BREAKING NEWS: NEW EXCLUSIVE DRAGON AGE FOOTAGE

[Magister Lajciak]

The term low-magic means different things to different people. For some, it means weak-magic and for others rare-magic. For me, it means non-trivialized magic (no hundreds or thousands of +1 swords, for example, available everywhere).

[Xard]

The term low-magic means different things to different people. For some, it means weak-magic and for others rare-magic. For me, it means non-trivialized magic (no hundreds or thousands of +1 swords, for example, available everywhere).

 

Same here

[Bos_hybrid]

Have you - heaven forbid - READ any of Tolkien's works instead of just watching the films?

 

FR has nil believability, cohesion, depth or originality. All Tolkien's magnificent world has.

 

Did you just say a world that has dwarves, elves, orcs, hobbits and magic had believability?

[Tigranes]

Believability has nothing to do with having dwarves or elves. It's more about the internal coherence/plausibility and the vividity of the description - and Tolkien certainly has both.

[Sand]

Darklands is genuinely low magic, though I don't think MPS Labs ever went out of their way to market it as such. Potions were the most common magic items, but they were essentially spells. Even calling on a saint's aid was relatively rare.

 

Yet another reason why Darklands owned so hard.

 

After Aliens and Alpha Protocol, you really should push for a Darklands-esque CRPG, J.E.. I think Obsidian could make an awesome low magic CRPG. Just add a NWN2-esque toolset when you're done.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Or maybe they should go for something interesting that hasnt been done before, instead of shoveling more manure on the already oversaturated stack of fanatasy RPG's.

[newc0253]

The term low-magic means different things to different people. For some, it means weak-magic and for others rare-magic.

i agree but i also think that 'low magic' is most often used in this context to refer to fantasy settings in which magic is rare (even if powerful) rather than a setting in which magic is weak.

 

LOTR is usually cited as 'low magic' in this context, although the balance sheet is more skewed than people realise.

 

For instance, LOTR seems 'low magic' in the sense that there's apparently only five wizards in the entire world, with only vague references to other magic users (the witch king of angmar, neumenoreans practising sorcery, etc). Also, Gandalf and Sauraman don't seem to do a lot of spells, at least compared with your average D&D mage.

 

On the plus side, though, people are familiar with magic swords and even magic rings (otherwise Bilbo's ring would have been identified as a ring of power from day 1). Not to mention the large amounts of 'magic-like' abilities and items, e.g. it's strongly implied that Elrond and Galadrial have significant power, and not only because they are ring-bearers. Elves and dwarves alike produce items with magic-like abilities, whether it's magic rope, magic grow-dust, or magic cloaks, etc.

 

For me, it means non-trivialized magic (no hundreds or thousands of +1 swords, for example, available everywhere).

This is kind of my point. When most people say they want 'low magic' what they really want is 'no stupid magic' or, more to the point, 'no barrels with +4 greatswords in them' (i'm looking at you, NWN1).

 

a real low magic setting, say like the Fire & Ice books where magic seems AFAIK virtually non-existent, would - for me at least - be a real bummer to play. if i wanted to play a magic-free setting, why not just play some historical sim instead, like Viking Total War or something?

[Sand]

Or maybe they should go for something interesting that hasnt been done before, instead of shoveling more manure on the already oversaturated stack of fanatasy RPG's.

 

Everything has been done before in some form or another, Kaftan.

[Humodour]

Or maybe they should go for something interesting that hasnt been done before, instead of shoveling more manure on the already oversaturated stack of fanatasy RPG's.

 

Well, they're already doing this with both Aliens and Alpha Protocol, so fair crack of the whip.

[Tale]

I think there's a lot that hasn't been done with medieval fantasy. Hell, I consider Baldur's Gate II to be among the most original use of the setting/genre. Mostly because of the way the city interacted with spellcasters. And also because of how tightly packed that city was.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Or maybe they should go for something interesting that hasnt been done before, instead of shoveling more manure on the already oversaturated stack of fanatasy RPG's.

 

Everything has been done before in some form or another, Kaftan.

 

 

No. No, it hasnt. In fact, from what we know of Alpha protocol and Aliens, they are both new breeds. Unless you want to be asanine and set your definitions so ridicilously wide that nothing truly counts as new.

[RangerSG]

Kaftan,

 

Aliens is inherently different from ME or KotOR? How, they're all sci-fi. So Aliens claims to be slightly lower tech. DA claims to be lower magic than the typical fantasy. You don't believe their claims, why should we believe the hype on Aliens just because you do? I don't know what to make of Aliens yet, for myself. I'll judge when I see it.

 

As for AP, 'lots' of spy games have been done before. And the Max Payne stories combined FTS and RPG elements before. So although it interests me, that doesn't mean it's "unique" and nothing in it has been done before. It means it's interesting on it's own merits. Which is what 'every' game should be judged on.

 

Bottom line, stop trying to foist your assumptions about fantasy onto everyone else. They're wrong, they're rude, and they add nothing to the discussion.

[Tale]

And the Max Payne stories combined FTS and RPG elements before.

Wait, what?

[RangerSG]

Ack, my bad, wires crossed on that. I meant Deux Ex.

[Xard]

As for AP, 'lots' of spy games have been done before. And the Max Payne stories combined FTS and RPG elements before. So although it interests me, that doesn't mean it's "unique" and nothing in it has been done before. It means it's interesting on it's own merits. Which is what 'every' game should be judged on.

 

Spies games have been around since beginning. But nothing like AP has

[Morgoth]

Well I don't know what all this fuss is about. I enjoy fantasy, low, high, left, right, wherever, same as SciFi, hardcore Alien style, or pretty princess Star Wars style, as long as it is made well. Bioware knows it's shat, and so does Obsidian. Good for me.

[RangerSG]

Morgoth,

 

That's my point as well. More or less. Every game has conventions. Those conventions may not be for everyone, but trying to force personal preferences on everyone else is simply rude and uncalled for. I'm interested in both AP and DA, and I don't see any reason not to be. Certainly not because of assumptions about the genre.

[Volourn]

"Volo, FR stole a lot from Tolkien - orcs, elves etc. - so get over with it."

 

Orcs, and elves were around before Tolkien.

[Pidesco]

Tolkien style elves most definitely weren't. And before Tolkien there was no such thing as "elves". "Elfs" was the plural.

 

Orcs were also a Tolkien invention. He made them up completely and added the word "orc" from Old English, meaning simply "monster."

[Xard]

"Volo, FR stole a lot from Tolkien - orcs, elves etc. - so get over with it."

 

Orcs, and elves were around before Tolkien.

 

Nope, both orcs and elves as they are nowadays known are Tolkien's creations

 

Tolkien took the name "Ork" (and changed k to c) from old english or something. It means monster or something like that like Pid said.

 

edit: sorry, old english

Edited July 14, 2008 by Xard

[Tale]

Balor, original creation, do not steal!

[Xard]

 

I remember when I first encountered balor in some CRPG... I was quite new to FR.

 

I burst some veins when WotC were ****y enough to even steal the ****ing name

 

edit: brainfart, they didn't steal the name, but the design and everything else apart from the name. Name is off the same creature word barlog was derived from though

Edited July 14, 2008 by Xard

[Volourn]

Let me guess.. it's okay for Tolkien to 'steal' ideas, creatures, and whatnot from avrious sources but wrong for others? Whatever. Tolkien heavily borrowed stuff too. Big deal.

 

Orc(Orks) (whatever you want to call them), and Elfs existed beforehand. He just refined them to fit his world. Just as D&D did. Big deal. And, both Tolkien and D&D creators were successful in doing so. *shrug*

 

Plus, Tolkien is overrated. Solid writer but that's it.

[Xard]

(actually WotC was clever enough to call it balor instead of Balrog. Design is that of balrog though, not of one eyed giant *shrug* )

 

Tolkien was great writer. The Hobbit might be his best written work. It is very witty and charming...so very english

 

Not to say LotR's writing isn't great but it is tad a bit heavyweight at places (which was choice from Tolkien's part). But still it has many genius bits in it.

 

The story of Turin Turambar is especially well written, leaving LotR and maybe Hobbit too behind it as far as writing goes. Silmarillion - although being LotR heavyweightness tp ^10 - is also great work with very good writing at places.

 

Tolkien didn't steal anything. He borrowed stuff, revised and tweaked and sometimes completely changing their meaning (e.g word elf. Elves themselves are entirely original).

 

It is quite a big difference to FR and FR cosmology in which you can copy & paste Yssgard, egyptian gods (even acknowledging they are egyptian gods from EARTH) and all that

Edited July 14, 2008 by Xard

[taks]

yeah... hobbits were tolkien "inventions," but not orcs nor elves, which is apparent in the use of the "halfling" in D&D because of an infringement issue (as i recall).

 

taks