Amentep

Why would a neutral Druid care about the situation unless it was threatening the wildlife (which it doesn't seem to be)? They're not fond of mining (as they won't use metal armors and use natural weapons) IIRC in the D&D setting. You could fall back to "Well solving Gorion's death" which might be a good motivation, but for a particular type of Druid...maybe it isn't. Maybe Gorion and his insistence in staying in Candlekeep was holding you back from your role in life. Maybe the impending war (war affects everything. And never changes1) is enough motivation, but as the war isn't actually happening you could argue the druid could be more inclined to find a druid enclave and work with them to protect nature as part of the druidic group rather than run around with a bunch of random people of vastly different motivations "saving the day". Look I'm not saying BG is bad (I'm rather fond of it and think there are things it does better than BG2), but realistically a narrative railroad is a narrative railroad even if it produces pleasing results. 1Obligatory Fallout opening reference

Two wizard companions in one game? Bit much isn't it? Kinda weird (unless they plan a large number of companions). Has there been any indication how many companions they're planning for?

^Certain neutral and evil characters wouldn't, realistically, care about that either. Again, at some point you can only accept that as a video game you will ultimately be on one of the paths the game allows; complete freedom to define a character as in pen and paper just isn't possible.

Because the weapons you're using are Breaking? To be fair, if you're playing a wizard (in robes, wooden quarterstaff, wooden/leather slings and rock ammo) you might not see a mysterious iron weakness as a pressing matter. Similarly an archery rogue (in leather, wooden bow, wooden arrows) or a druid (unable to wear metal, using a club). Mind you, there is always the obvious motivation of computer RPGs - a quest means killing and looting, naturally. I suppose the secondary motivation is you can't get into Baldur's Gate to track who killed Gorian without solving the iron problem. (You could argue that some evil and neutral types wouldn't care who killed Gorian or about the iron shortage either one, but ultimately that's the limitation of a computer game vs pen and paper...at some point your character is going to have to funnel into the paths the game allows)

This is absurd as it implies isometric gameplay is somehow objectively superior to other styles of gameplay. It's not. I like to think that the Fallout = Isometric gameplay crowd would take a Fallout novel and turn it 45° on its X-Axis and 35.264° on the Y-Axis before reading, so that they were ensured the novel was good.

I don't. It would cause people to lose faith in the company, plus it would mean they don't have enough to make games. er...that was sarcasm in my post...?

I was mostly trying for humor, rather than strict accuracy.

I've liked all the DA's. I'll also admit each has flaws - even flaws big enough that I can understand why others wouldn't like them. But then again I don't expect every game to be the best ever. Or every movie. It's why I can enjoy an ed wood film and a tarkovsky one, they do different things and engage me in different ways. Ymmv, of course.

I'm not sure anyone in this thread believes their punctuation, much less their sentences, at least as far as the topic is concerned...?

You talk about superior drone firepower now, so I'm sure it'd be nice to get paid doing something you love.

Are you sure that was the Codex? I didn't see the words "Incline" or "Decline" used anywhere... I kid, I kid. Kinda funny we have 13 pages (and counting) of reviews of a review. I guess I should get in on that action. FWIW, I think its a fair review of someone who didn't like the game. While I recognize some of the things he classifies as a fault as faults (others didn't bother me but I can understand how, him not liking them, would help ruin the experience) I've probably had an over-all stronger experience than he did.

I think Obsidian should kickstart every IP they don't own. What bad could happen?

Its hard to deny the appeal of the small, perfectly circular pair of glasses. They just look erudite.

Sanders had roundish glasses too... http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/e0/d5/98/e0d59885a6e9b07d71e48e969ff343ac.jpg

I never realized how much Leon Trotsky looked like Harlan Sanders...

Being "basement dwellers" is values neutral? Really? What context or nuance could be added to "Dink the Kool-Aid" where it would not imply that the "Kool-Aid Drinker" is a member of a brainwashed cult? The text you quoted basically has nothing in common with the conclusions you derive. What the hell. Really? So "New generation = healthy cultural vocalublary...language of community" and "missing in the days of 'gamer pride'" is not a implying that the past (identified as "basement dwelling white male gamers" previously) is inferior to the present with new fans (by implication not "basement dwelling white male gamers")? Who said I didn't agree? What we disagree on is who are the trolls - as I've said before anti-GG and GG both are willfully blind to the trolls and harassers in their own camp, because they are so assured of their own righteousness. My point is, her statements are, essentially, lets silence the voices we disagree with. Whether she has the ability to make that happen or not is irrelevant. By forcing the neutral gamer into a position of abandoning "gamer" as an identity or risk being equated with the trolls who harass, stalk and doxx people. As I've said before as someone who plays video games, plays board games, plays P&P RPGs, pays card games, the idea that I'm a gamer is central to a primary hobby that I enjoy. I don't want to have to abandoned that because a group of people on the internet decided to "poison the well" by equating a great, diverse group with its most problematic element. And the division has already happens here, your arguments imply I'm "for" gamersgate when I find both groups problematic. But because I question an article of an anti-GGer I, by default, have to be a GGer. The community stands divided, and it is a very sad thing.

Not aimed at gamers? What Alexander's article did was say "All those people we don't agree with and don't like on the internet - they're 'gamers' now. We're not gamers. So lets start making it so their POV is ignored." Well, that's a supremely unkind reading - I mean, she specified very particular behaviors that characterize the subset of the gaming demographic she was writing her article about. I don't see it as unkind, it is a summation of what the article is about. Lets look at a few more quotes: "You don’t want to ‘be divisive?’ Who’s being divided, except for people who are okay with an infantilized cultural desert of ****ty behavior and people who aren’t?" "When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you’re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. That’s what’s been happening to games. That’s not super surprising, actually. While video games themselves were discovered by strange, bright outcast pioneers -- they thought arcades would make pub games more fun, or that MUDs would make for amazing cross-cultural meeting spaces -- the commercial arm of the form sprung up from marketing high-end tech products to ‘early adopters’. You know, young white dudes with disposable income who like to Get Stuff." "Suddenly a generation of lonely basement kids had marketers whispering in their ears that they were the most important commercial demographic of all time." Summary: The bad element of 'Games Culture' are "gamers" who are "lonely basement dwellers" and/or "white males" "This is hard for people who’ve drank the kool aid about how their identity depends on the aging cultural signposts of a rapidly-evolving, increasingly broad and complex medium." Summary: If you don't agree with me, you're a mindless cult member "A new generation of fans and creators is finally aiming to instate a healthy cultural vocabulary, a language of community that was missing in the days of 'gamer pride'" Summary: Anti-Gamer is "healthy", gamer isn't A note about this, you'll probably argue she's not talking about "Gamers" but only the trolls that she mentions; however she equates those trolls with gamers. The article provides no differential between a "good" gamer and a "bad" gamer and perpetuates a "if you're not with me, you're against me" attitude. "Now part of a writer’s job in a creative, human medium is to help curate a creative community and an inclusive culture -- and a lack of commitment to that just looks out-of-step, like a partial compromise with the howling trolls who’ve latched onto ‘ethics’ as the latest flag in their onslaught against evolution and inclusion." Summary: If you don't agree, you as a game company support trolls and all that they do online And finally, for fun, the definition of Irony: "We are refusing to let anyone feel prohibited from participating." "These obtuse ****slingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had." ie, everyone is free to participate except anyone we disagree with. It may not be aimed at gamers in terms of audience, it is totally aimed at encouraging game companies to divide the gaming public and ignore those people that the writer indicates are the problems. Which you think is, 'where is the problem with not feeding the trolls', except (and again you may disagree with the interpretation) the undercurrent of the article is troll ultimately is "anyone the author disagrees with" because there's no distinction between behavior (trolling) and identity (gamer).

Really? How is Not aimed at gamers? What Alexander's article did was say "All those people we don't agree with and don't like on the internet - they're 'gamers' now. We're not gamers. So lets start making it so their POV is ignored." That's how I took it at least - you can argue that's not what she wanted to imply, but again that's how it seemed to me. I'm not saying GamersGate has been a better group (for every interesting discussion of potentially questionable ethics in journalism situation there seems to be a dozen or more instances of someone talking about what Arthur Chu, Brianna Wu, Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn did today) and it seems to me that both sides pretty much feel the other is some sort of reprehensible sub-human group that its okay to harass and I'm not for harassment, doxxing or anything else of individuals on the internet (about as much as I can say is if someone is doing something proveably illegal, being able to identify them to law enforcement is useful - but at least so far there aren't laws against being an **** or holding unpopular opinions). And yes those elements are only part of either group, but they're a problem for both group that (IMO) each is willing to turn a blind eye to.

IIRC there's two types of skin cancers and one is okayish (for whatever reason it never spreads in the body, so is always easy to cut out) the other being pretty darn bad (and I think its got two types). Anyhow moles can also grow in size because of dead skin not being sloughed off, IIRC. Not a doctor, and this isn't medical advice.

And the game should say these things. Once you tax people passing through it, you are either recognized by the powers in the area or you are a bridge/road bandit taking money from travelers without a right to do so. not disputing that it should recognize it, just thinking it through... Also I goobered and put the name in when it could be considered a spoiler, would appreciate if you fix my error in your quote. Thanks!

Technically, you'd be taking over "That Dude Who You Get The Stronghold From"'s already existing independent realm, wouldn't you? Edit: Probably some ancient treaty "...And verily whosoever stabulates the current lord of Caed Nua shall be named the new lord of Caed Nua until such time that random adventures come and stabulate you" DOUBLE EDIT BONUS: Technically, the spirit in the throne could vouch for your lordship; it offers the lordship to you after all. Given the setting, surely there would be a legal precedence for establishing right of ownership through governing spirits trapped in object TRIPLE HUMBLE EDIT OF DOOM: Forgot what forum I was in, apologies.

Beat to the punch by Kirschrose *tips hat*

To be fair, its not a badly done picture from an execution standpoint. I think any problem it has was at the conception stage - certainly there are design choices that strike me as odd (the pants/shorts and the book being turned so the mage can't actually read it, for example).

Have you tried doing an image search for Legend of the Five Rings (or other Asian-inspired pen and paper RPGs)? Its always a grab-bag, but I liked some of the pictures that showed up doing a search for Lot5R (like this one from the wikia) And there were some pictures like this that could work for an evil mage type that is a wallpaper taken from some of the card game art (Of course tastes vary so you may hate all of these, but there was a lot more out there in different styles and different degrees of realism/fantasy and normal/sexy

Kevin Nash was a bit stiff at times, but he could always turn to the camera. Not sure what you're getting at...