Humbleness as applied to development..

[Sheikh]

I recently watched sir Josh Sawyers retrospect on the development of IWD2:

 

I feel many things Sawyer would have done differently would not have benefited the game. I could be wrong on many of them because I do not fully know the intentions they had when developing IWD2, but thats what my gut feeling tells me. I also know that IWD2 had the best gameplay of all of the infinity engine games.

 

I do not agree with the philosophy of Todd Howard whatsoever, which is: designing a game is like designing an experience. A game is not a preset story like a book. What makes a game a game is the sandbox part of it. Thats the special thing about a game and I think it needs to be the stressed part of every game.

 

In other words, gameplay over any other aspect. When you try to design an experience you are fundamentally stomping down the gameplay part. Because good gameplay is deep gameplay and deep gameplay provides the player with many, many open ended options.

 

Now I dont know if Sir Sawyer actually has this view on designing games, but I slightly get that vibe from the video above.

 

Taking too much control over the way the whole game functions could be detrimental. Just implement all the good ideas and let the player play them out. Use balance as a controlling mechanism at the most. Make questionable aspects of gameplay optional, dont cut them out. That would be my advice/idea of how to do it.

 

So in conclusion, philosophically a game needn't be a fancily designed experience, but rather a conglomeration of fancy elements that interact with each other in fancy ways.

 

I would be pleased to hear sir Sawyers actual viewpoint on this matter and other's thoughts.

[IndiraLightfoot]

I'm playing IWD2 right now, and it's hard to believe they made it in 10 months!

Kudos to them, because it's a very solid game with a huge scope.

When you say gameplay, I cringe a bit, because that isn't its strength, really. The tutorial area, and the choices and actions your party make in the chapters that follow aren't exactly the best gameplay of all IE games. However, one thing seems to be: combat gameplay!

So far, I must say, it's challenging and somewhat varied in a very good way. I'm really enjoying that aspect, and I think Josh has a lot to do with that. It's even more impressive when you consider it was the first IE game using 3rd ed D&D. Josh seems to be very good at RPG systems (thus, I'm surprised he isn't a code monkey on the side, hehe).

[Sheikh]

I'm playing IWD2 right now, and it's hard to believe they made it in 10 months!

Kudos to them, because it's a very solid game with a huge scope.

When you say gameplay, I cringe a bit, because that isn't its strength, really. The tutorial area, and the choices and actions your party make in the chapters that follow aren't exactly the best gameplay of all IE games. However, one thing seems to be: combat gameplay!

So far, I must say, it's challenging and somewhat varied in a very good way. I'm really enjoying that aspect, and I think Josh has a lot to do with that. It's even more impressive when you consider it was the first IE game using 3rd ed D&D. Josh seems to be very good at RPG systems (thus, I'm surprised he isn't a code monkey on the side, hehe).

Alright safe.

 

So to make this clear - when I say IWD2 has strong gameplay thats what I mean - the combat gameplay is so strong that the gameplay is good overall.

 

It is an action RPG and the RPG elements of gameplay are not that strong. That is true. So I was mostly talking about the combat gameplay, but you wouldnt expect much of that from a game like IWD2.

 

Now, you would from PoE. But all of what I said in the first post applies to all other gameplay aspects as well.

 

I suppose my main point is, it would be good if the devs let their inspiration manifest it in full and not over refine the game. "Playability" as such can come at the cost of depth and thats not a good bargain in my opinion.

 

And yes I was also amazed thst they made it in 10 months. In fact thats what got me thinking about this.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Sheikh

[Sarex]

Wow, 10 months! That is unbelievable for a game that large. While it may not be the best IE game overall, it is certainly my favorite. It was one of the first games I ever played as a kid (the first IE game) and while it took me a long time to finish, it inevitably sharpened my fangs for all the games to come. Comparably the BG series was a breeze to finish when I got to play it.

 

I can only wish that the soundtrack, atmosphere and combat of PoE is anywhere near as good as that of IWD2.

[Amentep]

10 months was the final tally, IIRC (although I've read that there may have been preliminary IWD2 work done earlier). It was - again IIRC - supposed to be done a couple of months earlier but that extra time was put in to make some additional changes including fully implementing a version of the 3e rules (rather than the AD&D 2e kit system with some 3e influences originally planned).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Hard to believe that IWD2 was made that quickly.

 

Currently playing it right now and intending to claim Cera Sumat.

[Sarex]

Hard to believe that IWD2 was made that quickly.

 

Currently playing it right now and intending to claim Cera Sumat.

 

The vanilla one, or the HoF one?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

HoF Light of Cera Sumat.

Edited April 24, 2014 by KaineParker

[Sarex]

HoF Light of Cera Sumat.

 

Then I wish you luck, but man it's worth it. My Paladin/Fighter dual wielded the vanila and HoF Cera Sumat, it was the best thing ever.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Sarex

[Lephys]

I think I get what you're saying, Sheikh, but... it kind of is an experience, in ways. What you're pointing out are ways in which it isn't. Or, rather, the parts of it that are better described by emergent/"sandbox" choices, decisions, consequences, and experiences. But, cohesively, having a game be "an experience" is what differentiates it from just being, well... Skyrim. Skyrim was a great sandbox, but, honestly, it didn't really have enough of a cohesive experience holding it together.

 

So, yes, all things in moderation. If you make a game 100% experience and 0% "gameplay," then it's just a linear story you're playing through. But, just because an experience has room for dynamics/branches/possibilities, and allows pretty free-form gameplay in its midst, does not mean it is no longer an experience. Everything kind of works together: The sheer gameplay elements are fun by themselves and allow you to partake in a lot of dynamics so that the story doesn't just dictate everything you do, and the cohesion of the story kinda keeps the gameplay, itself, from just being a bunch of minigames that you happen to be having fun with until you get bored of them.

[Messier-31]

Hard to believe that IWD2 was made that quickly.

 

The technical part? Yes, that's quite impressive.

The plot? No, it was plain and predictable.

 

Currently playing it right now and intending to claim Cera Sumat.

 

Ah, nerves of steel

[Haerski]

Icewind Dale series is certainly most fun of Infinity Engine games (haven't finished it yet, but I think I can already quite safely say so), but I still think it lacks exactly the thing you call "experience". Deep gameplay takes a game far and keeps you entertained, but experience is what you remember afterwards. I would say latter should definitively be stressed especially in RPG's, but of course there is time and place for every design choice.

 

If we take Infinity Engine games as example, I think we have quite perfect collection of everything. Planescape: Torment has the most ambitious story that sticks with you long after you finish the game, but they had to sacrifice some depth of usual IE gameplay to achieve that. Icewind Dale then again focused on making combat the best it can be and achieved that goal perfectly, while still having it's own shortcomings in other areas. Baldur's Gate fits in my opinion somewhere between these two, but also offers most freedom of exploration and adventuring to distinguish it from others.

 

That said, I would say my personal favorite of these is Planescape, as you might have quessed based on my avatar, but I think PE would benefit most of BG-like approach, with emphasis on exploration and feeling of grand adventure. Gameplay is of course very important aspect, but it should support experience instead of leading whole design.

 

But who's saying it's impossible to have the best of all those games in one package? There is pile of experience and years of technological advancement behind PE compared to times of Infinity Engine. I would not rule out possibility of few miracles happening.

[Sheikh]

But who's saying it's impossible to have the best of all those games in one package? There is pile of experience and years of technological advancement behind PE compared to times of Infinity Engine. I would not rule out possibility of few miracles happening.

Yes exactly.

 

I dont know how planescape was developed nor have I played it.

 

I know however that thief 1 was developed mostly from the gameplay perspective and came through as the best game experience I have had. Based on this and mostly my intuition, I believe developing from a gameplay perspective is much more sound. The more you let the frame of the game shape the story for you, the better its going to turn out because thats what forces you to use your inspiration to fill in the gaps, as a game developer. Thats how it works I believe.

[Sheikh]

Since the thread title makes the thread have to do with humbleness. Lets talk about the story. Humbleness in the story makes it believable.

 

I have not finished BG, but the beginning of the story is: Imoen and you are childhood friends and have grown up under the tutelage of their guardian Gorion. Is that it? If thats it, then it sounds like a fairytale.

 

The reality would be that the PC would not hold close ties throughout their childhood with some certain friend, especially if they were of the opposite sex. It just wouldnt ever happen in real life. Also the PC would be troubled very much by whom were their real parents, especially as they grew up. This is just an intuitive understanding of humanity. And since the people involved are still humans, this beginning of the story is either partial or just not believable.

 

Also there are questions as to who is Gorion ("guardian?") to the PC and why is the PC under his care. How does candlekeep function?

 

And thats just the VERY beginning.

 

I dont get any vibe of a fairytale when reading A song of fire and ice. And I dont think a good game can afford to have a fairytale for a story either.

 

Opinions?

[Sarex]

Since the thread title makes the thread have to do with humbleness. Lets talk about the story. Humbleness in the story makes it believable.

 

I have not finished BG, but the beginning of the story is: Imoen and you are childhood friends and have grown up under the tutelage of their guardian Gorion. Is that it? If thats it, then it sounds like a fairytale.

 

The reality would be that the PC would not hold close ties throughout their childhood with some certain friend, especially if they were of the opposite sex. It just wouldnt ever happen in real life. Also the PC would be troubled very much by whom were their real parents, especially as they grew up. This is just an intuitive understanding of humanity. And since the people involved are still humans, this beginning of the story is either partial or just not believable.

 

Also there are questions as to who is Gorion ("guardian?") to the PC and why is the PC under his care. How does candlekeep function?

 

And thats just the VERY beginning.

 

I dont get any vibe of a fairytale when reading A song of fire and ice. And I dont think a good game can afford to have a fairytale for a story either.

 

Opinions?

 

ASoIaF bored the heck out of me, read book one, stopped reading it after the first third of book 2(same for the tv show). I am just not in to low Fantasy, I don't see the point of it. If I am going to read something that is real and gritty, I'll pick up a historical novel or something similar. There was an interview with G.R.M. in the Rolling Stones magazine, in which he described how he felt about Tolkien's works. Here is the quote:

 

"Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it's not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn't ask the question: What was Aragorn's tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren't gone – they're in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?"

 

Who cares about tax policies? Is that the point of the story, does it add anything to it? I personally like to read epic fantasy and I expect the story and characters to be fantastic. I do not go in to an epic fantasy or sf book and say "man this is totally not believable".

[Sensuki]

Most of the best gameplay elements of games are all mistakes or unintended. For instance there is a bug in the Quake 3 code that makes jump height and distance scale with FPS divisions of 1000

 

at 125, 250, 333, 500 and 1000 FPS you gain significant jump distance increases and also other things (some have argued faster firing weapons and silent strafing in some games that use this code base).

 

This actually makes the gameplay feel amazing, and the developers deliberately didn't fix the bug due to the gameplay improvements it gave. 

 

There are also lots of other examples.

 

The OP is definitely right in that JES is more controlling of the gameplay environment, and calls out other "developer in the clouds" out for "dumb luck".

Edited April 25, 2014 by Sensuki

[Sheikh]

Sarex, our views differ mostly on the base that I never think of real life as gritty. Ever. It cant be gritty if its real. Thats why I want to find it in fantasy. Anyway, respect.

 

Sensuki, I agree with you also. There have been more than a fair few in D2.

[tajerio]

ASoIaF bored the heck out of me, read book one, stopped reading it after the first third of book 2(same for the tv show). I am just not in to low Fantasy, I don't see the point of it. If I am going to read something that is real and gritty, I'll pick up a historical novel or something similar. There was an interview with G.R.M. in the Rolling Stones magazine, in which he described how he felt about Tolkien's works. Here is the quote:

 

"Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it's not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn't ask the question: What was Aragorn's tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren't gone – they're in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?"

 

Who cares about tax policies? Is that the point of the story, does it add anything to it? I personally like to read epic fantasy and I expect the story and characters to be fantastic. I do not go in to an epic fantasy or sf book and say "man this is totally not believable".

 

 

Martin is an excellent example of someone who confuses "dark and terrible" with "realism."  I don't especially like it when games aim for realism, because it's usually code for "everything is really awful for everybody all of the time."  That's not realism, that's just a different kind of fantasy, and usually a worse one, because it's so self-conscious.

 

That said, I think Josh is aiming for verisimilitude, which isn't the same thing as realism.  Verisimilitude, for a fantasy game, is just making sure that people and the systems they establish still behave like people and the systems they establish in our world.  They deal with different things and the laws of physics might be different, but the people stay the same.

[Sensuki]

Sensuki, I agree with you also. There have been more than a fair few in D2.

 

Diablo 2 was a great game, and very replayable. The system design was probably a bit of "dumb luck" but look what happens when you try and overdesign an ARPG - check out Diablo 3 upon release. Utter fail.

 

All they had to do was basically Diablo 2 with better graphics, and it would have been really good (besides the story being utterly terrible).

Edited April 25, 2014 by Sensuki

[Haerski]

 

ASoIaF bored the heck out of me, read book one, stopped reading it after the first third of book 2(same for the tv show). I am just not in to low Fantasy, I don't see the point of it. If I am going to read something that is real and gritty, I'll pick up a historical novel or something similar. There was an interview with G.R.M. in the Rolling Stones magazine, in which he described how he felt about Tolkien's works. Here is the quote:

 

"Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it's not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn't ask the question: What was Aragorn's tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren't gone – they're in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?"

 

Who cares about tax policies? Is that the point of the story, does it add anything to it? I personally like to read epic fantasy and I expect the story and characters to be fantastic. I do not go in to an epic fantasy or sf book and say "man this is totally not believable".

 

 

Martin is an excellent example of someone who confuses "dark and terrible" with "realism."  I don't especially like it when games aim for realism, because it's usually code for "everything is really awful for everybody all of the time."  That's not realism, that's just a different kind of fantasy, and usually a worse one, because it's so self-conscious.

Tajerio: How much have you read A Song of Ice and Fire? You know it tells about kingdom in very turbulent conflict between several of it's noble families? It's not gonna be pretty that's for sure, but "dark and terrible" is far from it. Also I highly doubt Martin ever meant Westeros to be "realistic". That's just his way of crafting and telling a story: Getting into details and going deep inside characters' heads instead of focusing on big picture. There was surely lot of gritty stuff happening in Middle-Earth too during the war of the Ring, we just never saw most of it.

 

Sarex: What appeals to me most in ASoIaF is it's characters who have real motivations and mostly react understandably to situations presented to them. That's not something you can say about LotR for example, where characters are mostly just perfectly honorable good guys doing good stuff or treacherous bad guys doing bad stuff. That's why I liked Boromir most of all characters: He was one of the few character who really showed some inner struggle about his motivations and openly questioned the goal of the fellowship and their plan's rationality. Aragorn then again is good example of traditional fairytale hero with his infinite bravery and infallible honor and of course he gets his princess at the end and, not half, but whole kingdom to rule. I'm not saying Tolkiens style is any worse, but it definitively is much more superficial.

 

What George R.R. Martin has achieved in my opinion is creating completely believable fantasy world inhabited by real people. It means there will be some stuff about tax policies, but mostly it means you are getting bunch of maybe the best dialogue ever, interesting tensions all over the place and as the story progresses even some high fantasy starts to raise it's head and seeing these characters you know encounter it is just facinating. ASoIaF is kind of like reversal LotR: In LotR magic is dying; In ASoIaF it has been dead for a long time and is coming back with a bang.

 

EDIT: Oh, I forgot we were talking about PE here. Here goes: In my opinion some amount of fairytaleness is ok in fantasy-rpgs. LotR would definitively make better Infinity Engine rpg than ASoIaF, but depth of character is also very crucial to my enjoyment. If you only have options to be that fairytale hero or evil **** to challenge Sauron himself, I always find it too limiting. Choices should be first of all rational and have real consequences instead of being different only in the way they affect your karma meter, prestige or such. This goes for side-characters also: Less polarization and more real motivations and rational thinking. I think Sheikhs BG-example is valid, even if that didn't bother me so much.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Haerski

[Sarex]

What George R.R. Martin has achieved in my opinion is creating completely believable fantasy world inhabited by real people. It means there will be some stuff about tax policies, but mostly it means you are getting bunch ofmaybe the best dialogue ever, interesting tensions all over the place and as the story progresses even some high fantasy starts to raise it's head. ASoIaF is kind of like reversal LotR: In LotR magic is dying; In ASoIaF it has been dead for a long time and is coming back with a bang.

Sarex: What appeals to me most in ASoIaF is it's characters who have real motivations and mostly react understandably to situations presented to them. That's not something you can say about LotR for example, where characters are mostly just perfectly honorable good guys doing good stuff or treacherous bad guys doing bad stuff. That's why I liked Boromir most of all characters: He was one of the few character who really showed some inner struggle about his motivations and openly questioned the goal of the fellowship and their plan's rationality. Aragorn then again is good example of traditional fairytale hero with his infinite bravery and infallible honor and of course he gets his princess at the end and, not half, but whole kingdom to rule. I'm not saying Tolkiens style is any worse, but it definitively is much more superficial.

 

Oh, I get what you are saying, there is a reason it is called low fantasy and yes it obviously has it's market, but it's just not for me. For me fantasy is getting to those grand moments, where there are epic fights, or unbelievable things happening, it makes the hair on my arms stand up. I just couldn't find any of that in ASoIaF.

 

To be honest apart from Silmarilion(which is awesome) I found LotR to be ok. The kind of fantasy I like the most is in the vain of Wheel of Time. WoT was my first fantasy book and it was what hooked me to the genre. Since then I read many great books, but sadly ASoIaF just wasn't one of them(for me).

 

And to steer back to the topic, I think it would be wrong to change genres in PoE as it was sold as the spiritual successor of the IE games.

[tajerio]

 

 

ASoIaF bored the heck out of me, read book one, stopped reading it after the first third of book 2(same for the tv show). I am just not in to low Fantasy, I don't see the point of it. If I am going to read something that is real and gritty, I'll pick up a historical novel or something similar. There was an interview with G.R.M. in the Rolling Stones magazine, in which he described how he felt about Tolkien's works. Here is the quote:

 

"Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it's not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn't ask the question: What was Aragorn's tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren't gone – they're in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?"

 

Who cares about tax policies? Is that the point of the story, does it add anything to it? I personally like to read epic fantasy and I expect the story and characters to be fantastic. I do not go in to an epic fantasy or sf book and say "man this is totally not believable".

 

 

Martin is an excellent example of someone who confuses "dark and terrible" with "realism."  I don't especially like it when games aim for realism, because it's usually code for "everything is really awful for everybody all of the time."  That's not realism, that's just a different kind of fantasy, and usually a worse one, because it's so self-conscious.

Tajerio: How much have you read A Song of Ice and Fire? You know it tells about kingdom in very turbulent conflict between several of it's noble families? It's not gonna be pretty that's for sure, but "dark and terrible" is far from it. Also I highly doubt Martin ever meant Westeros to be "realistic". That's just his way of crafting and telling a story: Getting into details and going deep inside characters' heads instead of focusing on big picture. There was surely lot of gritty stuff happening in Middle-Earth too during the war of the Ring, we just never saw most of it.

 

What George R.R. Martin has achieved in my opinion is creating completely believable fantasy world inhabited by real people. It means there will be some stuff about tax policies, but mostly it means you are getting bunch ofmaybe the best dialogue ever, interesting tensions all over the place and as the story progresses even some high fantasy starts to raise it's head. ASoIaF is kind of like reversal LotR: In LotR magic is dying; In ASoIaF it has been dead for a long time and is coming back with a bang.

 

 

"Dark" in the sense that it's a free-for-all intrigue and murder fest, in scores of shades of dark grey-to-black, which might make for fun writing but doesn't bear a very strong relation to the medieval Europe I studied and he's clearly borrowing from; "terrible" in the sense that his writing is absolutely awful.

 

I don't think the people are very real.  The concepts behind them might shakily work (the Hound and Tyrion are to me the most believable characters), but because Martin's a bad writer and has worse editing, I don't buy them.  Now, that's very much a matter of personal preference and I can understand why someone would think differently.  So too, in the end, is believability--some people have more rigorous standards for it than others, and some people have wholly different standards than others do.

[Helz]

The reality would be that the PC would not hold close ties throughout their childhood with some certain friend, especially if they were of the opposite sex. It just wouldnt ever happen in real life. Also the PC would be troubled very much by whom were their real parents, especially as they grew up. This is just an intuitive understanding of humanity. And since the people involved are still humans, this beginning of the story is either partial or just not believable.

 

The idea of a close childhood friend of the opposite sex is unbelievable to you?  Its hardly impossible, and in my experience not even that uncommon.

 

The PC is raised as an orphan in a library/monastery type setting under the protection of a powerful mage.  If you want to RP him to be troubled by that upbringing, then he's troubled.  If you accept that there are many well-balanced orphans around the world, than he's well-balanced.  Either scenario is equally believable, and its up to the gamer to decide which you want to follow.  The only intuitive understanding of humanity I acknowledge is that humanity is a tangled knot of contradiction and misunderstanding.  

 

I finally read the Song of Fire and Ice books a while back.  I enjoyed them well enough, although the meandering plot where nothing ever really happens is irritating.  They suffer from some filler, but nowhere near as much as the Wheel of Time series.  Nothing contains as much inane filler as the Wheel of Time series.  For anyone interested in epic fantasy, I strongly recommend the Malazan: Books of the Fallen.  As complex and arcane as a WoT fan could want, as bloody and grim as the Fire and Ice books, and amazingly light on cliffhangers and unfinished plotlines.  Its also the only series mentioned that's actually complete.

[Sheikh]

Lots of opinion in here. What i have learnt is that this kind of thing boils down to opinion mostly. So that is clear.

 

But can you may be have the best of both worlds at the same time, hypothetically. What about IWD2 story? Obviously a simple story as it is, but it was believable. It was also high fantasy at the same time. If you just made it more complex and grander, would you end up with something good? I dont fully understand what you BG fans see missing in IWD2 story so did I get it right? What would you change in it to make it a better story?

 

 

The idea of a close childhood friend of the opposite sex is unbelievable to you?  Its hardly impossible, and in my experience not even that uncommon.

 

The PC is raised as an orphan in a library/monastery type setting under the protection of a powerful mage.  If you want to RP him to be troubled by that upbringing, then he's troubled.  If you accept that there are many well-balanced orphans around the world, than he's well-balanced.  Either scenario is equally believable, and its up to the gamer to decide which you want to follow.  The only intuitive understanding of humanity I acknowledge is that humanity is a tangled knot of contradiction and misunderstanding.  

Not impossible, but very unlikely. If it did happen, it wouldnt be something important from the PC's viewpoint, which would mean you wouldnt have it mentioned or have Imeon as a character in game, much less an important and ever present character.

 

As for the rest, I think if you had better understanding of psychology you would find it less believable as well. I mean the PC would absolutely definitely be troubled at least somewhat on the inside, but it might not actually interfere with his life. That would depend on his character, environment and other circumstances. But making no mention of it in any way is what makes it less believable for me. So that is superficial. So again whether that is a problem or not is down to opinion I suppose.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Sheikh

[Sarex]

I finally read the Song of Fire and Ice books a while back.  I enjoyed them well enough, although the meandering plot where nothing ever really happens is irritating.  They suffer from some filler, but nowhere near as much as the Wheel of Time series.  Nothing contains as much inane filler as the Wheel of Time series.  For anyone interested in epic fantasy, I strongly recommend the Malazan: Books of the Fallen.  As complex and arcane as a WoT fan could want, as bloody and grim as the Fire and Ice books, and amazingly light on cliffhangers and unfinished plotlines.  Its also the only series mentioned that's actually complete.

 

To you it may be filler, to others it's development of the rest of the characters. I read Malazan: Book of the Fallen, it's great, one of my top reads, though it has it's own flaws, the biggest one being plot inconsistency.