Ceiling Durkheim

I'm not sure of the relevance of this to a history specifically of forums, but there was also a Blades email list around the late '90s/early aughts. It wasn't as full of discussion as some of the forums and other sites, but a decent number of scenario designers and people who participated in the other sites were on there. The two I remember off the top of my head were Sir Robin and Tor...Argh, but I think there were others of note. Also, I vaguely recall Relhan having his own site on the Blades webring, but I wouldn't swear to that. The only thing I remember for sure was that he made some high quality custom graphics.

Which was one of the examples (the Nothing) I was considering mentioning in the above post. Blame TV Tropes and my vague childhood memories. Some day I should re-watch those films.

@Lilith: Huh. That actually sounds like a cool premise for a fantasy story (in a game world or otherwise). The notion of creatures of formed of some sort of non-being, a la the Heartless from Kingdom Hearts or the spectres from His Dark Materials, but taking the Platonic roots of the idea more seriously. As a philosophical argument, though, such a story doesn't seem nearly so promising.

Quote: measle's semi-unreleased scenario The Nature of Evil was actually quite serious. unfortunately it was serious in the service of a half-assed argument for the privatio boni theory but oh well It...what? I'm not sure how one would make such an argument through a BoE scenario (or was it BoA?). Am now curious.

@Lilith: I basically agree, but it bears noting that Jeff has had zones 'un-clear' in Geneforge before; the ones that come immediately to mind are the Gazaki-Uss zones in G5.

Oh man, I remember the Lycaeum. Strictly speaking, I remember the "Lyceum," but I think that's just my memory slipping in my old age. I wrote some pretty second-rate scenarios back then. In my defense, I was thirteen.

@Earth Empires: Don't presume to speak for all veteran players of Spiderweb games. I've been playing since around the time BoE came out, and I don't mind the linearity of more recent games. I've also encountered other long-term SW fans who hold the same opinion.

IMO, thorns/reflection is a bit weak. The status effects themselves are pretty useful, but the duration is depressingly short, meaning there's not much point in casting it before battle, and you have to refresh it frequently in longer fights. As a buffer, I definitely prefer the blademaster.

@Another: How far are you in the game? Sorceresses really shine in the second half, both because of more equipment/abilities/consumables to reduce cooldown time on her spell nukes, and because of focus mastery. With high levels in the latter she gains huge amounts of magic resistance (and further reduces cooldown when she gets hit with such attacks), which has the odd effect of making her one of the better tank characters in some fights.

Also, doesn't the aforementioned 'hit everyone' skill deal damage based on dex anyway? I have a vague recollection of Jeff patching that, but it certainly started out that way. Anyway, you can make a viable melee fighter while primarily pumping dex. He'll do a bit less damage, but he'll also be much better at tanking, and it's worthwhile to remember that this isn't a strict either-or situation. The way prereqs work, you'll be putting a lot of points into melee and missile passive bonuses if you want to get at the upper left column skills, and there will inevitably be some battles in which either the melee or missile option is just better than its counterpart. My recommendation is to pump strength and dex about evenly until encumbrance is no longer a concern (with the occasional point in endurance), then ignore strength to focus on dex with a bit more endurance. This will get you a character who does respectable damage in melee, very good if not quite optimal damage at range, and is capable of taking some hits and dodging more.

Alternatively: "level."

Even with dex pumped up high, Avadon on torment isn't exactly easy, and it requires creativity in other aspects of fighting and build optimization. Especially since the strongest optional boss happens to spam cold attacks.

I'd say a game with more/different skills is pretty much a given. Compare the number of spells and creations in G1 and G2, or the number of spells in E1 and E2. The first entry in each new series tends to be the 'smallest' and least polished, for obvious reasons.

Eyes seem to be out in the field fairly frequently, though hands definitely fit the "an adventurer is you" theme of Jeff's games (and most RPGs) better than eyes. That said, starting off a bit higher on the totem pole doesn't seem like that unreasonable a prospect. It's already a big difference between the Avernum series and Avadon/Geneforge 1-3: in the former one starts out as some nobody who happens to be good at fighting, while in the latter one starts out as a person who is in a position of authority and can give orders to many people. Sure, one starts out on the bottom rung of Avadon/the Shaper order, but that still puts one in a higher social position than 95+% of the world. It wouldn't be too hard to increase this further, and have the PC indirectly manage larger teams of hands, or have more of a say in governmental processes. BioWare has done just that in both the original Dragon Age (recruiting various groups of allies, donating resources to them, and calling on them in certain areas), and in Mass Effect 3 (with war assets and galactic readiness). Being able to act with more authority in solving problems (promising bigger bribes or full amnesty, committing troops to some areas and not others) would be an interesting and practicable idea, but I'm not sure it would fit in with Redbeard's autocratic take on the Keeper's role. The other obvious criticism is that if you can bribe some bandit lord with thousands of coins, why can't you spend those on that sweet armor the legendary blacksmith sells? This seems pretty easy to answer, though: your operating budget should have limitations, and the big bucks should be reserved for things more directly beneficial to the Pact. Major bribes qualify, booze, strippers, and phat lewt do not. All in all, while I wouldn't go as far as blueskirt suggests, I think the general idea has merit, and could make for a very fun game.

@Juan Carlo: That's an interesting point. I agree with it in principle, but not with all the specifics. Click to reveal.. To wit: I agree that BioWare games tend to follow a formula of sorts, and that the ME3 ending broke with many elements of that formula. I'm not as averse to that formula as you seem to be, but I'm happy they decided to go for something different and a bit more challenging to end the Mass Effect series. When I hear many people describe how they would've liked ME3 to end (certainly not all, but many), it sounds basically like they wanted the Crucible to be a really big gun that blew up the Reapers conventionally, then everyone lives (relatively) happily ever after. I, for one, would have been disappointed with that ending, not least because it would essentially have been a rehash of the endings of Dragon Age and the Baldur's Gate series. That said, while I liked the ending in principle, I thought the execution needed some work. In particular, many of the plot twists surrounding the Catalyst came completely out of nowhere, and struck me as simple poor plotting. Yes, they reflected themes like the conflict between organic and synthetic life that had been with the series since its inception, but the actual conversation and decision felt abrupt and somewhat shoehorned. They had much less emotional and intellectual impact than I think they would have, had they been set up in a more competent manner. Still, my opinion of the ending is favorable overall. I'm also with you on the gameplay: it's really fun, and the best in the series in my opinion (granted, my impressions of the first game are mostly secondhand). I think this is one of the reasons professional critics have been kinder to the game than many fans: unlike the various "OMG ME3 ending raeped my childhood 0 stars!!!1!" reviews on Amazon and Metacritic*, critical reviews have to be comprehensive, and thus tend to recognize that games with worse stories than ME3 have gotten high ratings based on the fact that they're fun to play. I thought ME3 took the gameplay from ME2, which was already very fun, and improved on it in a number of worthwhile ways. Combat was more diverse and exciting because sitting around behind cover was no longer the optimal strategy for 90% of situations. The modified skill system was better balanced. The weapon mods allowed for interesting new options and moved the game back a ways toward its RPG roots, but without making inventory management as cumbersome it was in ME1, or many other RPGs for that matter. *Again, before anyone accuses me of setting up straw men, I recommend reading over user reviews on these and similar sites. This style of thinking and writing is not in the majority, but it's depressingly common. Pretty much all of the criticism of the ending I've seen on here has been more intelligent in both form and substance, but that wouldn't be the first time the discourse on the SW forums has been markedly smarter and more civil than that on the broader internet.

There are a few graves you can rob which will give you items and dread curse. Also, I think one or two hermits will give you dread curse if you attack them?

@Jerakeen: I'm all about freedom, but freedom ought to mean freedom to take actions that have meaningful consequences. If I murder a whole town or outpost for no good reason, people should react to my characters as if they're the sort of people who can and do murder whole towns: fear, hatred, disgust, and more than a little awe. Anything less just destroys verisimilitude and cheapens the experience. It reminds the player that the world doesn't behave the way an actual, internally consistent world would. This is something that gets on my nerves about both Jeff's earlier games, and some of his blog posts: he's always quick with the "you expected realism in a world full of Shapers, demons, magic, and all dat?" There are times when it feels like he doesn't grasp the difference between realism (i.e. following laws of physics, biology, psychology, etc. in the way the real world does) and internal consistency. Puce deer: I'm with Slarty on this. If attacking friendlies doesn't do anything meaningful, there's no point having it in the game.

Yeah, upon reflection a lot of the original post and its elaborations read like someone saying, "I want to play a member of a band of adventurers with superhuman powers who go on quests for mystical kings and slay dragons to steal their treasure hoards...but I'm sick of all this 'fantasy' crap."

One example that's about half traditional RPG and half the sort of thing you suggest: the Persona series. The player splits time between exploring various demonic labyrinths, and living as a relatively normal high school student, cultivating relationships with peers and acquaintances. These relationships (known as "social links") allow the character to summon stronger mythical beings to aid him/her in battle. To fully realize what you suggest sounds harder, though. You keep talking about 'RPG mechanics,' but what would those map onto? Would you, as an ordinary college student, be constantly plunged into combat a la a more traditional RPG hero? It would be really hard to maintain suspension of disbelief, given that combat IRL is very little like combat in video games. Alternatively, one could make combat very stylized, featuring heroic 'battles' against tests, papers, athletic competitions, and so on. This could be cool, but it would be too weird and comedic to sustain much serious plot and heavy drama. Still, I think it could work in a more comedic RPG (a la the Disgaea series).

@Ackrovan: Othar Trygvassen is Othar Trygvassen (formerly FnordCola, and possibly again at some point), and not Dantius. As for the mass relays, I'm basically with Lilith and Dantius on this: Click to reveal.. There's no evidence that the controlled demolition of a mass relay via the Crucible works the same way as dropping an asteroid on one. Moreover, there is at least circumstantial evidence that it doesn't. First, the explosions look different: Arrival features an opaque wall of bluish light, while the light in the end of ME3 can be one of several colors, and is mostly transparent. Second, the light from the Crucible looks the same as the light from the dying mass relays, and the former leaves the non-Reapers fighting on Earth intact in all but the really bad endings (which difference also suggests that the mass relays don't just kill everyone, since otherwise the distinction between good and bad endings would be irrelevant). Third, one would think the Catalyst would mention something as major as the extinction of nearly all life in the galaxy, given that it mentions the (much smaller-scale) destruction of the Geth if you eliminate synthetics. Indeed, if the destruction of the relay network actually killed off all life in the galaxy, it would seem redundant to mention Geth extinction at all. I agree with Lilith that this could've used more exposition and less hand waving, but I still think it's much more likely that life in the galaxy continues.

@Lilith: I figured the conversation as a whole had gotten spoilery enough that those weren't necessary, but I'll defer to your judgment.

(WARNING: HERE BE MAJOR ENDING SPOILERS) Click to reveal.. @Ackrovan: I've heard that claim (that the ending nullifies everything you've done) several times online, but I've yet to get a straight answer as to why. The destruction of the mass relay network and Shepard's death (in most endings) don't change the fact that you cured the Genophage or didn't, saved the Rachni or didn't, forged a peace between the Quarians and Geth or allowed one species to kill off the other, and mustered a military force that either survives to rebuild Earth (if you had many war assets) or dies there (if you didn't). Yes, many people are stranded in various places, and star clusters are cut off from one another (at least in terms of travel and trade; quantum entanglement communications allow for limited contact), but that's not going to last forever, as there's still enough galactic civilization left to gradually advance travel technology. I can see how Shepard's death renders some of the personal aspects of the story irrelevant, the council is probably dead whatever you do, and it's unlikely that any living Quarian who isn't already on Rannoch will get to see it again, but that's a fraction of what Shepard has done over the series. Is the lack of a more thorough epilogue the basis for your complaint? That's a complaint I can understand and mostly agree with, but I don't think it invalidates Shepard's actions in the game. Also, to answer a completely different question that I missed before: I did almost everything in the game (96-98% of content), plus the From Ashes DLC, and my timer at the end was about 53 hours. Plus a few more it didn't count because I was playing on hardcore, which netted me a fair few game overs. I've heard people give the figure for 25-30 hours for a speedy completion featuring only the main missions and a few of the more important ones on the side.

@Lilith: one minor correction...you get experience for finding medi-gel whether you're maxed out or not. You might get more if you're maxed out (I've seen rewards ranging from 100 to 300), but that variance may just be based on the location/point in the game. I finished the game yesterday, and my impression is strongly positive. The story has some amazing moments, and the gameplay is basically ME2 but better. I'd echo Lilith that the great majority of complaint online seems to be about the endings. I'm not too sympathetic to this: there were definite problems with the ending (some plot twists that came out of nowhere, and the lack of much in the way of epilogue), but a lot of the people on the BioWare forums and Mass Effect wiki come off as obnoxiously entitled fans being butthurt about the ending not being 'happily ever after.' @Alorael: I don't think I'd want ME2 dropped from the series entirely, but I agree that much less happens in it than in the first or third games. Maybe cut it down to half size (focusing on the fight against the Collectors), play out the early parts of the Reaper war in the latter half, then have ME3 deal with the latter parts and go into more detail on the plot elements introduced in the last quarter hour. Still, we have the game we have, and I thought it made a satisfying end to the trilogy.

To return to a somewhat antiquated topic, but one that's a lot less incendiary: I'm curious what people found so difficult about repairing the Great Portal. I found it one of the easier endgame quests. I beat it on the first try, which was certainly not the case with Loyalist Gavrahoss, Gssch of the Scourge, or several of the encounters in Rentar-Ihrno's fortress.

@Death Knight: I also found Tcheedchee's statement odd and confusing. I think the point is that an FAQ should be about making an optimized party, i.e. weighing various options and mixtures thereof against one another. How to play the game well. If a player wishes to ignore optimization partially or completely in the name of role-playing, that's their prerogative, and there's nothing wrong with doing so, but it's not as if they need an FAQ to tell them how do that.