Order is also not in the same ballpark as the original BAA, imo.

Iraq has become a cesspool of strife for the worst kind of people, that is no surprise. However, it would also be impossible to label all terrorists with one broad brush, as the Bush administration is attemping to do. There is no "War on Terror", because there isn't a coalition of forces that considers itself "Terror". There are, instead, numerous organizations operating at various degrees of brutality, everything from idealistic freedom fighters to common thugs, that at times cooperate and at times conflict with each other's differeing political and economic objectives. Moreover, it has always been this way, which is the reason generalizations fail.

Great games still occur in the pop market and will continue to, because the only reason publishers are risk-averse is because they know their existing market research is accurate. That is, action games with eye candy continue to dazzle the public, and while not all of us will agree that they're great games, they very well can be, since they are to most of the populace. What you must turn to indy games for are genres that have been proven to not sell all that great (ie Turn-Based RPGs, old school games), or for things so dastardly strange that no publisher will pick it up. Niche markets, in other words, and if you're a member of that, there's no real justification that I can think of in a capitalist/democratic system for your interests to take center stage. I'm just glad that it does, every once in a while.

Afro Samurai is just too cool for words, so screw political correctness.

Abortion is a messy, controversial thing, but guess what folks, abstinence & protection are clean and raise no moral questions about the definition of life. As always, human beings are experts at jumping to moral judgments, but damn lazy when it comes to self-regulation. Other than that rant, I'm pretty much pro-choice, because I don't think a morality based on faith should be imposed upon anyone. After all, there are people out there who believe that babies that are aborted are automatically reincarnated into a better life, and obviously those who do not think life begins at conception, so lacking in scientific evidence as to the accuracy of any view, why not let the person choose based on her own beliefs? That way, when judgment time comes (if such a time exists in the person's belief system), the person could at least say that they chose out of their own free will between salvation and damnation, rather than that they got a free ride because society forced them to.

That only works if you intend to be one of the survivors. Nothing in nature is certain. All the best laid plans do not guarantee your safety in the event of a pandemic, especially one that is airborne. As always, quick response via quarantine and vaccination is the best weapon humanity has against pandemics. Oh and, of course, a government that won't save the most virulent strains of viruses for possible future use as a biological weapon helps, too.

People who see World of Warcraft as a MMO version of the Warcraft series are missing a large chunk of the puzzle. That chunk is MMO history. World of Warcraft is not, foremost, a Warcraft MMO, but a MMO set in the World of Warcraft. It is a game that literally screams influences from other MMOs, and if WoW was your first MMO, I imagine you cannot possibly understand why certain things are the way they are in WoW. To just point out a few of the missing links, let me answer some of the simpler questions: "Why aren't the factions sending armies against each other, etc.?" Simple, because dynamic events are difficult to balance in a MMO. One problem is that WoW wants to be for both PvE and PvP players (the two kinds of market identified by Blizzard looking at other MMORPGs' subscribers), so a world that is constantly in a state of PvP war isn't going to work because the PvE players want to be left alone by gankers. Also, as you might have noticed, Blizzard is slow enough at producing content as is. Producing dynamic events is a bit out of their league at the moment. As for war-torn battlefields, WoW has plenty of those (Desolace, Hillsbrad, Plaguelands, etc.), so I'm not sure where you're coming from here. "Why aren't humans allied with orcs, etc.?" The factions are the way they are because WoW copied DAOC's realm-based PvP system, which requires that you balance factions with equal amount of races and classes. The only way that was going to happen in Blizzard's case was to put Undead with the Horde, since if Undead were its own faction you'd have a faction with one race, and that can't work in a realm-based PvP environment. "Paladins..." Paladins are a thorn on the side of class balance. Currently, paladins are overpowered in the raiding game because of a small thing called Blessing of Salvation. You might of heard about it, but it completely trivializes raid content in Blackwing Lair for Alliance. Someone else did the calculations, but it comes out to the effect that Blessing of Salvation allow Alliance raids to do roughly 43% more damage than Horde raids (only Alliance have paladins). A well-played paladin is an excellent support character on a raid. As for being primary tanks, well, that's an issue with Blizzard's class balance. "Rogues vs. Warriors..." You're the first one to claim that rogues have an advantage over warriors these days. The current trend among the balance crowd, with respect to rogue vs. warrior, is that warriors >>> rogues because they can push out 90% of a rogue's DPS with DPS gear and then switch over to tank gear and stand toe to toe with Ragnaros. Plus warriors completely dominate rogues in PvP. I'm not sure where you're coming from, in other words. "But why are rogues damage dealers in the first place?" Simple, because WoW copied the idea of the EQ Rogue, which consequently is the same Rogue you see in earlier MUDs since EQ copied DikuMUD. This decision was made in order to work Rogues into the general EQ/MUD group paradigm of Tank/Healer/DPS, which WoW also copied. Rogues are obviously not going to be tanks or healers, so they have to be DPS. But, ah, why did Blizzard feel the need to copy EQ? Because Blizzard is a company that takes ideas and improves upon them, at times to the point of perfection, not a company that comes up with completely new ideas. Warcraft was not the first RTS (Herzog Zwei & Dune II share that title), and its world was not original (they copied many ideas from Warhammer), but it was the classic RTS genre personified. Starcraft was not the first sci-fi strategy game with races like Zerg, Protoss, and Terran (again, they copied much from Warhammer 40k), but it was the best RTS of its day. Diablo was not the first roguelike, nor was it the first to use skill trees, but it was the roguelike genre set to great graphics with skill trees. And World of Warcraft, of course, was not the first MMORPG, but it is the most successful one. Anyhow, I hope I shed some light on the reasons behind WoW's design. Games are seldom made out of a vacuum. Like every artist and professional medium, the sharing/stealing of ideas is paramount to the creation of new works, and to one who's willing to look deeper than one game, at times the reason for certain decisions become almost transparent.

Nature's way of controlling human population.

The storyline in DS2 is slightly better than DS. Not by alot. As for your sidekicks, they actually have dialogue and perk up once in a while, akin to the original BG. Nowhere near the level of BG2 and PS:T, though. In these respects, DS2 is no different. It is an action RPG after all.

Sex sells, but good games sell better. In terms of sex within games... Eh, I'd say that it can help sales somewhat. Certainly, hot CG girls can be a reasonable enticement, but they alone will not carry a game, as examples have shown. It's kind of like in films (though films are a more visual medium than games, I maintain), I suppose: having hot actresses grants higher attendance, but the greatest films, whether it be of critical acclaim or box-office gross, do not depend on sex appeal.

A real RPG... You mean Life? :D If only developers were gods...

Here's my game: