Amentep

I actually still haven't seen Letters and Flags...

Those are his really good ones. If you have watched those you don't need to watch the rest. Can't remember what the rest was, but I guess that's my point Off the top of my head (I know he's directed more) Play Misty for Me, High Plains Drifter, The Eiger Sanction, The Outlaw Josey Wales, The Guantlet, Sudden Impact, Pale Rider, Heatbreak Ridge, Bird, Unforgiven, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, and Blood Work were all pretty decent films.

The comics I read as a kid, I don't remember him being unlikable tho. Smart alec, sure, somewhat arrogantly detestable, no. He was relatable in the comics because what kid hasn't had similar frustrations at some point or another. In the film, while his situations might be sympathetic, he was not. eg, the translation to the screen wasn't a good one. Or maybe the actor's abilty to portray "angst" just didn't do it for me. I agree that the new Peter Parker wasn't as sympathetic as the old one as he seemed overly arrogant. Oddly enough, though, I think they made better use of Spider-Man though, cracking wise a good bit when in costume which seemed to fit the attitude of this Parker really well. But particularly early on I had a hard time being sympathetic for Peter (I think he comes off better as the film goes on).

"Dude...you slapped a fiiish. You punched it. Why would you hit it?" "I wanted to make some seafood." lol

I do the same thing! I tend to enjoy those first 15-20 too, but then I'm just done. Happens with every Elder Scrolls game, Fallout was the first game they made that I actually finished. I think it has more to do with enjoying the setting for me, I just lose interest in the enter world after awhile. Only one I did that with was Oblivion so far.

Depends, maybe they do dress in the style of [part] of the continent? Kinda hard to say at the moment.

There's a difference, though, between inspired by Medieval Europe and being Medieval Europe. The advantage in a situation like Project Eternity (over, say D&D) is that they can build the monk class history into the setting from the beginning and thus show how / why it developed organically in the campaign setting (which isn't Europe).

While I don't disagree with your excellent points about Europe and medieval Europe and the transformative effect of two cultures when introduced to one another, the big sticking point for many people is that Project Eternity isn't set in Europe.

To be totally fair, I imagine that people do the "I played this for 100 hours and hated it. Then I took an arrow to the knee" bit because far too often conversations go like this: Player 1: "I played Skyrim for 3 hours, but couldn't get into it and ultimately felt without any narrative that hooked me or other interest that I shouldn't continue..." Player 2: "Oh only 3 hours, you need at least 5 to see all the good bits. You should play it more and you'll see why its great..." etc. And of course that leads to the silliest argument of all, that you can't dislike a game until you've done everything in it (including beating it) and only then (after 60+ hours) can you say you didn't like it... ...at which point people begin to wonder why you put 60+ hours into something you hate. Its a viscous cycle, I tells ya!

FORTON: "I used to be an adventurer...until I took an arrow to my nipple".

What can I say, I'm biased and only care about the health of women's sternums. "Hey baby...I want you to have...a healthy sternum" *slap* Okay maybe that isn't working out so well. This type of attitude breaks my immersion and verisimilitude. It bent my wookie too. I'm for the inhuman woman if she's sexy. Peep! Your intimidation tactics, slinging your schlong in the face of nay-sayers, won't work on me. No really, it won't work, don't try it. Whose indeed.

Surely in a fantasy world, familiar structures are pointless constructs? Whether a "landsknecht" would make sense in a "martial arts" or "samurai" RPG would really depend on the kind of world and history being created and presented wouldn't it? Provided the setting supports and motivates the existance of someone who'd be a "landskenecht" (or fantasy equivalent) in the "samurai" world, then surely there is no internal inconsistency in the fantasy setting and the problem only lies in an external inconsistancy (namely that the "real world" doesn't support the real world "class" in the real world equivalent of the setting) perceived by the player and applied to the fantasy world?

I've enjoyed most of the SMT games that I've played and related series (that said I never finished SMT: Devil Survivor).

I'm pretty sure most of the factions in Morrowind were joinable without exclusion (I seem to recall being the head of both the Mage's and Fighter's Guild). There were exclusivity in the Houses as i recall (never did the Vampire stuff, but I seem to recall hearing they were exclusive). Since Oblivion moved location, it seems the majority of the organizations that carried over weren't exclusive in Morrowind - if my memory is correct.

What can I say, I'm biased and only care about the health of women's sternums. "Hey baby...I want you to have...a healthy sternum" *slap* Okay maybe that isn't working out so well.

I'd think (and could be wrong) that most people who are heavily conservative secessionists see the federal government as something granted its powers by consent of the state; their patriotism therefore should be stronger for their state than for the nation as a whole, which they see as an outgrowth of their state agreeing to cede part of its state power to a national government to encourage inter-state cooperation and management. Ergo, the state is more important than the nation.

If I thought romances would hinder game quality, I'd not argue for them. But I'm pro-romance in that I think there's value in developing relationships of all types with the NPC and PC. But I certainly can't dismiss those who think that such effort will negatively impact the game because to my mind the implementation of it isn't trivial - not saying you are saying they are, but that that has been an argument on these threads.

To be honest, I've never seen much difference between Morrowind, Oblivion or Skyrim. Except Oblivion introduced the character creation feature of "exploded faces" that never looked quite right. The only difference really is cutting down the "busywork" in building skills (I jumped from tall building and didn't die - skill level up!). I never felt any real interest from any of the NPCs in any of the games or any of the quests. The guilds are a joke with one being able to join most (if not all) of them without issue (whether it makes sense or not). The fun in the games was roving around the landscape doing whatever you felt like doing, not in engaging characters or plots. Although Morrowind is unbearably ugly without mods, IMO. Any how, which is better - "I saw a mudcrab today...horrible creature" or "I used to be an adventurer like you...then I took an arrow to the knee"?

I remember the only time I ever renamed all the NPCs in a game, I then spent the game having a dickens of a time trying to remember who was who because I couldn't remember what I'd named them. So no real interest from me.

Of a single minor quest. Describing the romance as minor is precisely the reason why some people argue that people who want romance in games just want a sex minigame. Because it doesn't seem like there's any import to them if they're "minor". So minigame. I'd also argue that the proper way to do a romance is that it can't be a singular "extra" quest, because then the Player is going to feel the character is pointless unless they want to romance them. To make sure that the character holds up in responsiveness for all players, the Romance should be an alternate path and there should be dialog content for the player who chooses not to romance the NPC that still gives the NPC character depth. Which would mean, realistically, that adding a romance is at least creating double the amount of work. YMMV, of course. To be honest, downplaying the implementation of romances (as some people have claimed a fully formed, completely responsive, non-trivial romance could be created in hours) isn't helpful either. What we know is that the developers have said that it takes 2-3 months to write a companion. For a romance to work (IMO) it cannot be tacked onto the character as an afterthought, it has to be part of the 2-3 months. It should - as I mentioned above - not lock out the player who doesn't choose the romance from having and interesting companion. Which means developing parallel relationships (romance-friendship or romance-rivalry or romance-unrequited love or whatever) Now you also need to make the romance recognizable by the game world (since the player is going to want feedback on their choices). So now the other companions need to have comments, maybe non-joinable NPCs; maybe the villain. And now their are other choices - should a group going to an Inn with a couple in a relationship be charged more for a specific room for themselves? Should there be shops that sell items that you can give to your SO (for RP purposes not for a +1 on the relationship meter)? Are their quests where knowing that the characters are in a relationship is important (storyline bits where the heroes may end up captured and being interrogated I think you'd want the game to acknowledge trying to get to the PC through the NPC SO). Etc. So to my mind this stuff isn't minor and isn't trivial.

I watched Skyfall over the weekend (enjoyed it, has more similarity to Casino Royale than Quantum of Solace) and the Star Trek reboot (which I liked again).

Mebbe it should be treated like romance then. A pop up message that says "You happen to have some bread in your backpack. It looks delicious. Your stomach growls when you look at it, though you do not know why. You feel strangely compelled to sink your teeth into it. Give in to this seduction y/n" Completely optional. Now we're back on the winning track with pop-a-bread gameplay and romance pies!

*Knock, knock* "Who's there?" "Forton" "Forton Who?" "Forton is a lot of weight!" ... Maybe you had to be there.

I never argued romance was required, though, only one "tool in the toolbox" for developers to use if/when it made sense (to them, not to us) On the flip side, really don't want to see a non-toggle-able food mechanic because I find them a bore in games and a lot harder to ignore than optional dialogue. Can't argue that it isn't, but ultimately that's what most of these things boil down to from our (the game players) perspective

1. Few things would be more important than food. 2. There can be choices about food - do you actively kill monsters/ animals and eat them, do you use a character's skill (like setting snares) to simulate hunting, or do you fight humanoid enemies to buy food with their gold? 1. In real life, yeah. In a game? Not to me because that's not what interest me - the story & characters are. If I wanted to play a sim game, I'd play the Sims and be forced to feed my Sim and guide them to the bathroom to poop and all that. 2. Again making complex systems to handle what is essentially a money/time sink button press element ("Press 'Y' to not starve to death") isn't interesting to me. I won't hate it if a food mechanic is in, but its not something I have an interest in.