I was talking about general game mechanic and overall games accessibility to completely new and fresh player who knows absolutely nothing about d&d, thac0, saving throws, etc. In this regard IWD>>>BG.
The glaring example and the breaking point (when I actually started to slowly understand game mechanics and rules) was the (in)famous Mummy in Kresselack dungeon. I can tell but I wont how many hours I lost trying to kill this thing using mundane weapons.
For those who played other old school cRPG's, this isn't a problem. No dungeon of BG is harder in therms of fights than Tomb of VARN in M&M VI. And even on 7 who have much easier dungeons, on end game has some very hard enemies that can insta erradicate you and erradication is far worse than death. Imagine an insta death spell who disintegrates the body and the unique way to ressurect is to re create the body then ressurect. Now imagine hordes and hordes of enemies with this spells and almost more HP than green dragons. That is the ending parts of M&M VII. Without an cleric, i honestly don't know how to beat...
My first run of IWD was a solo run with dragon disciple. Only had some problem with magic immune mobs(something that makes no sense, what is the difference of an conjured fire and a a ntural fire?) but nothing that i can't solve by using Black Blade of Disaster + Tenser's tranformation, i can have 3 attacks at -10 THAC0 with 15-37 damage totalizing 45-111 damage per round(more than a lot of spells) and the enemy must make 3 save vs death or be insta killed / round.
I was talking about general game mechanic and overall games accessibility to completely new and fresh player who knows absolutely nothing about d&d, thac0, saving throws, etc. In this regard IWD>>>BG.
The glaring example and the breaking point (when I actually started to slowly understand game mechanics and rules) was the (in)famous Mummy in Kresselack dungeon. I can tell but I wont how many hours I lost trying to kill this thing using mundane weapons.
I think that's probably why they came up with the "unusable weapon" sound for both Torment and BG2.
Icewind Dale is a lot harder to get into for new players. Anyone pick up BG as their D&D experience or computer game? Remember how alien character creation was? Most of us made some terrible characters unknowingly, luckily the game gives npcs that, while not great, are perfectly viable. Now imagine not having those npcs, and haveing to create six characterd from scratch with no knowledge of how it works. Not to mention that fights tend to be a lot more punishing in IWD.
There is usually no point in "races" others than humans in most fantasy world.
The problem is that they *are* humans, just have one physical abnormality and everyone pretends it makes them different kind of creature. Dwarves, gnomes, elves - they all think like humans, act like humans, have human-usable technology, languages humans can learn and architecture suitable for humans. They aren't any more different than any Steve from South Carolina. They're just dudes, and usually they are stolen dudes, because they are taken straight from Tolkien. Sometimes authors switch thing or two about them, but that only makes matters worse: first of all, it's usually lacking any theme and just makes things confusing (if dwarves of Clichea don't like underground and prefer plains, then why do they look like sturdy, mining dwarves of Middle-Earth?), secondly, pretending about being creative is even worse than just being lazy, and thirdly - it doesn't adress the issue. Dwarves of Clichea are just humans. They can easily be example of another culture. Not only that would cut out pointless fluff, but avoid Planet Of Hats trope as well.
Better way to do it is to make other races alien and impossible to understand. But if you do that, they simply become monsters or plot devices. If Legolas was eldritch tentacle monster, then he couldn't be member of fellowship. He would be something closer to Barlog - so, essentially, alien monster from outer space. Too weird, without understandable character traits, motivations, and so on. So, once again, we end up with humans.
I suppose there is a thin line where you can have trully "other" creatures, but sentient enough to make sense as actors. But I don't think I've ever seen that. Erikson books were the closest, I think.
I'm currently preparing setting for tabletop RPG for my friends and I have *a lot* of angry thoughts about worldbuilding.
Artona, Elves, Gnomes and Humans are different races in fantasy settings. In fact, even Elves and Drow are different races. Just like an Polar Bear and a Brown Bear or a horse, a Zebra, an camel and a llama. Playing an game with an non humanoid race will be very hard. As for stolen from Tolkien, on D&D Elves tends to be more akin norse mythology aka more "chaotic good" and smaller than humans than Tolkien based elves.
And yes, IMO Tolkien elves looks just like "improved humans" instead of another creature.
There is usually no point in "races" others than humans in most fantasy world.
The problem is that they *are* humans, just have one physical abnormality and everyone pretends it makes them different kind of creature. Dwarves, gnomes, elves - they all think like humans, act like humans, have human-usable technology, languages humans can learn and architecture suitable for humans. They aren't any more different than any Steve from South Carolina. They're just dudes, and usually they are stolen dudes, because they are taken straight from Tolkien. Sometimes authors switch thing or two about them, but that only makes matters worse: first of all, it's usually lacking any theme and just makes things confusing (if dwarves of Clichea don't like underground and prefer plains, then why do they look like sturdy, mining dwarves of Middle-Earth?), secondly, pretending about being creative is even worse than just being lazy, and thirdly - it doesn't adress the issue. Dwarves of Clichea are just humans. They can easily be example of another culture. Not only that would cut out pointless fluff, but avoid https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats[url="http://"][/url] trope as well.
Better way to do it is to make other races alien and impossible to understand. But if you do that, they simply become monsters or plot devices. If Legolas was eldritch tentacle monster, then he couldn't be member of fellowship. He would be something closer to Barlog - so, essentially, alien monster from outer space. Too weird, without understandable character traits, motivations, and so on. So, once again, we end up with humans.
I suppose there is a thin line where you can have trully "other" creatures, but sentient enough to make sense as actors. But I don't think I've ever seen that. Erikson books were the closest, I think.
I'm currently preparing setting for tabletop RPG for my friends and I have *a lot* of angry thoughts about worldbuilding.
Man, I'm so far at the other end of this viewpoint it's not even funny. Far be it from me to impugn your personal opinions, but I feel like responding to them with my own:
I do think there's something to be said for criticizing the way fantasy races are often arranged as just variations on humanity, but if anything cutting them out and just having humans as the only race in a setting besides monsters would make it more boring and generic. Fantasy settings so reiterative they're interchangeable with each other is one thing, but if a setting so blandly realistic it could plausibly be interchanged with REAL LIFE is not an improvement.
Personally, I think originality as a concept is really overrated. People THINK they want something completely apart from standard studio fare, but if anything modern cinema trends tend to show, just for example, that audiences gravitate towards established franchises and formulas while noticeably alternate takes that claim to be outside the box are often relegated to riding side-saddle - and that's if they don't FLOP. Don't believe me? Marvel Studios's most recent product recently out-grossed Titanic, which held the second-highest box-office of all time for decades. Originality is nice if you can get it, but good writing and good storytelling are the key to success; everything else comes second.
As a corollary to the above point, I feel like pointing out that while J. R. R. Tolkien did indeed do a lot to define the fantasy genre as we know it today, you realise he cribbed A LOT of the stuff in his setting from elsewhere himself, right? Like Gandalf and Saruman are the in-setting equivalent of angels, the Balrog were giant fire demons, elves and dwarfs originate from Norse mythology (Does the word "alfar" mean anything to you?) etc. I'm sure if we dug deep enough we'd have a source for EVERYTHING. That's not to demean his work, far from it - but again, creating wholly original material that in no way draws ideas or influence from anything else should not be a creator's first priority.
I think fantastical elements are kind of a necessary weasel of the fantasy genre, i.e. that having races specialising in this or that element of society, combat or whatever makes for decent shorthand gameplay differentiation that lets writers and game designers focus on things that truly set their product apart from the competition without having to reinvent the wheel unless they want to, that fantastic racism is distinct enough from actual racism through applicability and subtext to not irreversibly politicize a setting due to its contents and so on.
The Purifier is better than Carsomyr. It allows a shield or dual wielding.
Also, having spells interuppted by elemental attcks even when immune to that element MAKES SENSE. You aren't hurt by the flames of a fireball, but that sucker still imparts force on impact, and burst of fire would briefly burn up the oxygen around its target. You can't cast a spell when your breath is taken away, even if it doesn't hurt you.
If you trace fantasy back far enough, you go from Tolkien to Norse mythology, which arguably comes from the time when homosapiens shared the planet with around 18 different subspecies of human... so really everyone in the lord of the rings films should look more ape like.
@SorcererV1ct0r - I know that you can come up with biological explanation, but I do not think it can solve my issues. For example, if we make dwarves primates that evolved in different way, to dig in the ground. This kind of dwarves would require darkvision and would be probably light-sensitive. It would makes sense for them to have large paws, helpful with digging. They would be sensitive to vibrations, rather than to sound (I believe that makes more sense underground).
Even at this point, with few physical changes, we end up with something very different than human. If we keep probing and start analyzing how would dwarven society look (or to be more precise, how their biology would form their society), we'll end up with aliens or monsters. Or we can keep them Tolkien. Or find that sweet stop between weirdness and familiarity, but I think it would be very difficult.
Ad Tolkien:
In a way, Tolkien races make more sense, because they were rooted in metaphysics on the world; they weren't different because they were some other species, but the had different role in mythology.
And I'm not saying that Tolkien is the sole inspiration, but merely a primary one. Evermeet, The Retreat, history of fallen empires, even name "Tel-quessir" - all of it is quite clearly taken from Middle-Earth. But I digress.
@HalfOrcBeastmaster, I appreciate that you took time to respond to my opinion. It's always cool to find out what other people enjoy in fantasy.
I put my answer in spoiler, because it's quite lengthy.
cutting them out [fantasy races] and just having humans as the only race in a setting besides monsters would make it more boring and generic. Fantasy settings so reiterative they're interchangeable with each other is one thing, but if a setting so blandly realistic it could plausibly be interchanged with REAL LIFE is not an improvement
But does simply slapping "dwarf" label on some Steve really improve the setting? Settings aren't inherently more interesting because some of its citizens have pointy ears, if those citizens are shallow. Boring setting where Kingdom of Goodness is attacked by Savage Barbarians will be boring regardless if barbarians are human or orcs. However, if everyone is human, then the picture is a little more subtle. It shows that humans can be very different, have different motivations, goals, and so on.
Let me use two examples. First one: Baldur's Gate. We have basically four factions: Baldur's Gate, Amn, Iron Throne and its rogue agent, Sarevok. Everyone involved is human. Those humans are motivated by different things: greed, patriotism, lust of power, etc. Do terrible, noble, sensible and mundane things. You can have all of that without use of different races.
Second one: Icewind Dale. We have orcs, different species. What can we tell about the orcs? Well, they are violent. And savage. And evil. And hostile. Basically The Mook Nation. What exactly do they add to the world? That there is kind of creatures that resemble sentient beings, but actually are primitive, violent savages? I find nothing interesting in there. I'd take bland Baldur's Gate humans any time.
You can say: but you can have different factions and motivations with orcs. You can create different nations, and governments, and cultures... But you end up having another bunch of humans, just named "orcs", and we circle back to the beginning. I say: let's just cut out the middleman.
Jacek Dukaj wrote a book called "Ice". In this world, the Earth is split into two realms - in one of them events are ruled by binary logic, in the other one by non-binary. It's probably the most interesting and creative setting I've ever seen
Personally, I think originality as a concept is really overrated. People THINK they want something completely apart from standard studio fare, but if anything modern cinema trends tend to show, just for example, that audiences gravitate towards established franchises and formulas (...). Originality is nice if you can get it, but good writing and good storytelling are the key to success; everything else comes second.
No argument here, but I think that's entirely different issue. Also - one of the reasons why I do worldbuilding is because I like being slightly different as a creator. It's fun and rewarding as itself. But then again - it's seperate matter, I believe.
I feel like pointing out that while J. R. R. Tolkien did indeed do a lot to define the fantasy genre as we know it today, you realise he cribbed A LOT of the stuff in his setting from elsewhere himself, right? Like Gandalf and Saruman are the in-setting equivalent of angels, the Balrog were giant fire demons, elves and dwarfs originate from Norse mythology (Does the word "alfar" mean anything to you?) etc. I'm sure if we dug deep enough we'd have a source for EVERYTHING. That's not to demean his work, far from it - but again, creating wholly original material that in no way draws ideas or influence from anything else should not be a creator's first priority.
I know that, trust me. I did my homework and read Poetic Edda. He did, however, provide interesting fusion of elder mythological element with quite Christian metaphysics, and made stories driven by cohesive metaphysics. Those races play certain roles in that mythology, and quite obviously elves from Eragon or Forgotten Realms or Thedas aren't ælf or faeries. They are race of fair, long-lived or immortal people, who use to rule the realms, but now are significantly less powerful, because we live in age of Man. They are not demigods from different world (but I gotta point out that Sapkowski's world use that root of elves in fantasy), they are not mischevous spirit like Puck. Elves in fantasy usually are copy of Eldars. Hell, Warhammer 40k even took the name without alteration. Of course, writers and creators will mix things up, but more often that not Tolkien is the most significant influence.
And I'm not for originality at any cost. On the contrary. I just like to avoid making my settings bloat, and I think that fantasy races make settings bloat, without providing anything interesting. Whatever is fun about elves, I can do that with humans.
I think fantastical elements are kind of a necessary weasel of the fantasy genre, i.e. that having races specialising in this or that element of society, combat or whatever makes for decent shorthand gameplay differentiation that lets writers and game designers focus on things that truly set their product apart from the competition without having to reinvent the wheel unless they want to, that fantastic racism is distinct enough from actual racism through applicability and subtext to not irreversibly politicize a setting due to its contents and so on.
Sure, but I cannot see what loss there would be if Pillars of Eternity or Pathfinder: Kingmaker swapped "races" with "origin". In any tabletop RPG that I know it's really no effort to get rid of elves and put Kondorians, Mohanians and Clicheanians. If you make elves, you still have to come up with their (undoubtebly foresty and ancienty) realm. Amount of job is the same, but you gain to things: first of all, hook for the nations. Elves live in forests because Tolkien created Lothlorien, obviously. But why would Mohanians build their cities in woods?
And how do you separate races and other fluff from "things that truly set their product apart"? Having elves and dwarves is literally opposite of that. And I've always thought that narrative and the world are crucial for RPGs (and cRPGS). If game designers focus on combat system alone, then they should make some kind of Black Pits, not cRPG. Interesting world makes narrative stronger.
@Artona , I think of the fantasy "races" as being like colors on an artist's palette. There's a certain "color scheme" and a set of tropes that lets the audience or the players know what kind of fictional world they are suspending disbelief for and preparing to immerse themselves in.
I see pointed-eared elves who speak in languages that sound an awfully lot like Asian languages and love the woods, archery, magic and lore. I see short, stocky bearded dwarves who like to live under mountains and speak with Scottish brogues. I see little people with playful natures who love food, home and hearth. Oh, I'm in a classical high fantasy. Time to put on my wizard's hat or pick up my sword and shield.
I see pointed-eared people who show little emotion and constantly philosophize about logic and science. I see dark-skinned, muscular, swarthy people with forehead ridges who like to fight and who value their warrior's honor above all else. I am surrounded by computers and technological devices, and I am on a space ship where the captain has ordered me to take the ship to warp speed. Oh, I'm in a Star Trek adventure. Time to strap on my phaser and my tricorder and beam down with the landing party. I hope I'm not wearing a red shirt.
I see giant furred bipedal creatures who speak in barks and growls. I see aliens with tentacles wrapped around their heads, and the local mob is run by a creature that looks like a giant slug. I am surrounded by worn-looking technology that seems pieced together, and has seen better days. Androids in every imaginable shape and size are all around, and many of them have AI so advanced they could pass a Turing Test with flying colors. Men and women in brown robes are fighting with brightly glowing, loudly buzzing laser swords and causing objects to fly through the air with their mysterious telekinetic powers, while armored soldiers fire plasma bolts at them from laser guns that make a "pew...pew...pew" sound. Oh, I'm in a Star Wars adventure. Hand me one of those light sabers. I'll take a green one.
Sure, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, Vulcans, Klingons, Twileks, etc. are really just humans with made up cultures that exaggerate certain human characteristics. And you could probably tell the same stories with just humans and without the fantasy races and aliens. But I think they'd be much less colorful, and much less fun.
There need to be less generic playable races in fantasy games. Humans and elves are all boring. Where's my kobolds? My goblins? Heck, give us non-humanoid races!
There need to be less generic playable races in fantasy games. Humans and elves are all boring. Where's my kobolds? My goblins? Heck, give us non-humanoid races!
There need to be less generic playable races in fantasy games. Humans and elves are all boring. Where's my kobolds? My goblins? Heck, give us non-humanoid races!
And evil races. Dhampis, vampires, tieflings, drow, etc.
There need to be less generic playable races in fantasy games. Humans and elves are all boring. Where's my kobolds? My goblins? Heck, give us non-humanoid races!
I'm not sure that's an 'unpopular' opinion @thacobell. More options = more fun!
There need to be less generic playable races in fantasy games. Humans and elves are all boring. Where's my kobolds? My goblins? Heck, give us non-humanoid races!
And evil races. Dhampis, vampires, tieflings, drow, etc.
There are mods that allow them and you can even have Tiefling and Drow NPCs.
Need more games where I get to be the freaking dragon.
No, not a half dragon.
No not a dragonesque creature who is humanoid.
No not a dragon in human form.
A freaking reptilian appearance, breath weapon wielding, claws, and the talon dragon.
Need more games where I get to be the freaking dragon.
No, not a half dragon.
No not a dragonesque creature who is humanoid.
No not a dragon in human form.
A freaking reptilian appearance, breath weapon wielding, claws, and the talon dragon.
Have you considered hare krishne Day of the Destroyer?
Need more games where I get to be the freaking dragon.
No, not a half dragon.
No not a dragonesque creature who is humanoid.
No not a dragon in human form.
A freaking reptilian appearance, breath weapon wielding, claws, and the talon dragon.
Have you considered hare krishne Day of the Destroyer?
Even on M&M VIII you can have an dragon on your party, but the MC can't be a dragon...
I don't like the expectation for modern (RPG) video games to feature full voice acting. Producing a voiced line of dialog costs significantly more than an unvoiced one, so fully voiced games often tend to be lighter on dialog lines in order to stay within budget. It's a production decision that ends up restricting the writers and designers from properly doing their jobs.
Another reason why I dislike full voice acting is when you have thousands of hours of voiced lines to record, the overall quality of the voice acting will suffer. Meanwhile, when a game only has a few hours of voiced dialog, the voice actors and directors can do a much better job, as they can do more takes and have more time to experiment with delivery.
I'm similarly opposed to the tendency for games to increase the overall production value per hour of gameplay provided. When games are ridiculously expensive to produce (as I think most AAA games are today), you can bet that the increased production cost will be offset by lowering the amount of content and by decreasing the complexity of the gameplay systems.
Need more games where I get to be the freaking dragon.
No, not a half dragon.
No not a dragonesque creature who is humanoid.
No not a dragon in human form.
A freaking reptilian appearance, breath weapon wielding, claws, and the talon dragon.
Have you considered hare krishne Day of the Destroyer?
I've only seen 4, but played 3 games where the MC is w literal dragon
Eye of the dragon
Dragon commander
Spyro the dragon
And no i don't count ego draconian you don't even get the dragon form until like half way through that freaking game and literally everything is better then it.
The game i didn't get to play was ISTARIA which is a mmo that was free 2 play but you had to subscribe which hosted money to unlike the dragon character.
We have traded some livestreams where you had zero impact on what info Beamdog decided to gives us, to a monthly reply where the forum decides the questions and topics.
To me thats a huge improvement and I have found the answers very insightfull.
I dont expect Beamdog to dish out hardcoded eta on the 2.6 and 2.7 updates - and the minute details of the bugfixing. And if you - like me - can live without that you might find the Q&A format both pleasing and informative.
IMHO the Q&A are missed opportunities over and over again.
Keeping your audience on a cliff hanger to provide a Q&A where there's pretty much no "A" doesn't sound like a wise move at all.
Especially when the amount of unsatisfied customers keeps growing and some of them openly accuses the company of being a thief.
Myself, after reading the Q&A I have the exact same info I had before reading it. Honestly, Luke and @TrentOster are absolutely unfair to @JuliusBorisov . And even disrespectful to their clients, I would say.
But that's my last comment about that Q&A. I do believe yours is an unpopular opinion.
Let me just shortly say that Trent, Luke, and everyone else in Beamdog have been not only fair, but absolutely awesome to me. Really, I would say that Trent has been probably in the top 5 of the most influencing people in the world in terms of my current activity and life.
While certain people might not appreciate months without actual news and patches, it has nothing to do with the Q&A, or previously studio updates, their creation and publishing. No blog entry in the world will help against those accusations/complaints/requests, this is true.
I'm here 365/24, and if there is a way to talk to users beyond the forum, I'd take it, even if the studio's resources are limited, and livestreams no longer happen.
Comments
For those who played other old school cRPG's, this isn't a problem. No dungeon of BG is harder in therms of fights than Tomb of VARN in M&M VI. And even on 7 who have much easier dungeons, on end game has some very hard enemies that can insta erradicate you and erradication is far worse than death. Imagine an insta death spell who disintegrates the body and the unique way to ressurect is to re create the body then ressurect. Now imagine hordes and hordes of enemies with this spells and almost more HP than green dragons. That is the ending parts of M&M VII. Without an cleric, i honestly don't know how to beat...
My first run of IWD was a solo run with dragon disciple. Only had some problem with magic immune mobs(something that makes no sense, what is the difference of an conjured fire and a a ntural fire?) but nothing that i can't solve by using Black Blade of Disaster + Tenser's tranformation, i can have 3 attacks at -10 THAC0 with 15-37 damage totalizing 45-111 damage per round(more than a lot of spells) and the enemy must make 3 save vs death or be insta killed / round.
https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/68952/any-non-melee-ways-to-deal-with-spell-immune-creatures-in-iwd/p1
I think that's probably why they came up with the "unusable weapon" sound for both Torment and BG2.
The problem is that they *are* humans, just have one physical abnormality and everyone pretends it makes them different kind of creature. Dwarves, gnomes, elves - they all think like humans, act like humans, have human-usable technology, languages humans can learn and architecture suitable for humans. They aren't any more different than any Steve from South Carolina. They're just dudes, and usually they are stolen dudes, because they are taken straight from Tolkien. Sometimes authors switch thing or two about them, but that only makes matters worse: first of all, it's usually lacking any theme and just makes things confusing (if dwarves of Clichea don't like underground and prefer plains, then why do they look like sturdy, mining dwarves of Middle-Earth?), secondly, pretending about being creative is even worse than just being lazy, and thirdly - it doesn't adress the issue. Dwarves of Clichea are just humans. They can easily be example of another culture. Not only that would cut out pointless fluff, but avoid Planet Of Hats trope as well.
Better way to do it is to make other races alien and impossible to understand. But if you do that, they simply become monsters or plot devices. If Legolas was eldritch tentacle monster, then he couldn't be member of fellowship. He would be something closer to Barlog - so, essentially, alien monster from outer space. Too weird, without understandable character traits, motivations, and so on. So, once again, we end up with humans.
I suppose there is a thin line where you can have trully "other" creatures, but sentient enough to make sense as actors. But I don't think I've ever seen that. Erikson books were the closest, I think.
I'm currently preparing setting for tabletop RPG for my friends and I have *a lot* of angry thoughts about worldbuilding.
And yes, IMO Tolkien elves looks just like "improved humans" instead of another creature.
Man, I'm so far at the other end of this viewpoint it's not even funny. Far be it from me to impugn your personal opinions, but I feel like responding to them with my own:
Also, having spells interuppted by elemental attcks even when immune to that element MAKES SENSE. You aren't hurt by the flames of a fireball, but that sucker still imparts force on impact, and burst of fire would briefly burn up the oxygen around its target. You can't cast a spell when your breath is taken away, even if it doesn't hurt you.
Even at this point, with few physical changes, we end up with something very different than human. If we keep probing and start analyzing how would dwarven society look (or to be more precise, how their biology would form their society), we'll end up with aliens or monsters. Or we can keep them Tolkien. Or find that sweet stop between weirdness and familiarity, but I think it would be very difficult.
Ad Tolkien:
And I'm not saying that Tolkien is the sole inspiration, but merely a primary one. Evermeet, The Retreat, history of fallen empires, even name "Tel-quessir" - all of it is quite clearly taken from Middle-Earth. But I digress.
@HalfOrcBeastmaster, I appreciate that you took time to respond to my opinion. It's always cool to find out what other people enjoy in fantasy.
I put my answer in spoiler, because it's quite lengthy.
Let me use two examples. First one: Baldur's Gate. We have basically four factions: Baldur's Gate, Amn, Iron Throne and its rogue agent, Sarevok. Everyone involved is human. Those humans are motivated by different things: greed, patriotism, lust of power, etc. Do terrible, noble, sensible and mundane things. You can have all of that without use of different races.
Second one: Icewind Dale. We have orcs, different species. What can we tell about the orcs? Well, they are violent. And savage. And evil. And hostile. Basically The Mook Nation. What exactly do they add to the world? That there is kind of creatures that resemble sentient beings, but actually are primitive, violent savages? I find nothing interesting in there. I'd take bland Baldur's Gate humans any time.
You can say: but you can have different factions and motivations with orcs. You can create different nations, and governments, and cultures... But you end up having another bunch of humans, just named "orcs", and we circle back to the beginning. I say: let's just cut out the middleman.
Jacek Dukaj wrote a book called "Ice". In this world, the Earth is split into two realms - in one of them events are ruled by binary logic, in the other one by non-binary. It's probably the most interesting and creative setting I've ever seen
No argument here, but I think that's entirely different issue. Also - one of the reasons why I do worldbuilding is because I like being slightly different as a creator. It's fun and rewarding as itself. But then again - it's seperate matter, I believe.
I know that, trust me. I did my homework and read Poetic Edda. He did, however, provide interesting fusion of elder mythological element with quite Christian metaphysics, and made stories driven by cohesive metaphysics. Those races play certain roles in that mythology, and quite obviously elves from Eragon or Forgotten Realms or Thedas aren't ælf or faeries. They are race of fair, long-lived or immortal people, who use to rule the realms, but now are significantly less powerful, because we live in age of Man. They are not demigods from different world (but I gotta point out that Sapkowski's world use that root of elves in fantasy), they are not mischevous spirit like Puck. Elves in fantasy usually are copy of Eldars. Hell, Warhammer 40k even took the name without alteration. Of course, writers and creators will mix things up, but more often that not Tolkien is the most significant influence.
And I'm not for originality at any cost. On the contrary. I just like to avoid making my settings bloat, and I think that fantasy races make settings bloat, without providing anything interesting. Whatever is fun about elves, I can do that with humans.
Sure, but I cannot see what loss there would be if Pillars of Eternity or Pathfinder: Kingmaker swapped "races" with "origin". In any tabletop RPG that I know it's really no effort to get rid of elves and put Kondorians, Mohanians and Clicheanians. If you make elves, you still have to come up with their (undoubtebly foresty and ancienty) realm. Amount of job is the same, but you gain to things: first of all, hook for the nations. Elves live in forests because Tolkien created Lothlorien, obviously. But why would Mohanians build their cities in woods?
And how do you separate races and other fluff from "things that truly set their product apart"? Having elves and dwarves is literally opposite of that. And I've always thought that narrative and the world are crucial for RPGs (and cRPGS). If game designers focus on combat system alone, then they should make some kind of Black Pits, not cRPG. Interesting world makes narrative stronger.
I see pointed-eared elves who speak in languages that sound an awfully lot like Asian languages and love the woods, archery, magic and lore. I see short, stocky bearded dwarves who like to live under mountains and speak with Scottish brogues. I see little people with playful natures who love food, home and hearth. Oh, I'm in a classical high fantasy. Time to put on my wizard's hat or pick up my sword and shield.
I see pointed-eared people who show little emotion and constantly philosophize about logic and science. I see dark-skinned, muscular, swarthy people with forehead ridges who like to fight and who value their warrior's honor above all else. I am surrounded by computers and technological devices, and I am on a space ship where the captain has ordered me to take the ship to warp speed. Oh, I'm in a Star Trek adventure. Time to strap on my phaser and my tricorder and beam down with the landing party. I hope I'm not wearing a red shirt.
I see giant furred bipedal creatures who speak in barks and growls. I see aliens with tentacles wrapped around their heads, and the local mob is run by a creature that looks like a giant slug. I am surrounded by worn-looking technology that seems pieced together, and has seen better days. Androids in every imaginable shape and size are all around, and many of them have AI so advanced they could pass a Turing Test with flying colors. Men and women in brown robes are fighting with brightly glowing, loudly buzzing laser swords and causing objects to fly through the air with their mysterious telekinetic powers, while armored soldiers fire plasma bolts at them from laser guns that make a "pew...pew...pew" sound. Oh, I'm in a Star Wars adventure. Hand me one of those light sabers. I'll take a green one.
Sure, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, Vulcans, Klingons, Twileks, etc. are really just humans with made up cultures that exaggerate certain human characteristics. And you could probably tell the same stories with just humans and without the fantasy races and aliens. But I think they'd be much less colorful, and much less fun.
They are here.
And evil races. Dhampis, vampires, tieflings, drow, etc.
I'm not sure that's an 'unpopular' opinion @thacobell. More options = more fun!
There are mods that allow them and you can even have Tiefling and Drow NPCs.
Look here for finding Finn-Jo's Sub-race mod. http://www.shsforums.net/topic/44862-finnjos-subrace-mod-for-bg2/
It is slightly buggy but can be corrected using Shadow-keeper.
No, not a half dragon.
No not a dragonesque creature who is humanoid.
No not a dragon in human form.
A freaking reptilian appearance, breath weapon wielding, claws, and the talon dragon.
Have you considered hare krishne Day of the Destroyer?
Even on M&M VIII you can have an dragon on your party, but the MC can't be a dragon...
Another reason why I dislike full voice acting is when you have thousands of hours of voiced lines to record, the overall quality of the voice acting will suffer. Meanwhile, when a game only has a few hours of voiced dialog, the voice actors and directors can do a much better job, as they can do more takes and have more time to experiment with delivery.
I'm similarly opposed to the tendency for games to increase the overall production value per hour of gameplay provided. When games are ridiculously expensive to produce (as I think most AAA games are today), you can bet that the increased production cost will be offset by lowering the amount of content and by decreasing the complexity of the gameplay systems.
I've only seen 4, but played 3 games where the MC is w literal dragon
Eye of the dragon
Dragon commander
Spyro the dragon
And no i don't count ego draconian you don't even get the dragon form until like half way through that freaking game and literally everything is better then it.
The game i didn't get to play was ISTARIA which is a mmo that was free 2 play but you had to subscribe which hosted money to unlike the dragon character.
@DragonKing You are making me want to play the old Spyro trilogy again.
I remember that game, i had plans to get it but i can't remember what happened that stopped me.
We have traded some livestreams where you had zero impact on what info Beamdog decided to gives us, to a monthly reply where the forum decides the questions and topics.
To me thats a huge improvement and I have found the answers very insightfull.
I dont expect Beamdog to dish out hardcoded eta on the 2.6 and 2.7 updates - and the minute details of the bugfixing. And if you - like me - can live without that you might find the Q&A format both pleasing and informative.
Here I'll agree to disagree.
IMHO the Q&A are missed opportunities over and over again.
Keeping your audience on a cliff hanger to provide a Q&A where there's pretty much no "A" doesn't sound like a wise move at all.
Especially when the amount of unsatisfied customers keeps growing and some of them openly accuses the company of being a thief.
Myself, after reading the Q&A I have the exact same info I had before reading it. Honestly, Luke and @TrentOster are absolutely unfair to @JuliusBorisov . And even disrespectful to their clients, I would say.
But that's my last comment about that Q&A. I do believe yours is an unpopular opinion.
@Raduziel I am quite sure that @JuliusBorisov himself would disagree with this...
Not to worry. I know your view on the topic - and I respect you and your view. But we will have to dissagree...
and since we both have posted in the UO thread, we have to see who is called out on being to much off topic
Let me just shortly say that Trent, Luke, and everyone else in Beamdog have been not only fair, but absolutely awesome to me. Really, I would say that Trent has been probably in the top 5 of the most influencing people in the world in terms of my current activity and life.
While certain people might not appreciate months without actual news and patches, it has nothing to do with the Q&A, or previously studio updates, their creation and publishing. No blog entry in the world will help against those accusations/complaints/requests, this is true.
I'm here 365/24, and if there is a way to talk to users beyond the forum, I'd take it, even if the studio's resources are limited, and livestreams no longer happen.