Suburban-Fox

Wish fulfilment and escapism. We all like the thought of being a great hero who saves the world, but in reality this will never happen. The world doesn't need saving, and even if it did, chances are we won't be the ones to do it. If anybody is going to fight the evil monsters, it's going to be the army, consisting of big burly marine/commando types with shaved heads and arms the size of tree trunks, not some skinny weakling sitting behind a computer. ;-) Just deserts is also part of the appeal - many of us like to think that people get what they deserve, even though in real life that doesn't always happen (though that doesn't account for why I read the SoIaF books! XD ).

A lot of people in the real world "know" that their particular god exists...only they can't all be right, because they all claim exclusive rights to monotheism. ;-) Seriously though, I think it's because fantasy tends to be based on ancient Dark Ages superstition, in which they believed that if you're a liar, and you say "if I lie, may the Lord strike me down!", then you would actually be struck down with a lightning bolt. Dragons come from the same source...people declare that a 'monster' was "this big, it were! And it could breathe fire, and rend the ground apart with its claws! I saw it!" (when in actual fact it was just a particularly big wild boar that they saw). Fantasy makes real all of those ancient myths, which includes the gods actually having a semi-physical presence, and their existence being manifest through their powers. That's why gods always actually exist in fantasy settings (although in the Dragon Age setting, the "Maker" is less overt and is more like the Catholic god). As for motivations for being good/evil...I think this is down to one of two things: either the evil characters are convinced that they're actually doing good (just like the Templars believed they were doing God's work by slaughtering those "evil non-Christian heretics!"), or they believe that if they serve an evil deity and make him proud, they will be rewarded, and granted power, and dominion of a plane of Hell, or something. After all, there are still devil worshipping cults in existence today.

Okay, I don't like the idea of that. I don't mind having an inventory stash at your camp, or one that you can access while adventuring, but I don't like the idea of being able to magically teleport stuff back to your camp. If you don't want to spend the time hauling 100 two-handers back to your camp, then you shouldn't be able to sell 100 two-handers. If they're going to do that, they might as well have a "Loot Dungeon" button which instantly opens up a screen, from which you can choose what, in the entire dungeon that you've cleared so far, to sell, and instantly get the cash for it there and then. At least let us disable this feature for the Hardcore mode, if nothing else.

Actually, I think the "stash" is more immersive. If everybody has their own personal inventory...how, exactly, are you navigating the perilous dungeon with that +1 harness, Glaive of Cleaving, three +2 swords, 8 +3 daggers, Flail of Golemn Smashing, Mail of Epicness, 40,000 potions, and all the trinkets from quests that you never bothered to drop because you might need them later, all stashed away in your backpack? I don't care how strong you are, some things are just too big and bulky to carry on your back. It makes much more sense to have stuff like that in a wagon, or sth, IMO - the wagon doesn't need to be represented on the screen, but for all intents and purposes, it's there.

Actually I was more referring to trying to shoot at somebody who's engaged in melee combat, but...yeah, that too! There should be penalties both to attacks and to defence when trying to melee with a ranged weapon, and penalties to hit targets that are engaged in melee.

But might makes a huge difference in ranged attacks in real life, so this is totally realistic!! You know how gangsta gunmen shoot? This is actually for a good reason, because turning the gun on its side and "throwing" the bullets allows you to project your physical strength into the shot, giving it more power. XD Seriously though, in most RPGs, ranged attacks are ridiculously underpowered - you can hit a fly from 100 yards away but you need to shoot it 8 times before it dies. I'd rather see ranged attacks more effective but less easy to hit, especially at longer ranges or when the target is in melee - have you ever tried to shoot somebody who is in a fight in Mount and Blade? It can be done but it's not easy.

It actually has, in the Neverwinter Nights premium module, Wyvern Crown of Cormyr. tbh, it wasn't that great. Although the jousting was cool, but it was more of a scripted event - choose where to aim and watch the animation happen. It wasn't interactive at all. I think the main problem with horses and moutned combat is that it's hard to create graphics for. Aside from a whole new set of animations, you've got to somehow get the game to redraw your character sitting on a horse, including all of his kit - it's not a trivial thing, and from what I've seen, it adds very little to the game. Sure, it'd be nice, but unless it's a specialised horse combat game like Mount and Blade, I don't think it's worth it, tbh.

Good god, I hope not! Animal companions are just that: companions who are animals. They're not magic, and therefore shouldn't be capable of magical attacks. I certainly don't want to see pet dogs standing on their hindquarters pulling bows... (I'm having a scary image of some Teenage Mutant Hero Animal Companions now! XD )

Personally, I think that's a good thing. Why would you kill an enemy if you don't have to? There's a technical term for somebody who kills things just to satisfy their own desire for killing: homicidial maniac. :D Think about it: you fight a party of orcs. You defeat them, and they scatter and run. What are you going to do: abandon your quest to chase each orc to the end of the Earth, or let them go because they're no longer an obstacle? XP for kills encourages the former, even for morally good characters who are supposed to be merciful. Tabletop games usually grant the players XP for overcoming the obstacle using whatever method they feel necessary, not just for killing it. Sneak past it, talk your way past, put poison in its food, drop the ceiling on its head, turn it into a toad, convince it to turn on its enemies and help you instead, trap it for eternity within a giant Rubik's Cube hidden in the astral plane...all are viable tactics in tabletop RPGs, but in a CRPG where you get XP only for kills, only one option is really open to you. The rest result in you foregoing the XP.

QFT. Let's stop differentiating between male and female, we're all gamers! Spoilers: they did, kind of...they told us about a good deal of the campaign's story. I stopped reading part way through because I didn't want to know any more about what was going to happen to my character. I must say, though, character creation sounds awesome! I love the way you can select culture and ethnicity, because that's one thing I've always found lacking in CRPGs (except maybe for the Elder Scrolls games).

Strongholds and crafting do not a great RPG make. I don't think it's a matter of "winning". For a start, they're not really in competition with each other. It's not as if everybody who buys one will not buy the other; with as much disposable income as we have today, most people can afford to buy many games, and its highly likely a good proportion of the RPG community will buy both games. Besides, you have to define "win" - win what, exactly? Most sales? That's not a fair contest. Bioware have all of EA's corporate assets at their disposal, including their marketing department. EA carefully design their games with the purpose of appealing to the widest possible audience, in order to make as much money as possible, and as such, spend a crap-ton on advertising. Obsidian are a small team making works of art, for a niche audience. They simply do not compare. Popularity amongst fans of old school RPGs? Well, sure, Obsidian will win that, but then, Bioware aren't even trying to work that market anymore, so again, it's not a fair contest. Which one will make the better game? Well, that's down to the individual. We might think it's better, but we are a minority. We can't declare that our opinions are representative of the whole world, because in many cases, they aren't. I mean, I know this is hard to believe, but there are people who actually think D&D4e is good!! It's like saying "who makes the best cars, Jaguar or Vauxhall?" Neither. They make different cars for different people. Jaguar's cars appeal to rich, high-status types who want a flashy looking car that goes fast, but for a cheap, fuel efficient car that can carry entire families plus luggage, they're not too good at that, so Vauxhall's cars are probably more popular overall. But then, Jaguar don't really target that demographic. Who will make the most money? Again, this is down to EA's marketing team, who will make sure the world and its dog knows all about DA:I. This game is made for a niche market, and can't hope to generate as much revenue as EA. Corporate owners aren't idiots (okay, most of them aren't!), they know what they're doing. They know full well that if they make an old school RPG, it won't sell anything like as much as they would want it to (if they thought it would then they would make one). They make the games the way they do because they know what sells, and what will give the best return on the least investment. To summarise for the TL;DR crowd: define "win".

I'm going to say NWN, because having pre-painted 2d portraits depends on there being a portrait that accurately reflects your character. If there isn't one, I would either have to use a portrait that didn't fit my character, or go online and seek out a portrait that is more to my liking. But I don't like the idea of being forced to source a portrait from elsewhere to be able to use my character. I know it's important, for nostalgia purposes, to have 2d paintings - and granted, some of them do look really nice. But surely it's equally important for your character to look like you think he/she should look? If it's a painted portrait, that won't always be the case, and you may have to settle for one that doesn't quite fit simply because it's the closest one out there. If it's a 3d render, your character will look exactly as you've designed his face to look (assuming you can model his face like you can in modern RPGs...if you can't then obviously it's a moot point). What would be really awesome (but I have no idea if this is even possible, let alone practical!) is if the game could somehow generate a 2d portrait based on the face you select/design/whatever, and maybe some other factors that you can select (expression, angle of view, etc) - that would be amazing! XD

It might get a foot in the door, but it'll suck, because everybody will be expecting a repeat of the Baldur's Gate experience, which they're not going to get. Because it'll fall short of expectations, everybody will rail at the developers for daring to release a title that wasn't to their liking, under the title of "Baldur's Gate". Baldur's gate was a product of the Bioware/Black Isle partnership. Many of those people have moved on to other things, and the entire gaming industry has become infected with Moderngameitus. If Baldur's Gate was made now, it'd have map markers, regenerating health, and arcade-style combat. :-P

Why would anybody want a Baldur's Gate 3 now anyway? Are people under the impression that simply calling a game "Baldur's Gate" will automatically make it good? The team that made the original two are not likely to work on any kind of a sequel now. If such a sequel is made, there's a good chance it will disappoint. Also, do we really need a continuation of the whole "child of Bhaal" storyline? Besides, WotC aren't going to grant permission for anybody to do an RPG based on an outdated version of their game, so it will be made with the current version of D&D, which, at the moment, is still officialy 4th edition! Do you really want that??

Problem with romance options is, there is, literally, no way to please everybody. Romances don't write themselves, they have to spend time and resources on writing and scripting them, and if they add one, they will have to add at least another three. Remember the first time this was added in Baldur's Gate 2? It was supposed to be a nice add-in feature, but people started making demands because this add-in feature wasn't to their liking. People didn't thank Bioware for the romance options that they did include, they only complained about the ones that they didn't. Not saying whether I agree or not, simply that I understand if they decide not to. From their point of view, it'll be much better, and far less work, to simply not bother.

I don't. Some of us don't want to play multiplayer, and just want to play by ourselves. There are plenty of multiplayer only games out there, so why should single player gamers not have games to play? It might. It comes down to a matter of developers having to spend resources to implement it and make sure it works properly. I'm sure they've considered giving us the option to run it in multiplayer, but if they can't make it work properly, they shouldn't compromise the single-player experience in order to satisfy the few people who are likely to play it as multiplayer. THE CAKE IS A LIE!!!

Legendary items should be hard to find, and you shouldn't easily stumble upon them. However, in order to be worthwhile, they have to be significantly better than everything else. There's no point getting excited over a +4 longsword when you can buy a +3 longsword in the shops (and a +5 longsword in the next location you visit).

Also true. At least in 2nd edition D&D, you couldn't do stealth with plate armour, but in 3rd edition...if you were amazing at stealth, you could absorb the -5 penalty (or whatever it was)...yeah. It's not a question of being good at stealth, you literally can not do it! The moment you so much as move your arm, the plates make a noise as they clatter against each other. Two guys in full harness fighting is, as you say, a cacophony. eta: Here is a video that shows, briefly, how armour is supposed to be worn: (depicted here is a 15th century harness worn over a mail shirt)

Speaking of that, I'm now curious about the existence/nature of grenade-type weaponry back then. What kind of stuff was commonly seen, and when did it start showing up, exactly? Hmm...earliest I know of is about 17th century, but they may well have been around a bit before then. They were black and spherical with fuses - a bit like the cartoon bomb we generally see in Loony Tunes animations (you know, the ones that don't actually kill you but just leave you charred a bit and then you're totally fine in the next scene :D ). I know that they had grenadiers in the 18/19th centuries. They also had things like Greek Fire, and Chinese rockets, in the medieval period. Pyrotechnics have been weaponised for a long time, but like everything else, it was refined and perfected over the years. eta Nonek That's a pretty cool video! It shows how armoured knights weren't hulking juggernaughts with no skill who couldn't get up when they fell down. The tecniques where they grab their swords' blade half-way down is called "half-swording", and was generally used against armoured knights. The idea was they would use the sword as a lever to trap and throw their opponent, so that they could get the tip into an unprotected area. Also, the dagger in the last scene is an example of a rondel dagger. Also, see how small the swords are? That's what swords really look like. ;-)

Not to mention the fact that you're not even looking down the sights...yeah, I love how assault rifles are always portrayed in films as portable machine guns that can just shoot forever without a need to reload, and are somehow able to shoot with pinpoint accuracy. Also, if there are guns in the game, then there absolutely MUST be bulletproof steel railings that act as super-hard cover!

But that's because, as we all know, European knights had no skill whatsoever, and just flailed around like idiots...a thousand years of hurting each other and nobody in Europe managed to devise an effective way to do so!

Yay! Although I'd prefer it if they didn't convert, I can see why they did that. It always bugged me, though, how the entire world all used exactly the same coins, that had exactly the same value, for everything. It still means you'll be able to travel to the country based on feudal Japan, and your currency will be accepted there - I would prefer it if you had to keep track of lots of different coins for different areas, but that's just me being uber-hardcore, and I understand that this will just inconvenience 99% of players without adding anything to the game.

The story was in a book about English martial arts, and was included as a demonstration of how effective it can be. re: Shaolin style combat weapons - I agree with you there, and while I don't doubt the skill of Shaolin monks, many of these demonstrations tend to be katas, which don't really impress me - to me, it's just a dance. I'm not saying it doesn't take skill, but being able to dance, and follow coreography, doesn't make you a skilled fighter. Vikings could easily do katas if they felt so inclined, but they didn't. Incidentally, Cossacks used to do sword dances too, as did the Sikhs, and many other cultures. It's not even an excusively Oriental thing. When I think of quarterstaff fighting, I don't think of Shaolin style twirling, and using the staff in the Hollywood "half-staff" manner (in which you hold half of the staff), I think of holding it in a similar way to a spear (holding only a quarter of it, hence the name "quarterstaff") and thrusting, as much as striking, with it. In other words, to me, it's a reach weapon, not a double weapon. The halfstaff method of holding in the middle and striking with both ends does not look very effective to me. Stylish and impressive, sure, but by holding it that way, you're severely limiting its reach, thereby taking away its advantage. You're much better off with a pollaxe if you're going to fight like that.

Yeah, I would love to see that! In most RPGs, there's literally nothing to stop you from taking the best weapon you can buy (and you can buy it very quickly). The only real question is "shield or not?", then you just take the highest damage dealer you can find. Also, it's perfectly normal to wander around with it all the time, like it's nothing. This is the RPG equivalent of wandering around New York City with an armalite rifle. (in the UK, if you're so much as found carrying a knife, you get arrested!) Daggers are always practically worthless in RPGs, but in reality, they can be quite deadly if you get close enough. The trick is getting close enough, of course, but it's hard to represent that in a D&D style game, especially on the computer. Instead, they just make daggers the crappy, pants, generic 1d4 damage weapon that's only worth using when you have absolutely nothing else. As for spears...they're one of the worst weapons around in RPGs! (although this might change after last week's Game of Thrones episode). They could get around this by making each weapon good in certain ways, but not so good in others. Things like spears, bills, and two-handed swords, would be great for fighting in an open field, but not so great for fighting in narrow corridors, etc. Some weapons would give bonuses to defence, others to damage...things like that.

Q, F, and a huge resounding T!! I always thought the quarterstaff was horribly under-represented in RPGs (although Warhammer FRP2e does represent them properly). They're always the cheap, crappy, "use this if you can't use anything else" weapon, but they're actually very good. I'd also like to see them used properly, not in the half-staff style always portrayed in films. Perhaps not in an army, but they're useful for self-defence, and in street fights and skirmishes. There's a story about a sailor, Richard Peke, who famously defeated three Spanish swordsmen in a public duel wielding a quarterstaff.