Amentep

gfted1 beat you to it in the movie trailers thread: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/89834-nerdgasm-movie-trailers-and-clips-fall-2016-and-onward/page-6

I think the reason people go back over older areas in open-world gaming has less to do with the character build and more to do with the idea that open-world games are at their heart about exploration, and typically that exploration is multi-level (ie going back to an area with more experience either alters the area or allows you to experience more parts of the area). The narrative, while existant, is secondary to the exploration. Traditional RPGs are about narrative more than exploration. Therefore returning to an area only becomes important to the player if the narrative itself returns the player to that location.

Irish Spring as in the soap product? I have no clue the product origins, but I'd suspect since its soap, its supposed to refer to both; as in its as "clean as Irish spring water" with a fresh scent like "Ireland in the spring".

That's a fun trailer. Hope the movie is as good as that!

Since its not on the pre-vote, it must have something to do with the vote. Like showing which option is in the lead if you can't see the graphic or showing what the voter voted for or something.

You are right, I misremembered Dr. Muzyka's statement as an apology but re-reading it, its clear he did not apologize for anything. I do think the apology with respect to Hainly was for PR purposes; I don't disagree with you there. Whether a re-write is warranted or not, I couldn't say. I talked to Hainly Abrams in game and moved on without that dialogue effecting me positively or negatively - and I doubt any re-write would either. So I'm not the audience who'd care, I guess. I remember Chris Priestly and another moderator whose name escapes me getting (or giving, depending on your perspective, I guess) a lot of heat on my limited time on the old Bioware boards. I heard complaints about some later mods too, but by that point I rarely went there.

It was Arcanum wasn't it? Yes, but I've gotten over it. ...really I have... *sobs*

In light of your earlier post - Is the problem that they apologized at all or is it that they didn't apologize to everyone? This seems unclear based on your posts. As someone playing the game, I didn't really feel they need to apologize to me, no more so than Obsidian or Bethesda do, for a buggy game. Or Troika, the only developers whose game hit me with a truly game-stopping bug (where an item necessary to complete the main quest was destroyed in my inventory forcing me to relaunch the game as despite having about 20 saves, the bug was present in all of them). With respect to not apologizing for writing before, Bioware did apologize over the ending of ME3. Not sure if you count that as part of the writing, but I would. So for me at least they have been fazed by criticism of their writing before. Given that we were talking at cross purposes regarding our respective use and understanding of the word it seemed appropriate. You provided examples of your definition, I provided mine. Now we understand our comments better with context, yes?

I don't disagree, stats are abstractions for interaction into the game. So it doesn't bother me, but this particular debate has been around awhile and while it doesn't bother me, ultimately, I understand why it bothers others as it feels logically inconsistent. In retrospect, they may have been better off leaving Dex, Con and Int behind and using other descriptors that could divorce further from the D&D origins might have helped.

When I learned the word years ago, the definition was as presented in the Oxford English Dictionary: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pander pander verb (pander to) Gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire or taste or a person with such a desire or taste) ‘newspapers are pandering to people's baser instincts’ noun dated 1A pimp. 1.1archaic A person who assists the immoral desires or evil designs of others. ‘the lowest panders of a venal press’ EDIT: I should probably also note that Pandering, as a legal charge in the US at least, is related to procuring prostitutes for someone or finding clients for prostitutes. Therefore when someone uses pandering, I - and a lot of others - are going to see it as a condemnation of those who they are declaring to be pandering. And seeing that applied to an apology by a game company seems strongly negative and very odd to me.

My confusion in this situation stems more from the fact that if we go with this definition, the entire gaming industry is built on pandering. So why exactly is it a bad thing now? Traditionally, pander has a negative context of providing gratification to base and/or undesirable desires. Porn panders to base sexual instinct, gossip columns pander to the need to spread malicious rumors, "if it bleed, it leads" journalism panders to a desire to see blood and guts, etc.

Yeah just read that. RIP.

Talking with your fellow posters about things that are "literally irrelevant" to you is relevant? So the takeaway is that you like talking about talking. Cue Inception/Xzibit memes. Sorry, I don't buy that the reason for you quoting me is simply that "you're reading the thread". Do you post nothings in all the threads you read? And, since you are a mod, you probably read a lot... What was the point you were trying to make, again? That you don't understand or care about some things other people talk about? And therefore... no one else should care either? Okay chief. But that's not quite how this whole internet thing works. To be honest, most of my posts are in WoT, so probably the vast majority of my posts could be considered nothings. And to be fair, I also have went years reading without posting anything. It was a slow 5-6 years. Anyhow, to summarize as I see it, you posted your opinion that Bio's apology was pandering, I posted mine that Bio's apology was irrelevant to me and that I didn't understand why it would be to anyone else and somehow or another you think my posting that opinion is some sort of claim that you shouldn't be able to hold your opinion. Which it isn't. If I'd thought you shouldn't hold that opinion I'd have written something like "I don't care about Bioware's apology and no one should". Which I didn't. So therefore I've made no value judgement on your opinion, nor have I suggested you should not have any opinion you wish to take. I just stated I don't understand it. Which is vastly different conceptually. I don't understand your opinion. I don't understand the use of 'pandering" unless you see the LGBTQ as having immoral or distasteful desires, needs or habits. Maybe you do. I do not. Perhaps that's the piece I'm missing. Does it matter? No again I make no value judgement on your opinion. I am trying to understand it. Trying to understand why a company apologizing to a group that you and I (presumably) are not members should matter to us. Its not going to change the game substantially; if you don't like that they included a LGBTQ character the apology and the change isn't going to remove that. So what does it matter? “For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.” ― Stephen Hawking

I'm playing ME:A and PoE right now. I should be offended at myself, obviously.

There's no such descriptor tho, there's just an abstract 'Constitution'. This whole line of argumentation is made fairly fruitless by the inclusion of such attributes as 'Intelligence', 'Charisma' or 'Resolve' - in other words, physical and mental attributes get mixed together and combined without much coherence to it anyway, might as well clear up the confusion to some extent and give them clear gameplay effects. By "descriptor" I mean the in-game text that explains the attribute. Had it said "enduring and coping with pain" I'd agree that the desciptors used to describe the attribute bridged mental and physical attributes. Since PoE was "inspired" by the BG/IWD D&D games, I think partially the issue stems from expectations. D&D classifies STR-DEX-CON and physical attributes and INT-WIS-CHA as mental ones. Part of the disconnect I feel is that CON and DEX still heavily imply physical qualities and INT-PER-RES imply mental ones. This throws MIGHT into its own category since its in-game description does state it covers both physical and non-physical things.

Uh-huh. Literally irrelevant, and yet somehow you couldn't resist the urge to interject. Talk about mystifying. Bioware apologizing is irrelevant to me. That people are posting on a thread that posting an apology is somehow pandering isn't irrelevant to me because I'm reading this thread. That I post isn't a sign that the apology is somehow relevant to me, its that this thread and talking with my fellow posters is. I agree. Most NPCs in RPGs info dump far too easily. That they do is irrelevant to me. If someone doesn't like it - all or in part - and the developer decides to change the dialogue odds are it'll continue to be irrelevant to me.

You could ask Hainly why she joined the initiative and she basically told you she wanted a fresh start as Hainly and to stop being Stephan. Then she said her name is made up from the first letters of her favorite cities. .........And that's bad because...? As I understand it, in the rush to make sure it was understood the character was trans, the dialogue has Hainly revealing things about themselves that would be atypical for a first time meeting a person discussion and by referencing her previous name in a way that was inauthentic. So the change will be to - again as I understand it - make the dialogue more natural and more authentic.

I don't see why I should care whether they apologize to one group, all groups or no groups. It is literally so irrelevant to my life as to be positively mystifying to me that anyone actually cares about it.

Were there people hurt by waxy faces, derpy eyes and 'melting off a couch' animations they should also apologize to? I remember talking with Hainly, I remember the dialogue and it didn't phase me. And you know what, now that they're changing it, when I see the dialogue again...it still won't phase me. If a simple change like this makes some group of fans happy, why would I care? It's not like I'm playing MASS EFFECT: HAINLY ABRAMS. Sometimes I'm positively mystified by the stuff that works gamers up.

Health and Endurance. Physically taxing activities. These are physical qualities. I'd argue that "enduring pain" is a physical quality as well; IMO the correct way to address it as a mental descriptor would be 'coping with pain'.

Constitution is a physical attribute? Per the in-game description yes - Constitution is a combination of the character's overall health and endurance. Although it is not used much in interactions, it is sometimes checked to withstand pain or endure a physically taxing ordeal. In combat, it affects maximum Health and Endurance and contributes to the Fortitude defense. Health and Endurance. Physically taxing. Might - Might represents a character's physical and spiritual strength, brute force as well as their ability to channel powerful magic. During interactions, it can be useful for intimidating displays and acts of brute force. In combat, it contributes to both Damage and Healing as well as the Fortitude defense. Might is both physical and spiritual, but there's no way to divide the two - if you are spiritually mighty you also have all the benefits of the physically mighty. Like you, I'm not bothered by the abstractions but the complaint/concern has been there since the stats were announced.

I took it to mean that if you see in D&D someone has an 18 STR is stronger than someone who has a 10 STR and that carries through to higher carry weight, greater damage, ability to use weapons that rely on STR attribute like a compound bow. The actual numerical values and percentages are never obvious (if I asked what benefit is there to a 17 con vs a 16 con in PoE, could you tell me without looking it up? I couldn't beyond "17 con will have more Fortitude and Endurance") Might being an abstracted quality can create confusion since it means a damage increase to physical, ranged, magical, mental and divine attacks, which seems to be pretty straightforward, Might isn't talking about a physical quality but 'soul power'... ...except then you have Dexterity and Constitution which clearly are physical attributes so the natural question becomes how strong is my 18 MIGHT wizard? And while it doesn't bother me much, I can understand where people find a disconnect with might (and it was there from the early days of PoE1 development).

I think its also fair to point out that PoE doesn't use the idea of physical strength like the BG games do - ie there's no weight limit, only an item number limit and anything goes in the deep stash. I know it was mentioned when PoE was in development, but "might" could possibly have been a poor descriptor, as it represented more of a general potency than it did physical power. Actually I'd argue the critical path doesn't avoid it, its just that there are usually multiple obstacles with multiple solutions that create an illusion that the critical path is not a typical quest. But it is, just odds are it'll be the most complex and multi-staged one. I think collection and combat quests are the most typical simply because they play towards two systems usually present in RPGs - some kind of inventory/equipment system and some kind of combat system. As the player will naturally interface with both throughout the course of the game. the natural inclination is to favor these systems in quest design either through focusing on one (kill the raiders, find the loyhargil) or some combo of both (like collecting herbs to make potions to increase potency in combat).

Well, the lore was what I was more referring to. I think in the case of race though, they gave everyone a deadline to enter by, but I think it'd have been hard to go to backers and say - "well godlikes are supposed to be rare, and if we allow you to use godlike as your race we'll go over 5% NPC backers being godlike...so you need to pick another race". Have to concur. It would have been nice to see the explanation in game, however, sometimes from an RP perspective things that are "taken for granted" shouldn't be lore dumped on you. That kind of info had no real impact on the game itself, so blatantly in your face explaining it isn't really "required". Let the player make some cognitive leaps on their own, it gets them more invested. I don't think a lore dump would have been necessary. Something like Ninjamestari's suggested dialogue line could have been enough. Although perhaps there could have also been more that could have been done without being a lore dump. A group that is resentful of godlikes because they're above the tragedy and because they're coming in and taking jobs. Some charlatan godlikes trying to work a con on some religious types. Some death godlikes who can't find work and have taken to frighting people out of their cash. Any of those kinds of things could have built on both the godlikes role in society and also why there were so many in the area without necessarily needing to lore dump things.

Your right. Not sure where I got 2013 from.