New Races?

[Tagaziel]

Humans all around the world have same set of voice formation organs, so every human should be able to speak any human language in existence, which makes learning relatively easy. Then again some insectoid species would most likely do it in some completely different way. For example ants communicate in way that scientist still can't fully understand. Grasshoppers by rubbing their legs into their wings. etc. Just how would those creatures communicate with ordinary people in an era where written language is privilege of scholars and rich? Of course those scholars might be able to learn the ways of their language, but how could some poor peasant or ordinary merchant? That's why they don't make sense as playable race: They just don't fit into society developers are creating. If this was world with modern science and education then it would be much easier to accept, but in medieval era without printing press those races should definitively be outcasts living as their own tribe and in mutual distrust between them and humans as most of them can't understand each other.

 

Again, the same flawed logic. Necessity breeds invention. Frontier towns that interact with such alien cultures would devise ways of communication. Can't speak or write? Use symbols and gestures. Hell, we are able to communicate with dogs and apes, despite our differences. It's not perfect, but it's easy to extend the same principles to communication with entirely different species.

 

You can have conflict and interesting writing without making them playable. Making one of them join your party and go adventuring with you usually just breaks the tension of that situation and just makes your party feel like that freak show I mentioned or some Pokemon game. (Gotta catch 'em all!) It's ok in games like Planescape, which was one big freak show in itself, but from what I have heard about PE, devs are aiming for "realistic" fantasy this time and that sets completely different requirements... at least from me.

 

Uh, then write the game, so that it's not a freak show? Seriously, the same logic can be applied to eliminating female player characters: after all, realistically, women would be precluded from adventuring, much the same way they were in medieval times. With certain exceptions, but still.

[Haerski]

Humans all around the world have same set of voice formation organs, so every human should be able to speak any human language in existence, which makes learning relatively easy. Then again some insectoid species would most likely do it in some completely different way. For example ants communicate in way that scientist still can't fully understand. Grasshoppers by rubbing their legs into their wings. etc. Just how would those creatures communicate with ordinary people in an era where written language is privilege of scholars and rich? Of course those scholars might be able to learn the ways of their language, but how could some poor peasant or ordinary merchant? That's why they don't make sense as playable race: They just don't fit into society developers are creating. If this was world with modern science and education then it would be much easier to accept, but in medieval era without printing press those races should definitively be outcasts living as their own tribe and in mutual distrust between them and humans as most of them can't understand each other.

 

Again, the same flawed logic. Necessity breeds invention. Frontier towns that interact with such alien cultures would devise ways of communication. Can't speak or write? Use symbols and gestures. Hell, we are able to communicate with dogs and apes, despite our differences. It's not perfect, but it's easy to extend the same principles to communication with entirely different species.

Again you didn't understand my point. Implementing creature who can only communicate with you in symbols an gestures in your party would get boring and tiresome pretty soon. It may work in brief quests and encounters with these races, but over time it will get old. This thread is about playable races and I have said all along I'm not against alien races in overall, just making them playable.

 

And I'm not arguing they in anyway couldn't communicate with humans from scientific standpoint. We are talking about fictional world with fictional races and I'm only saying how I myself would like to see alien races handled in PE. You obviously have your own ideas, but it's not relevant to start any sociobiological debate over these things. I don't think they make any sense to have in your party in a way I imagine them and that's the end of it. It's just opinion. Do I have to write IMO in every sentence to make it clear enough?

 

You can have conflict and interesting writing without making them playable. Making one of them join your party and go adventuring with you usually just breaks the tension of that situation and just makes your party feel like that freak show I mentioned or some Pokemon game. (Gotta catch 'em all!) It's ok in games like Planescape, which was one big freak show in itself, but from what I have heard about PE, devs are aiming for "realistic" fantasy this time and that sets completely different requirements... at least from me.

 

Uh, then write the game, so that it's not a freak show? Seriously, the same logic can be applied to eliminating female player characters: after all, realistically, women would be precluded from adventuring, much the same way they were in medieval times. With certain exceptions, but still.

Yes, I think female characters should encounter difficulties because of their gender. For example in Mount & Blade it was made harder for female characters to climb the ladders of hierarchy. It was part of medieval culture and it would be very nice touch to handle that subject in PE.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Haerski

[Mandragore]

I don't want PE to become some kind of freak show. Too many and too outlandish races do just that and secondly insectoids and such never make much sense as playable characters. What's the probability that two completely different paths of evolution somehow end up being able to speak same language? And if they don't speak same language, then how could creature evolved from some spider or lizard communicate with humans so it doesn't affect gameplay too much? And how could they live among us in society designed for humans, cause I'm pretty sure no one wants to see humanoids with animal heads anymore?

 

By your logic, eg. Europeans would never be able to communicate with people outside their continent (or even country). And yet they did. Interspecies communication is possible, you just need a comparable level of intelligence. The process wouldn't be easy, sure, but it's definitely not impossible.

 

Furthermore, you honestly fail to see the potential for conflict and interesting writing here? The problem of assimilating non-human species? The interaction between humans and them? I'm working on something similar by now and it's fascinating to explore, the alien cultures, different societies etc.

 

So millions of years of evolutionary divergence is the same thing as two human groups speaking different languages? That's a ridiculous comparison. Haerski pointed out some weaknesses of the concept, but I think the main objection is just that most people don't want to see a bunch of animal head-human body races which are lame looking and basically just scream lazy dev.

 

Keep the furry crap outa here.

[Tagaziel]

So millions of years of evolutionary divergence is the same thing as two human groups speaking different languages? That's a ridiculous comparison. Haerski pointed out some weaknesses of the concept, but I think the main objection is just that most people don't want to see a bunch of animal head-human body races which are lame looking and basically just scream lazy dev.

 

Keep the furry crap outa here.

 

It's good that Obsidian isn't "most people."

 

I do find it annoying that most people don't read what they respond to. If you actually read it, you'd notice that I also pointed out that humans can and do communicate with different species. If we can communicate with other animals that do not share our intelligence level but are otherwise smart (canines, birds, cats, dolphins etc.), it's only logical that we can communicate better with different species that have a similar level of intelligence.

 

It isn't rocket science.

 

Again you didn't understand my point. Implementing creature who can only communicate with you in symbols an gestures in your party would get boring and tiresome pretty soon. It may work in brief quests and encounters with these races, but over time it will get old. This thread is about playable races and I have said all along I'm not against alien races in overall, just making them playable.

 

Uh, then use that as a character development arc? Eventually learn the language of your "alien" party member and vice versa, which also brings with it trust and a potential character quest?

 

And I'm not arguing they in anyway couldn't communicate with humans from scientific standpoint. We are talking about fictional world with fictional races and I'm only saying how I myself would like to see alien races handled in PE. You obviously have your own ideas, but it's not relevant to start any sociobiological debate over these things. I don't think they make any sense to have in your party in a way I imagine them and that's the end of it. It's just opinion. Do I have to write IMO in every sentence to make it clear enough?

 

If you want your opinion to be left in peace, post it on your blog and disable comments. By posting it on a public forum, you are automatically agreeing to let people disagree with it, comment and use them as jumping boards for a discussion of broader themes that are quite relevant at the design stage of a game.

 

Yes, I think female characters should encounter difficulties because of their gender. For example in Mount & Blade it was made harder for female characters to climb the ladders of hierarchy. It was part of medieval culture and it would be very nice touch to handle that subject in PE.

 

Except P:E is not our medieval culture. But exploring challenges posed by a fantasy setting for females? Sure, why not.

[Mandragore]

So millions of years of evolutionary divergence is the same thing as two human groups speaking different languages? That's a ridiculous comparison. Haerski pointed out some weaknesses of the concept, but I think the main objection is just that most people don't want to see a bunch of animal head-human body races which are lame looking and basically just scream lazy dev.

 

Keep the furry crap outa here.

 

It's good that Obsidian isn't "most people."

 

I do find it annoying that most people don't read what they respond to. If you actually read it, you'd notice that I also pointed out that humans can and do communicate with different species. If we can communicate with other animals that do not share our intelligence level but are otherwise smart (canines, birds, cats, dolphins etc.), it's only logical that we can communicate better with different species that have a similar level of intelligence.

 

Obsidian hasn't made any game that I'm aware of with a surfeit of animal head races, maybe you're thinking of the Elder Scrolls series, but that wasn't Obsidian. Also you're not talking about humans training animals, you're talking about two sentient species, likely with severe physiological differences, somehow communicating with each other.

 

Also, like I said, that isn't even the main objection here. The general consensus seems to be that such characters would be aesthetically unappealing and wouldn't add anything to the game for anyone who isn't some furry troglodyte.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Mandragore

[necromate]

 

Keep the furry crap outa here.

 

Please refer to my opinion I gave you in another similar thread... Other than your personal disgust, you have no firm reasoning on why PE should not have antropomorphic animals. I could not imagine a TES game without the Khajiit or the Aragonians and never thought about them as you do becuse you discovered "furry erotic content" on the net...

 

To add to the conversation above, let's not forget that we are in a magical word, so the easiest way to communicate would be trough telepathy, a rather basic form of communication if magic is a factor. This would eleminate the "omg they don't have the right organs" problem...

 

Also, I would welcome a whisp-like race... would be cool. They could squeeze themselfs into all humanoid cloths and armor and give off a nice glow where they are not covered. the whole race would only need a different idle animation, where they would turn into a small whirlwind with all the cloths/armor turning around in them, all other animations could be same as a humanoid's :D hm, maybe air elementals or soul based fleshless creatures.

[Tagaziel]

Obsidian hasn't made any game that I'm aware of with a surfeit of animal head races, maybe you're thinking of the Elder Scrolls series, but that wasn't Obsidian. Also you're not talking about humans training animals, you're talking about two sentient species, likely with severe physiological differences, somehow communicating with each other.

 

Training is communication.

 

Again, if we can communicate with creatures that do not share our intelligence successfully, there's no real reason why we shouldn't be able to communicate with other species, that possess intelligence similar to ours.

 

Also, like I said, that isn't even the main objection here. The general consensus seems to be that such characters would be aesthetically unappealing and wouldn't add anything to the game for anyone who isn't some furry troglodyte.

 

So, basically, you're prejudiced towards a certain community and want Project: Eternity to reflect that prejudice. Coolio.

[jezz555]

So, basically, you're prejudiced towards a certain community and want Project: Eternity to reflect that prejudice. Coolio.

^ said the furry.

 

Please refer to my opinion I gave you in another similar thread... Other than your personal disgust, you have no firm reasoning on why PE should not have antropomorphic animals. I could not imagine a TES game without the Khajiit or the Aragonians and never thought about them as you do becuse you discovered "furry erotic content" on the net...

 

Do you not understand the concept of an opinion? He doesn't like Anthropomorphic animals, that's just his preference he didn't have to offer firm reasoning. Anthropomorphic animals are overdone, there is your firm reasoning. If it's prejudice to find the idea of what is essentially fetishized bestiality disturbing, then I'm as prejudiced as they come, because I for one find that stuff pretty gross.

Edited November 19, 2012 by jezz555

[Tagaziel]

Do you not understand the concept of an opinion? He doesn't like Anthropomorphic animals, that's just his preference he didn't have to offer firm reasoning. Anthropomorphic animals are overdone, there is your firm reasoning. If it's prejudice to find the idea of what is essentially fetishized bestiality disturbing, then I'm as prejudiced as they come, because I for one find that stuff pretty gross.

 

"It's my opinion" is a red herring fallacy. It's also irrelevant; what matters is the content, and I find the content silly.

 

As for "fetishized bestiality," this is also biased and untrue. What lies at the core of the furry community (bar it's totally insane fringes) is anthropomorphization, ie. giving human characteristics. The most notable of those is sapience, followed by human level intelligence. This precludes bestiality, which, by definition, is intercourse between human and non-human animals, lacking sapience and intelligence.

 

By the way, do you find Spock disturbing? After all, he's the child of a human and non-human. Oh, Star Trek, why do you glorify bestiality!

[necromate]

So, basically, you're prejudiced towards a certain community and want Project: Eternity to reflect that prejudice. Coolio.

^ said the furry.

 

Please refer to my opinion I gave you in another similar thread... Other than your personal disgust, you have no firm reasoning on why PE should not have antropomorphic animals. I could not imagine a TES game without the Khajiit or the Aragonians and never thought about them as you do becuse you discovered "furry erotic content" on the net...

 

Do you not understand the concept of an opinion? He doesn't like Anthropomorphic animals, that's just his preference he didn't have to offer firm reasoning. Anthropomorphic animals are overdone, there is your firm reasoning. If it's prejudice to find the idea of what is essentially fetishized bestiality disturbing, then I'm as prejudiced as they come, because I for one find that stuff pretty gross.

 

I just do not understand how is having a catlike race in a game the same as "gross fetishized bestiality" for you and Mandragore.

BTW we agree on the grossness part, i just can't see why you think this is so closely tied to eachother.

 

[jezz555]

Do you not understand the concept of an opinion? He doesn't like Anthropomorphic animals, that's just his preference he didn't have to offer firm reasoning. Anthropomorphic animals are overdone, there is your firm reasoning. If it's prejudice to find the idea of what is essentially fetishized bestiality disturbing, then I'm as prejudiced as they come, because I for one find that stuff pretty gross.

 

"It's my opinion" is a red herring fallacy. It's also irrelevant; what matters is the content, and I find the content silly.

 

As for "fetishized bestiality," this is also biased and untrue. What lies at the core of the furry community (bar it's totally insane fringes) is anthropomorphization, ie. giving human characteristics. The most notable of those is sapience, followed by human level intelligence. This precludes bestiality, which, by definition, is intercourse between human and non-human animals, lacking sapience and intelligence.

 

By the way, do you find Spock disturbing? After all, he's the child of a human and non-human. Oh, Star Trek, why do you glorify bestiality!

 

You shouldn't use words you don't understand. A red herring fallacy only applies to someone bringing up topics irrelevant to the argument in an attempt to prove a point. As furries (as you've just stated) are essentially all about anthropomorphic animals, and the argument in question is about anthropomorphic animals it's perfectly relevant, and furthermore as these are freaking opinions nobody is trying to prove a point, we're just stating personal preference. You can find the content as silly as you want, but nobodies trying to prove anything here.

 

I would go on in my condemnation of this bizarre fetish but your words are beginning to make that unneccessary. I have to say I found your Nabokov-esque argument for why bestiality is okay, pretty amusing.

Edited November 19, 2012 by jezz555

[necromate]

Do you not understand the concept of an opinion? He doesn't like Anthropomorphic animals, that's just his preference he didn't have to offer firm reasoning. Anthropomorphic animals are overdone, there is your firm reasoning. If it's prejudice to find the idea of what is essentially fetishized bestiality disturbing, then I'm as prejudiced as they come, because I for one find that stuff pretty gross.

 

"It's my opinion" is a red herring fallacy. It's also irrelevant; what matters is the content, and I find the content silly.

 

As for "fetishized bestiality," this is also biased and untrue. What lies at the core of the furry community (bar it's totally insane fringes) is anthropomorphization, ie. giving human characteristics. The most notable of those is sapience, followed by human level intelligence. This precludes bestiality, which, by definition, is intercourse between human and non-human animals, lacking sapience and intelligence.

 

By the way, do you find Spock disturbing? After all, he's the child of a human and non-human. Oh, Star Trek, why do you glorify bestiality!

 

You shouldn't use words you don't understand. A red herring fallacy only applies to someone bringing up topics irrelevant to the argument in an attempt to prove a point. As furries (as you've just stated) are essentially all about anthropomorphic animals, and the argument in question is about anthropomorphic animals it's perfectly relevant, and furthermore as these are freaking opinions nobody is trying to prove a point here, we're just stating personal preference. You can find the content as silly as you want, but nobodies trying to prove anything here.

 

I would go on in my condemnation of this bizarre fetish but your words are beginning to make that unneccessary. I have to say I found your Nabikov-esque argument for why bestiality is okay, pretty amusing.

 

Guys, please stop, this is going waaaay offtopic. Please resolve this behind closed doors.

Edited November 19, 2012 by necromate

[Felithvian]

Let's mix it up a little bit. How about intelligent beings evolved from other mammal and non-mammal species? Insectoids? Arachnids? Avians? Reptiles? Amphibians? Crustaceans?

 

What?

 

Evolution?

[Tagaziel]

Guys, please stop, this is going waaaay offtopic. Please resolve this behind closed doors.

 

There's really nothing to resolve. He insists on insulting me and baiting. I'm going to ignore that, mostly because I and many others don't treat this as any kind of fetish.

[Mandragore]

Training is communication.

 

How so? Teaching my cat to high five my hand in exchange for table scraps is hardly the same thing as holding a conversation with him. Its the difference between simple Pavlovian programming and real, mutual understanding and exchange. As people have mentioned though, this is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so why don't we drop it?

 

So, basically, you're prejudiced towards a certain community and want Project: Eternity to reflect that prejudice. Coolio.

 

Yes, I am and I freely admit it. That has next to no bearing on what we're discussing though. My main objection is that its simultaneously lazy and damaging to verisimilitude to have non-human races that, rather than looking like complete, unique species, are just various animal heads tacked on to fuzz/scale covered human bodies. Add that to the fact that just from this thread alone, the idea seems to only appeal to a small subset of fans, whose personal predilections I won't speculate on, lest you accuse me of further bigotry.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Mandragore

[Tagaziel]

How so? Teaching my cat to high five my hand in exchange for table scraps is hardly the same thing as holding a conversation with him. Its the difference between simple Pavlovian programming and real, mutual understanding and exchange. As people have mentioned though, this is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so why don't we drop it?

 

It's nice to see you purposefully miss the point, several times in a row. You're presenting a false dichotomy in the form of a binary situation: either you communicate, ie. have real, mutual understanding and exchange, or you do not. This is untrue, as there are various degrees and types of communication. I'm pointing out that we communicate with other species, eg. dogs while eg. training, to show that interspecies communication is possible.

 

And, again, if we are able to communicate with beings of limited intelligence, then communicating with being of intelligence similar to ours would also be possible.

 

Yes, I am and I freely admit it. That has next to no bearing on what we're discussing though. My main objection is that its simultaneously lazy and damaging to verisimilitude to have non-human races that, rather than looking like complete, unique species, are just various animal heads tacked on to fuzz/scale covered human bodies. Add that to the fact that just from this thread alone, the idea seems to only appeal to a small subset of fans, whose personal predilections I won't speculate on, lest you accuse me of further bigotry.

 

Can you be more precise? Because I get the feeling that unless you get completely wild, goofy non-human species that have nothing in common with anything you know, you're not going to be pleased. The bipedal template with opposable thumbs is a logical choice for a sentient, non-human species that developed tools and a civilization, especially if they're based on certain species (eg. Wizardry's Felpurr/Rawulf/Draconian/Mook, Wizards & Warriors best species, The Elder Scrolls' Khajiit/Argonians, Wing Commander's Kilrathi etc.)

 

I really don't get you point, or bashing anthropomorphic design as lazy.

[jezz555]

 

I really don't get you point, or bashing anthropomorphic design as lazy.

 

That is abundantly clear.

[Mandragore]

How so? Teaching my cat to high five my hand in exchange for table scraps is hardly the same thing as holding a conversation with him. Its the difference between simple Pavlovian programming and real, mutual understanding and exchange. As people have mentioned though, this is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so why don't we drop it?

 

It's nice to see you purposefully miss the point, several times in a row. You're presenting a false dichotomy in the form of a binary situation: either you communicate, ie. have real, mutual understanding and exchange, or you do not. This is untrue, as there are various degrees and types of communication. I'm pointing out that we communicate with other species, eg. dogs while eg. training, to show that interspecies communication is possible.

 

And, again, if we are able to communicate with beings of limited intelligence, then communicating with being of intelligence similar to ours would also be possible.

 

Jesus tapdancing christ dude. If you're totally set on embarking on dungeon crawls alongside a troop of rheesus monkeys be my guest. There are not "various degrees" of communication in the scenario we're discussing and you know that.

 

I'm not interested in discussing this any further, especially since seems like it might be straying into the same uncomfortable (for me anyway) territory as your "spock" comment...

 

Can you be more precise? Because I get the feeling that unless you get completely wild, goofy non-human species that have nothing in common with anything you know, you're not going to be pleased. The bipedal template with opposable thumbs is a logical choice for a sentient, non-human species that developed tools and a civilization, especially if they're based on certain species (eg. Wizardry's Felpurr/Rawulf/Draconian/Mook, Wizards & Warriors best species, The Elder Scrolls' Khajiit/Argonians, Wing Commander's Kilrathi etc.)

 

I really don't get you point, or bashing anthropomorphic design as lazy.

 

Stop dissembling, no one is railing against bipeds with thumbs. We just don't want furry races. Since it isn't obvious to you; the design is lazy because its apparent that rather than taking the time to craft something unique and nuanced (humanoid regardless) the dev in question just took a human body and a random (already existing) animal and mashed them together. That to my mind is what separates orcs and elves which, tired as they may be I still like, from kadjit and argonians, both of which I think are atrocious.

 

P.S. "Felpurr/Rawulf" I don't even know what these are or what they're from (wild guess; cat and dog people) and they even sound lazy. I hope obsidian has more sense than this.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Mandragore

[Sacred_Path]

Furries or not, too many tool-making cultures **** a setting up. If there are too many of them around you ask yourself what the point of being a human is anyway, at least the other races have blue skin and ****. Next to the "core three", Orlans, Auamaua and especially Godlike feel a bit tacked-on, I just don't mind because I like to have variety when character building. Just don't overdo it and add too many sentient species that don't come naturally with the way your world is set up and consequently always feel artificial.

[Mandragore]

Furries or not, too many tool-making cultures **** a setting up. If there are too many of them around you ask yourself what the point of being a human is anyway, at least the other races have blue skin and ****. Next to the "core three", Orlans, Auamaua and especially Godlike feel a bit tacked-on, I just don't mind because I like to have variety when character building. Just don't overdo it and add too many sentient species that don't come naturally with the way your world is set up and consequently always feel artificial.

 

Fair point. This is one of the things I hate about alot of D&D settings. Its sort of lame when everyone playing a game, whether PnP or Crpg, refuses to ever roll up a human because why do that when you can play some "supr speshul" multihued monstrosity loaded with crazy innate abilities.

[necromate]

Furries or not, too many tool-making cultures **** a setting up. If there are too many of them around you ask yourself what the point of being a human is anyway, at least the other races have blue skin and ****. Next to the "core three", Orlans, Auamaua and especially Godlike feel a bit tacked-on, I just don't mind because I like to have variety when character building. Just don't overdo it and add too many sentient species that don't come naturally with the way your world is set up and consequently always feel artificial.

 

Fair point. This is one of the things I hate about alot of D&D settings. Its sort of lame when everyone playing a game, whether PnP or Crpg, refuses to ever roll up a human because why do that when you can play some "supr speshul" multihued monstrosity loaded with crazy innate abilities.

 

Well I play RPG-s to get away from real life, relax, and have fun... It's kinda gets boring to be human after spending 22 years as one.

[Haerski]

And I'm not arguing they in anyway couldn't communicate with humans from scientific standpoint. We are talking about fictional world with fictional races and I'm only saying how I myself would like to see alien races handled in PE. You obviously have your own ideas, but it's not relevant to start any sociobiological debate over these things. I don't think they make any sense to have in your party in a way I imagine them and that's the end of it. It's just opinion. Do I have to write IMO in every sentence to make it clear enough?

 

If you want your opinion to be left in peace, post it on your blog and disable comments. By posting it on a public forum, you are automatically agreeing to let people disagree with it, comment and use them as jumping boards for a discussion of broader themes that are quite relevant at the design stage of a game.

Oh my god. You could for change actually try to understand what you're reading. You can disagree with my opinion all you want, but it's just stupid to debate over some real life sociobiological things here as this is fictional world with infinite possibilities.

 

Best thing is that from what I've read we basically see eye to eye in this matter. Only small difference is whether or not to make those races playable, but you still kept arguing what is logical. Yes, I understand and agree with you for all that humans communicating with animals thing, but our argument is purely about gameplay element, your in-game party, which doesn't have to follow logic or reason in fictional world!

 

EDIT: And anyway, it's not like because "with this logic you could have alien race member in your party" you absolutely should have one. That's just very flawed argument when talking about gameplay, because gameplay aims for fun, not for logic. If you can justify some gameplay decision/opinion with logic it's of course plus, but making those decisions by logic has no absolute value.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Haerski

[Tagaziel]

Oh my god. You could for change actually try to understand what you're reading. You can disagree with my opinion all you want, but it's just stupid to debate over some real life sociobiological things here as this is fictional world with infinite possibilities.

 

Best thing is that from what I've read we basically see eye to eye in this matter. Only small difference is whether or not to make those races playable, but you still kept arguing what is logical. Yes, I understand and agree with you for all that humans communicating with animals thing, but our argument is purely about gameplay element, your in-game party, which doesn't have to follow logic or reason in fictional world!

 

EDIT: And anyway, it's not like because "with this logic you could have alien race member in your party" you absolutely should have one. That's just very flawed argument when talking about gameplay, because gameplay aims for fun, not for logic. If you can justify some gameplay decision/opinion with logic it's of course plus, but making those decisions by logic has no absolute value.

 

I think you're right, we have a similar opinion, but got sidetracked by errors in communication. I was talking about their plausibility within a game's setting, rather than pure gameplay. Sorry if I behaved like an ass.

 

Obligatory last word: I still think a playable companion (even temporary) would be interesting. For example, it worked well as a gameplay/narrative mechanic in Dead Money, with Christine. Communicating via gestures and interpreting them with my character's stats felt quite rewarding (feedback on my character build) and made the final confrontation with her, once she regains "her" voice, all the more powerful.

 

Stop dissembling, no one is railing against bipeds with thumbs. I just don't want furry races. Since it isn't obvious to you; the design is lazy because its apparent that rather than taking the time to craft something unique and nuanced (humanoid regardless) the dev in question just took a human body and a random (already existing) animal and mashed them together. That to my mind is what separates orcs and elves which, tired as they may be I still like, from kadjit and argonians, both of which I think are atrocious.

 

Fixed the sentence. I'm going to keep disassembling your argument, because it lacks consistency. You apparently like humans with different hats (orcs, elves, dwarvas), yet non-human bipeds are apparently abhorrent.

 

In short, your argument boils down to: I like lazy design, but don't like lazy design.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Tagaziel

[Haerski]

I think you're right, we have a similar opinion, but got sidetracked by errors in communication. I was talking about their plausibility within a game's setting, rather than pure gameplay. Sorry if I behaved like an ass.

 

Obligatory last word: I still think a playable companion (even temporary) would be interesting. For example, it worked well as a gameplay/narrative mechanic in Dead Money, with Christine. Communicating via gestures and interpreting them with my character's stats felt quite rewarding (feedback on my character build) and made the final confrontation with her, once she regains "her" voice, all the more powerful.

Fair enough. It sure is sometimes frustrating trying to get message through using foreign language, when you can't quite find the right words. (And ironically that was partly subject of our argument.) Great we now understand each other.

[jezz555]

Fixed the sentence.

 

Have you checked the poll recently? I think a "we" was pretty warranted.

Edited November 20, 2012 by jezz555