why guns in such an epic time

[PrimeJunta]

See this is where your problem is. I said, in what you quoted even, I 'think' of when someone mentions Colonial Era is the 1700's America. I don't THINK that's the entire Colonial era, nor did I ever say it. You've decided, for me I may point out, that I think of the 1800 only (which I think of the Oregon trail and subsequently the wild west). So no, I don't think of the '1800s', I think of the 1700 TO the 1800 (not the 1800s them selves).

 

:sigh:

 

I never said you think of the 1800's. I said the 18th century, i.e. the 1700's.

 

I also never used you as an example of anything. I only brought your name up because someone was confusing you and Kveldulf, and I wanted to correct that mistake.

 

Now, is there anything else you wanted, or can we get back on topic?

Edited January 5, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[Lord of Lost Socks]

 

"All truths are relative, including this one" is not self-contradictory, nor is at an absolute statement. It is a useful premise, however. I believe the hunt for absolute truths is a huge waste of effort, so it's simpler to assume that they don't even exist. For most practical terms, highly certain, highly unambiguous relative truths behave similarly as absolute truths (should they exist) anyway. We can base our lives around them just as easily, without getting mired with counting angels dancing on a pinhead.

 

Also, even if you don't accept the premise, it's a looong stretch from "Some truths are absolute" to "proposition P is absolutely true," for most propositions, at least most propositions that you can teach at school.

 

I.e., I do not believe that it is the business of school to teach absolute truths, because on closer examination they would almost certainly prove not to be absolute, and probably not to be true.

 

The premise "all truths are relative" is contradictory because the statement is not relative. You can proclaim it is, but it's a logical fallacy.

 

If truth were relative, is that statement really meaningful - since truth would be ultimately relative? if there is no true meaning, then what are you trying to say?

 

If all truths are relative, so is logic, therefore there is no fallacy.

 

Checkmate atheists.

[JFSOCC]

 

guns provide a counter to a wizard specific ability, that doesn't preclude guns frm getting magical enhancement themselves.

 

And technology vs magic is the oldest and most tired fantasy cliché EVER. It's like Tolkienesque whaah technology is evil, whaaah so only orcs and goblins will use furnaces and gunpowder and warmachines.

Ugh.

 

Guns are a natural progression of the technology in this world and there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't be upgraded and enhanced by magic themselves. Hell, I imagine many wizards would carry such a gun. They're not stupid, after all.

 I wasn't disagreeing with you.

So what's your point? Would you rather not have technology? For that matter, there is no established lore saying that technology & magic couldn't exit within P:E. I feel like you read a single line, and missed the entire post. My point was that by pushing P:E's setting up towards a more Renaissance level, more dynamics can be explored than the same worn-out Dark Ages fantasy. The gun itself is immaterial. It's the level of advancement that it represents which matters.

 

It will be a golden age. You'll be raiding a laboratory in its prime and glory rather than spelunking through its forgotten ashes. This is what matters. I look forward to the change of pace and setting.

 

[Plutone00]

 

Think of the sengoku era, which is common theme for many games. Matchlock guns are just starting to spread and majority are still using katanas, spears and bows. At the battle of Nagashino Nobunaga's matchlock corps turned the tide by a annihilating Tokugawa cavalery (which held the reputation of undefeatable), but majority of the battle was still fought was with steel wepons, since the matchlocks were not as reliable yet. There was still plenty of demand for samurai heroism on the field of battle.

 

So as long as they are in moderation, guns do not harm the gameworld, but rather add to it.

Sorry, but Takada Cavalry at were annihilating, and Tokugawa and Nobunaga Oda were ally in that battle.

 

 

Correct. Sorry.     Was watching drama about Tokugawa shogunate at the time so Tokugawa's name was kinda floating in my head. It was Takeda cavalry.

[Lioness]

 

Mechanically, guns provide a counter balance to magic. They allow non-magical characters to matter in the long term. This is not the most important impact.

 

 

Josh mentioned in an interview (I believe the PC world one) that guns were Wizard killers, since their Arcane Veil cant protect them from bullets. I think it is a very situational weapon, hugely powerful in the first round, but also hugely noisy and takes ages to reload.

 

I guess having characters firing a salvo in the first round then discarding the gun is the way to go... if I chose to go down that path.

 

I really don't mind guns and magic co-existing, Arcanum has been mentioned, but Final Fantasy and  Shadowrun do it well too. And in all these setting, the guns were quite a bit more powerful than muskets. Wizardry did it too, although in Wiz 8, they did ok with tech/fantasy mix except when it came to the energy weapons in the end game.

[Unclean]

I don't think it will break immersion or the ''epicness'' of the game. Personally i don't have have a problem with them being in the game.

[Crowseye]

I'm a supporter of any weapon/device in fantasy as long as it is consistent with the history and atmosphere of the setting.

 

That said, show me on a timeline of Earth where knights went on great quests to slay trolls and orcs, wizards were shooting fireballs out of their fingertips, and evil political figures turned out to be demons in disguise.  Fantasy worlds absolutely in no way whatsoever have to mirror Earth's history, no matter what similarities they may share.  Not having firearms (or any other feature) is every bit as legitimate as having them in a fantasy setting.

 

So while I'm optimistic firearms in PoE will work well, I can also sympathize with the OP.  If you've been waiting for a decade for an epic, isometric RPG and it has/lacks some unwanted/wanted elements, it can be disappointing.  I'm excited for PoE, but there are some decisions in other areas that really disappoint me too.  The notion that Obsidian and its fans are entitled to freedom from others' disappointment regarding design choices is silly IMO.

[Tamerlane]

The notion that disappointed people are entitled to freedom from being ribbed when expressing their opinions regarding design choices is silly IMO.

 

EDIT: This would have been funny if it wasn't at the top of a new page, dammit.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Tamerlane

[Crowseye]

The notion that disappointed people are entitled to freedom from being ribbed when expressing their opinions regarding design choices is silly IMO.

 

EDIT: This would have been funny if it wasn't at the top of a new page, dammit.

 

I'll have to remember that: Obsidian and its fans advocate attacking the person for his or her opinion rather than the opinion itself.  Thanks!

[Tamerlane]

Hey man, stop attacking me for expressing my opinions.