457 réponses à ce sujet

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Dundalis wrote...

What if you don't like the sound of the character you are playing? What if you want him/her to sound different. It might give the character a different tone from what you are perhaps trying to roleplay.

Gamers lack imagination today. That's the problem. They want to be spoon fed everything and not have to think. Having everyone voiced is just another step towards that.

It's like reading a good fiction novel over watching a movie. No movie will ever have anything over a good novel, but most people today don't think like that. Novels have no voices, except ones you create using your imagination. Movies are limited creatively, everything is spoon fed to you, you don't really have to do any thinking. Games are making a similar trend away from the scope of an interactive novel into an interactive movie. Nothing left to the imagination. The gamer doesn't have to do much anymore except move around and hit a few buttons. More and more options get taken away to streamline the experience. It's unfortunate but it's true. And it looks like people are quite happy with that.

Agreed!
Which is why I don't support such RPG. I only play games like TES, Fallout series, Neverwinter Nights, Neverwinter Nights 2, Dragon Age Origins and any other RPG that bundle with toolset/creation kit/mods. I made a mistake purchasing DA 2, Mass Effect 2, Alpha Protocol and Assassin's Creeds. I dislike restriction in my roleplay. If I have a toolset I would have change both DA 2 and Mass Effect 2 according to what I want to write my story. But I don't have a toolset.  

Ah well.. Skyrim will be releasing a creation kit soon. Once it releases, I will finally have a better grapic engine than DAO Toolset to write my Warden Story beyond Eluvian Mirror  with Morrigan. 

[Eski.Moe]

What I hope it takes from Skyrim isn't the open world nor is it the silent protagonist. At least not necessarily. What I hope it takes from Skyrim is the idea of sitting down and giving your game the required amount of time for it to be the best that it can. For it to receive the love and attention and for one to feel as if he or she is part of a big world that is brimming with life rather than being confined to a city that is essentially soulless.

[bEVEsthda]

Morroian wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...

I agree.  I'm a bit torn on the whole "they rushed DA2" thing.  They were going to put out a horrible game regardless of how long they took.  If they'd had more time, there would be less recycled areas, less waves probably, better encounters, *maybe* more meaningful choices, but the game would have still been terrible.

Nope, you may not have liked it but it would have been a great game and the reception would have been a lot better. More along the lines of what happened with ME2. And you're ignoring bevesthda's final point about what you perceive as flaws not mattering if you enjoy the game. 

Well, I think you have that 180 degrees backwards. I see things as absolutely reversed to that.
ME kept it's style!  It did feature a lot of dumbing down, and IMO every change from ME1 makes it a worse game. I think ME1 is a better game. Not that I have bothered to get very far in ME2 though.

Here's what I think: If ME2 had been closer to ME1 it would have had even better reception. The thing is just that Mass Effect has gained a lot of mind share during the years. Good game franchises grows for each generation, until some publisher have dumbed down the game so much that it starts to have a negative image mind share (that will soon happen to CoD, if they don't shape up).

ME2 survived because they kept their style. DA2 did not! And frankly, even though I dislike DA2, I think M.L. did a good job. It's a ****ty game very far from what I wanted, but it's well crafted, and I can respect some of the things he tried to accomplish, like more fluid combat. The only way "rushed" fits in is the re-used dungeons. And considering that the option was a far shorter game, - I think Mike did the right choice there, even if it's hideous and he has to carry the blame for it.

Nope, in my mind, it comes down to the direction. DA2 is not a type of game that we wanted.

[bEVEsthda]

Imrahil_ wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...
All this **** is why I dislike DA2. But I do feel that Bioware don't listen to that. I think they listen to "re-used environments", "lack of meaningful choices", "wave enemies" and all that precious "constructive criticism". I have no doubt many such flaws are going to be rectified in DA3. But that doesn't matter to me. I'm probably going to dislike DA3 just as much as DA2, if it doesn't intend to be serious. If it intends to stick to its "new direction", which is still, as far as I've seen, what the developers are hinting.

I agree.  I'm a bit torn on the whole "they rushed DA2" thing.  They were going to put out a horrible game regardless of how long they took.  If they'd had more time, there would be less recycled areas, less waves probably, better encounters, *maybe* more meaningful choices, but the game would have still been terrible.

The "new direction" is the problem, & better dungeon design wouldn't have helped.  So, I'm kinda glad they rushed it.  It means we found out their "new direction" was terrible sooner.  The problem is that they still think the "new direction" is the right direction.

As you said, they're going to listen to "re-used environments", "lack of meaningful choices", "wave enemies", & no doubt they'll fix those things.  Those were just stupid design elements that no game should have.  But they're going to think those were the only problems.  They're going to keep all the real mistakes, I fear.

That is why it's so frustrating. My feeling is that they have listened to the criticism from people who liked DA2.

[abaris]

yaw wrote...

I've certainly never heard anyone complain about the silent protagonist in Skyrim. Why not? Because it's not needed. Oblivion didn't have one, Morrowind didn't have one, none of the ES series had one. And noone felt the need to 'innovate' and start using one. Take notes.

Not to defend DAII, but Skyrim suffers from a different kind of bug. A bug that has been around since Morrowind. And that's cardboard NPCs, practically no role playing opportunities and a world that doesn't react to the PCs achievements.

I always liked the Elder Scroll series, but they have never been strong in the roleplaying department. Silent or voiced protagonist doesn't make any difference in that kind of setting, since the protagonist is doomed to stay twodimensional anyways.

[Dormiglione]

Bleachrude wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...


IMO, if there is something that Bioware should take from Skyrim then please that: A sequel should be the evolution of the predecessor and not a 180 degree turn from it.

But there's NOTHING connecting Skyrim to Oblivion. You literally could play Skyrim first and THEN Oblivion, then Daggerfall, then morrowind and NOT have any problems since there's no connection to each other with regard to plot, characters etc other than being apart of the same world.

One of the things one could argue given the success of the witcher AND Skyrim is that party-based adventure is actually a drawback given that neither of those two allow for that and were much more successful than DA

The connection between Oblivion and Skyrim is the open world. The different races that you can play. The possibility that you can play 100 hours, solving side-quest, fraction quest and discover a vast world. You decide by yourself when do you follow the main quest and when you step a side for a side-quest.

This was how Oblivion worked, this is how Skyrim works. I got what i expected and im happy. The reception of skyrim shows that im not the only one who is happy with it.

DAO and DA2 are complete different.
Like i said in my previous post. DAO and ME1 are defined by wonderful characters and a good story (yes, we know already all types of stories, and still i read fantasy books even when i know its all about "magic"). ME 2 continued the story and kept shepard and his companions.
IMO, so either is DA2 a standalone game or DA2 is the new direction of the DA series and DAO is the standalone game. DAO, a game that remains what it is, without any successors.

Hope that you understand my point of view.

Finally:
I really hope that Bioware is not looking for what to "copy" or "take" from skyrim for future DA installments. I would check out how was Oblivion compared to Skyrim, play Oblivion 1-2 days, then play Skyrim 1-2 days and analyze how different or how close that Oblivion and Skyrim are.

[Meris]

abaris wrote...

yaw wrote...

I've certainly never heard anyone complain about the silent protagonist in Skyrim. Why not? Because it's not needed. Oblivion didn't have one, Morrowind didn't have one, none of the ES series had one. And noone felt the need to 'innovate' and start using one. Take notes.

Not to defend DAII, but Skyrim suffers from a different kind of bug. A bug that has been around since Morrowind. And that's cardboard NPCs, practically no role playing opportunities and a world that doesn't react to the PCs achievements.

I disagree with the bolded part. For me an RPG is a matter of immersing oneself in a story via a self-made avatar, that interacts with the game world. That interaction becomes more meaningful with the strenghts of each game, and the Elder Scrolls are about a open world sandbox, where the freedom to do or not to do a given sidequest is, by itself, an opportunity for roleplaying.

And sure, you could have more freedom within a single quest, but there's already freedom to be had.

Modifié par Meris, 08 janvier 2012 - 03:11 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

abaris wrote...

yaw wrote...

I've certainly never heard anyone complain about the silent protagonist in Skyrim. Why not? Because it's not needed. Oblivion didn't have one, Morrowind didn't have one, none of the ES series had one. And noone felt the need to 'innovate' and start using one. Take notes.

Not to defend DAII, but Skyrim suffers from a different kind of bug. A bug that has been around since Morrowind. And that's (1) cardboard NPCs,(2 ) practically no role playing opportunities and (3) a world that doesn't react to the PCs achievements.

I always liked the Elder Scroll series, but they have never been strong in the roleplaying department. Silent or voiced protagonist doesn't make any difference in that kind of setting, since the protagonist is doomed to stay twodimensional anyways.

(1) Skyrim have many more NPCs than DA 2 . They have their own story and they will tell you how they live their daily life. DA 2 NPCs, however, are just statue like this



(2) Depend on what roleplaying opportunities are you looking. If you are looking for Dungeon Master to spoon feed you on everything, then you won't find such benevolent Dungeon Master. 

(3)  Define your archievement because everyone has their own objective and different archievement. There is no single universal true archievement. If you are expecting everyone to worship you like Toldos after saving the world, then you are placing your expectation way too high. You are fighting Alduin in a plane where no living being can witness your victory + the dragons are scattered without Alduin but that doesn't mean they are peaceful creatures. The story never ends unless you quit playing or choose to play different character. Because that's what The Elder Scrolls is. An Empty Scroll meant to be filled by your tale. You write the story. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 08 janvier 2012 - 03:36 .

[deatharmonic]

abaris wrote...

yaw wrote...

I've certainly never heard anyone complain about the silent protagonist in Skyrim. Why not? Because it's not needed. Oblivion didn't have one, Morrowind didn't have one, none of the ES series had one. And noone felt the need to 'innovate' and start using one. Take notes.

Not to defend DAII, but Skyrim suffers from a different kind of bug. A bug that has been around since Morrowind. And that's cardboard NPCs, practically no role playing opportunities and a world that doesn't react to the PCs achievements.

I always liked the Elder Scroll series, but they have never been strong in the roleplaying department. Silent or voiced protagonist doesn't make any difference in that kind of setting, since the protagonist is doomed to stay twodimensional anyways.

Have you played skyrim? I ask because the part i have highlighted in your comment is categorically wrong. the PC is handed a blank slate from which to act out any character with in the confines of the game they desire. It offers an expansively open form of role play, perhaps so open that you yourself dont know what to role play? To say there are no opportunities? Rubbish. Furthermore, the world does in fact react. when i became a member of the companions, people acknowledged this, when i became the harbinger, it was acknowledged, when i slayed a cave full of witches, it was acknowledged, I could go on but the point is I recieved recognition for the things I had done from npc's.

[In Exile]

Dundalis wrote...

What if you don't like the sound of the character you are playing? What if you want him/her to sound different. It might give the character a different tone from what you are perhaps trying to roleplay.

Gamers lack imagination today. That's the problem. They want to be spoon fed everything and not have to think. Having everyone voiced is just another step towards that.

I think people are entitled to believe whatever they want, right up to the point when they starting thinking that preference makes them better than everyone else. Especially when you combine it with armchair psychology like this.

Imagination has nothing to do with it. Especially in a visual medium, active medium. A game is not a medium for imagination. A movie is a great example of this, and so are plays. These are things that physically happen before you. You can certainly ask for imagined content - you can have things happen "off-screen" or you can fade to black, etc.

But the medium is not about using your imagination. Games are anti-books in this respect.

Let's use combat as an example. If for each combat encounter the game faded to black, had a secret dice roll, and then said: "You won!" or "You lost" and then asked you to imagine the outcome, would that be in any way sensible? Of course not. Because the gameplay is not at all about imagination.

It's like reading a good fiction novel over watching a movie. No movie will ever have anything over a good novel, but most people today don't think like that. Novels have no voices, except ones you create using your imagination. Movies are limited creatively, everything is spoon fed to you, you don't really have to do any thinking.

That's ridiculous. Have you ever watched a critically acclaimed movie? Ever? 

Games are making a similar trend away from the scope of an interactive novel into an interactive movie. Nothing left to the imagination. The gamer doesn't have to do much anymore except move around and hit a few buttons. More and more options get taken away to streamline the experience. It's unfortunate but it's true. And it looks like people are quite happy with that.

Games stopped being interactive novels when they killed the very old text-only games.

[Meris]

Some of the greatest works of theatrics and the cinema leave a lot to the imagination.

So there's nothing wrong with an \\o\\oACTIVE MEDIUMo/o/ to require a bit of imagination.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

In Exile wrote...
Games stopped being interactive novels when they killed the very old text-only games.

Video Games itself is a complex written codes in the same manner novel is a written text. The only difference is those codes need to be translated into human language through medium like consoles and PC. Whereas novels required books. The old text-only games may no longer exist but the written codes interpreted by consoles and pc  still exist. You are still interacting with the codes just as much as you were interacting with the old text-only games. Both Book and video games, regardless, are passive and active medium depending on how you want to use such medium. 

In Exile wrote.. 
Let's use combat as an example. If for each combat encounter the game faded to black, had a secret dice roll, and then said: "You won!" or "You lost" and then asked you to imagine the outcome, would that be in any way sensible? Of course not. Because the gameplay is not at all about imagination.

That doesn't prove that gameplay can not be imagination. It may be inconvenient but it's not impossible. I always imagine Cousland and Duncan fight their way to escape Howe's men before they reached Orzammar. Yes it's my preference. But that doesn't mean that imagination doesn't exist. Can I write it in my playthrough to make it interactive imagination? Sure why not. It's just a matter of scripting just like writing any story book. All I need is toolset. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 08 janvier 2012 - 04:55 .

[eroeru]

Morroian wrote...
Hawke is just as defined as any 1 of the Wardens 

Quoted for misinformation.

Many feel that the voice is adding most in pre-defined characters. You cannot without imagination grasp what the tone and exact character of the lines said are, when it's only written (that's also why the forums are so full of misunderstandings), but a voice adds, for me, the whole of the character.

This said, I love silet PC because of the role-play involved, and don't so much adore the voiced ones. Though if voiced, the character should be very neutral - Geralt of Rivia and Shephard come to mind.

I loathed sarcastic/evil Hawke (and DA2 in general). But in DA:O I had every choice of dialogue potentially fitting - only because I could imagine the tone...

Modifié par eroeru, 08 janvier 2012 - 05:12 .

[abaris]

deatharmonic wrote...

Have you played skyrim? I ask because the part i have highlighted in your comment is categorically wrong. the PC is handed a blank slate from which to act out any character with in the confines of the game they desire.

Yes, I played it for quite some time.

As for the second part the slate stays blank. Guild members don't recognize you as their leader, Ulfric may lie dead in his hall and NPCs still ramble on about his future exploits, the mage at Whiterun still suggests you join the mages guild although you're archmage. Well, I could go on for pages and ages. Only the guards are as psychic as ever, recognizing your every skill and every guild membership. When they haven't been knee capped that is.

The NPC population is as dumb as they come. Has been with Elder Scroll games at least since Morrowind.

Yes, and then there are the companions. To call them twodimensional and rather useless would do them undeserved honors. That is neither understandable nor excusable, since Bethesda had a working companion system in place with Fallout 3 and could have drawn some ideas from Blizzards Fallout New Vegas, which they published after all.

All of this never bothered me much, since there are other elements to enjoy. But to call Skyrim the harbinger of a new age and role model is a little bit to the pathetic side. It's a typical Elder Scroll game that has even been dumbed down for mass appeal.

In earlier games you had to at least meet certain requirements to join a guild. Now they're taking everyone and you can make archmage with casting two or three spells in your whole careeer. You're railroaded into the mages guild anyway, since the main quest requires it. All this is obviously intended to appeal to the "I want it all" crowd or what has been called "appealing to a broader audience" with DAII - here in this very place. We all know how well this turned out.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

abaris wrote...
You're railroaded into the mages guild anyway, since the main quest requires it.

At first I thought that too but then I realized you can bypass joining mage guild to get The Elder Scrolls. 

[Dundalis]

In Exile wrote...

Dundalis wrote...

What if you don't like the sound of the character you are playing? What if you want him/her to sound different. It might give the character a different tone from what you are perhaps trying to roleplay.

Gamers lack imagination today. That's the problem. They want to be spoon fed everything and not have to think. Having everyone voiced is just another step towards that.

I think people are entitled to believe whatever they want, right up to the point when they starting thinking that preference makes them better than everyone else. Especially when you combine it with armchair psychology like this.

Imagination has nothing to do with it. Especially in a visual medium, active medium. A game is not a medium for imagination. A movie is a great example of this, and so are plays. These are things that physically happen before you. You can certainly ask for imagined content - you can have things happen "off-screen" or you can fade to black, etc.

But the medium is not about using your imagination. Games are anti-books in this respect.

Let's use combat as an example. If for each combat encounter the game faded to black, had a secret dice roll, and then said: "You won!" or "You lost" and then asked you to imagine the outcome, would that be in any way sensible? Of course not. Because the gameplay is not at all about imagination.

It's like reading a good fiction novel over watching a movie. No movie will ever have anything over a good novel, but most people today don't think like that. Novels have no voices, except ones you create using your imagination. Movies are limited creatively, everything is spoon fed to you, you don't really have to do any thinking.

That's ridiculous. Have you ever watched a critically acclaimed movie? Ever? 

Games are making a similar trend away from the scope of an interactive novel into an interactive movie. Nothing left to the imagination. The gamer doesn't have to do much anymore except move around and hit a few buttons. More and more options get taken away to streamline the experience. It's unfortunate but it's true. And it looks like people are quite happy with that.

Games stopped being interactive novels when they killed the very old text-only games.

Bold underline comment: What a load of crap. Games aren't a medium for imagination? What the hell is an rpg then? It's (supposed to be anyway) a game where you play a role. A game where you can become someone of your choosing (i.e. imagination) and then play them in a fashion that fits that role. From the actions, to the appearance, to even their voice. If it isn't manifest on your screen, then you could use your imagination, in the case of the old text based games certainly. Even something as recent as NWN2 allowed scope for this to an extent.

And my point is that games are moving away from that. They didn't just stop being interactive novels when we moved past text only games. They simply started moving in a direction towards being more of an interactive movie. Choice became more limited, more information was spoon fed to us on the screen as graphics improved. We started at one end of the spectrum and are very quickly moving towards the other end. I don't dislike games today by any means, I don't think its quite at that point yet, but I could see myself losing interest as the current trends gather more momentum.

And yes, games are being tailored to what is becoming a dumber audience. I don't care if that makes me seem arrogant, cause it's true. Gamers today ain't got the same intellect as the gamers from back in the day. Probably due to it being more mass appeal I guess than anything. It used to be more of a nerds only affair I suppose. Simple fact is game developers used to cater for a more intelligent crowd. If you can't see that games are being dumbed down for the audience, well I guess there's nothing much more to say about it.

As for the thing about movies, hell yes I've seen critically acclaimed movies. They are great. The fact is however, no movie ever created could EVER come close to capturing the scope, depth and storytelling of a similar quality novel. It just ain't close really. A top quality novel is like eating a five course meal, as opposed to going to McDonalds (a movie). Just not the same really. Granted sometimes all I want to do is go to Maccas and feast out on junk, but when it comes down to it, the five courser is what fills you up.

Modifié par Dundalis, 08 janvier 2012 - 05:21 .

[IanPolaris]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

abaris wrote...
You're railroaded into the mages guild anyway, since the main quest requires it.

At first I thought that too but then I realized you can bypass joining mage guild to get The Elder Scrolls. 

Yep.  If you've talked with Esbern/Agnier and they told you that the Winterhold College would know of an Elderscroll, you can demand to be let in as a Dragonborn.  At this point Faralda will ask you to "shout" to prove it.  Do so and she will let you in and you don't have to join.

-Polaris

[Bleachrude]

I don't think you can actually have what you have in Skyrim WITH the standard Bioware game (namely the party system).

Notice, nobody has ever said, "get rid of companions" but one of the limiting factors _IS_ the party system. How much resources do you think Bioware has to spend on all of the things that go into the party system?

From balancing party members, to dialogue to modelling, resources are spent on it. Games like the Witcher and Skyrim don't have to put resources into that and thus, more resources spent on other things...

Take the AI for Skyrim...I think they used the exact same AI for the last 3 elder scroll games and it works since the AI seems to have two states: Is the enemy melee? Then run up and start attacking, otherwise start firing spells/arrows.

[IanPolaris]

Actually Skryim does have a party system, albeit a very primitive one. It's the first TES game (to my knowledge) that does.

-Polaris

[abaris]

Bleachrude wrote...

I don't think you can actually have what you have in Skyrim WITH the standard Bioware game (namely the party system).

You can have it. Fallout New Vegas proves it.

Apart from having a main quest that has a finale, FNV is a sandbox. The game tells you, take all the time exploring, but if you walk down the final road, it's game over.

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually Skryim does have a party system, albeit a very primitive one. It's the first TES game (to my knowledge) that does.

-Polaris

The first TES game, but there's no reason they didn't take the system they already had in place with Fallout 3. Which wasn't perfect but much better than what they came up with now.

Modifié par abaris, 08 janvier 2012 - 05:57 .

[deatharmonic]

abaris wrote...


Yes, I played it for quite some time.

As for the second part the slate stays blank.

  

Slate stays blank? then thats your own problem, not the games. Myself and many others successfully roleplay absolutely fine in skyrim 

abaris wrote...
Guild members don't recognize you as their leader, Ulfric may lie dead in his hall and NPCs still ramble on about his future exploits, the mage at Whiterun still suggests you join the mages guild although you're archmage. Well, I could go on for pages and ages. Only the guards are as psychic as ever, recognizing your every skill and every guild membership. When they haven't been knee capped that is.

 

As ive said when i joined the companions (i'm talking about a guild actually called the companions) the world does infact react to the things i have achieved with them, there could have been more depth to this i admit, but to say the world has no reactivity is not true.

abaris wrote... 
The NPC population is as dumb as they come. Has been with Elder Scroll games at least since Morrowind.

  

npc's aren't impressive but they react more so than in DA2

abaris wrote...  
Yes, and then there are the companions. To call them twodimensional and rather useless would do them undeserved honors. That is neither understandable nor excusable, since Bethesda had a working companion system in place with Fallout 3 and could have drawn some ideas from Blizzards Fallout New Vegas, which they published after all.

  

I get the impression you thought i was talking about companions which join you. In my initial post to you i was refering to the guild called the companions. As previously stated when i've done missions for them, there is an observable level of reactivity in the town, although it is primarily from the guards it still shows there is reactivity. It may not be the best implementation but again to say there is none? not true. 

abaris wrote... 
All of this never bothered me much, since there are other elements to enjoy. But to call Skyrim the harbinger of a new age and role model is a little bit to the pathetic side. It's a typical Elder Scroll game that has even been dumbed down for mass appeal.

  

If your saying i said that (bolded) you need to re-read what i wrote before you respond. Harbinger is a position within the companions guild, its the heighest position and the members of the guild call you the harbinger when you take over. AGAIN showing a level of reactivity.

abaris wrote...  
In earlier games you had to at least meet certain requirements to join a guild. Now they're taking everyone and you can make archmage with casting two or three spells in your whole careeer. You're railroaded into the mages guild anyway, since the main quest requires it. All this is obviously intended to appeal to the "I want it all" crowd or what has been called "appealing to a broader audience" with DAII - here in this very place. We all know how well this turned out.

The main quest does not require you to join any guild. I've completed the game once without a guild a once with the companions guild.

[abaris]

deatharmonic wrote...

If your saying i said that (bolded) you need to re-read what i wrote before you respond. Harbinger is a position within the companions guild, its the heighest position and the members of the guild call you the harbinger when you take over. AGAIN showing a level of reactivity.

Harbinger as in Omen of a new age of roleplaying - role model.

That's certainly not what Skyrim is. It's a solid game, certainly better (in my opinion anyway) than DAII, but not a shining symbol of excellence.

And when I talk about companions I talk about companions to take with you, not the companions in Whiterun, which I only joined once and left when I learned about the werewulf thingy.

[deatharmonic]

abaris wrote...

deatharmonic wrote...

If your saying i said that (bolded) you need to re-read what i wrote before you respond. Harbinger is a position within the companions guild, its the heighest position and the members of the guild call you the harbinger when you take over. AGAIN showing a level of reactivity.

Harbinger as in Omen of a new age of roleplaying - role model.

That's certainly not what Skyrim is. It's a solid game, certainly better (in my opinion anyway) than DAII, but not a shining symbol of excellence.

And when I talk about companions I talk about companions to take with you, not the companions in Whiterun, which I only joined once and left when I learned about the werewulf thingy.

I dont know why you even bothered to quote me then, because none of that is relevant to what i said.

[abaris]

deatharmonic wrote...

I dont know why you even bothered to quote me then, because none of that is relevant to what i said.

Well, since you quoted me I was under the impression you were talking about general roleplaying aspects and not just one guild.

[deatharmonic]

abaris wrote...

deatharmonic wrote...

I dont know why you even bothered to quote me then, because none of that is relevant to what i said.

Well, since you quoted me I was under the impression you were talking about general roleplaying aspects and not just one guild.

I quoted you to address what you said about:
- no role play opportunities
- no reactivity in the world

The guild was an example of how there is reactivity in the game. You seemed to have grossly misconstrued my arguments. 

Modifié par deatharmonic, 08 janvier 2012 - 08:21 .