Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'debate'.
Found 4 results
I was playing my character as a soldier based character and I was helping out both factions, my issue is that I preferred the Knights and wanted to side even sabotage the chosen dozen (even though I ended up doing the expidition quest for them with the dud weapons). My big gripe was that I had completed the quest for the metal soilders for the knights and got the armor for the merc boss npc. the commander wanted no accociation with me because afterwards (assuming there was a secondary quest from completing the animated bronze guards) I was hanging around the chosen. I went back to see if I could quit the dozen quest and close my accociation permenetly and choose the knights but was not given this option to end my accociation. Maybe this is just some minor quest but considering its a massive Fortress in the First Fires area and has many minor quests within the building, and that they are running the law and order you would think I could be given the chance to make my choice being the (ignorant outsider with no past ties). Loving the game so far even though I have a few personal minor tastes that would do nicely for adjustment ie carry capacity/resting. Dont know if this is been reported as a bug but while I am here someone can forward it to me if its not been listed. (spoiler) When trying to complete the quest for the thugs harassing the girls at the brothel. Picking the lock on the Ramshakle house in the Port district (forget the name) circumventing the bandits with the key and directly attacking the band will bug the quest. I assumed it was this leader simply because his men were called "Harrasing Thug" and referred it from my journal. Killing the band of thugs outside and taking the key, forwards the quest journal log but it ends up a dead end as soon as you enter the ramshakle house to comfront the instigator (because obviously he has already been killed)
I was wondering what people thought and felt about the disaster in the Phillipines. My feelings are: - pride that my country is assisting survivors - awe at the strength of nature - mounting feeling of frustration I'm frustrated because it seems to me that a nation which experiences as many tropical storms as the Phillipines doesn't seem engaged with the notion of long term planning for the same. It seems perfectly logical to me that if our ancestors, 2000 years ago were capable of building gigantic stone walls to protect against invaders, that persons living in fear of high winds and storm surges should at least attempt something similar.
[Apologies if this topic should be posted elsewhere, this was the best place I could think of for it.] I've been noticing a rather disturbing trend on this forum as of late when it comes to discussions on Project Eternity, and I figure somebody should probably bring it up. Now, I understand we all care very deeply about the success of this project and a lot of us are expecting Project Eternity to be the grand glorious return to the golden age of yore. However, a lot of people have very different and often conflicting ideas on what will make this project successful, as is obvious in the long threads about particularly controversial topics like resting, experience gain and such. While this is okay and in fact a good thing, how these conflicting ideas are being discussed a lot of the time is becoming problematic. Again, I understand that we're all very passionate about this project, and it's natural for that passion to be expressed through what we want in the game or what we think it needs, but we're going overboard and it's derailing legitimate discussion. I'm seeing civil and legitimate debates and discussions turned into really petty internet arguments where it's just a back and forth between two or more dudes trying to prove the other party 'wrong' without trying to see the issue from the other perspective. It gains the thread plenty of attention but all the new opinions and perspectives it brings in are swept away by the constant mile-long multi-quote posts that often just boil down to "Once again, sir, you're the jerk." Now I know anyone who's doing this is only doing it because they care so much about the project, but I'd like to contend that this behavior does more harm than good when a discussion thread degenerates into this state because the communication is no longer efficient or productive. We're supposed to be the Glorious PC Master Race, are we not? If this is true, can we not rise above these petty squabbles for the sake of the community and the project? Can we stop treating our opponents as though they're knuckle-dragging morons because they have a dissenting opinion? Can we all accept that sometimes we may not necessarily be correct in our arguments or assumptions, and not be afraid to admit that? Can we stop ridiculing and ostracizing the man who wants this game to work with a gamepad, even if his reasons aren't necessarily the best and he doesn't necessarily realize the implications of making an interface work on a user experience level with both a keyboard/mouse and gamepad? Project Eternity's got a veteran design team, and they're not going to listen to any arguments that were shouted the loudest, nor are they even going to listen to what arguments are proven right in discussion. They know what they're doing, and they're going to rigorously prototype and playtest every argument they can in the most efficient manner possible before any community suggestions that are beyond 'three days of work to implement vanity feature' are integrated into the design of the game at large. This means we don't have to worry about 'my' Project Eternity being hijacked by some huckster trying to sell everyone on x feature, because debate and discussion means squat when put next to hard playtesting data. The real purpose of these discussions is to bring as many perspectives and ideas to the table as possible for the design team to synthesize while allowing them to get a general idea of what this small slice of the fanbase wants, as hopefully a sample group for the rest of those who kickstarted the project. I believe these arguments getting out of hand muddles that valuable data. I don't know, maybe I'm just new here and I'm seeing patterns that aren't there or this is something that's just part of the culture around here and that's just something to accept. If that's the case, feel free to just let this thread die. But if anyone else thinks what I'm saying here has merit, can we start trying to make a better effort towards respecting each-other and and keeping discussions on track? Thank you.
Hi All, I know there has been several games where a debate or discussion was used to instead of a big bad batte finale, must notably with the Transcendent One in PST and with Letho in Witcher 2. But these were just one off instances rather than permeating throughout the game. I was just wondering whether there has been any cRPG where debate/discussion acted as a combat system in itself. Not too sure whether this is workable or not since it might need to be in the form of a card game or something similar to be practical. There are times when playing as a wizard/mage - where I start thinking. Here we are, two powerful archmages standing toe to toe with a major difference of opinion. And all we can do to settle our differences is to start hurling fireballs at each other? How about a civilized discussion or debate? The loser can leave and reassess his position. The winner can proceed with his objectives and get some cool loot. A win-win situation.