|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Maybe not a great cover, per se. Could have been better. Could have been more representative of divine power.
But over sexualized ? This one ? No. I barely see anything worth of interest.
I'll say it again : I find nothing wrong with fanservice.
I don't think paizo art is any kind of porn, nor nowhere coming close and but I think that a lot of people are awfully too quick to get offended.
Now, on the NPCs, I think the real question should be : are they interesting to roleplay for the DM, so that they can stand out, and make the story more appealing than just offing them as a bag of hps.
You know, even as a evil, evil, evvviiill SWM (shocking, I know), I have never been particularly offended/aroused/intrigued/other by Paizo art ... as opposed to what I regularly see IRL just by looking around me in normal life (without any special effort) ?
I find the very notion that the current art is some kind of porn downright silly and absurd. In fact I don't think about the art. At all. I look at it and forget it. Offense is in the eye of the Eye Tyrant.
The fact also that I regularly see reports from the world, where women are actually oppressed into wearing non revealing clothes that rot their lives and how they would so much like to lead normal lives, if only they could...
Makes me look at this whole thread with a huge grain of salt.
I happen to agree with that. it's just that I see too often the same arguments, and while they are fine by themselves, I don't want politically correct to stiffen authors from providing good challenging story hooks.
The dungeon is politicaaly correct and safe for authors. I happen to want more varied adventures than that.
That thread again.
I think self censorship leads nowhere, I think the Paizo folk have done pretty well : they have maintained a pretty good balance over time. In fact, sometimes they are not offensive enough in my taste.
I think some parts of the audience are way over sensitive, and the slightest thing have them take offense. I note cultural trends.
All that, while we are swamped by far worse on a daily basis by mass media.
The system issue is one thing : it would be possible to design adventures even in Pathfinder without (mandatory) combat, but then you would need to design adventure goals and rewards that stimulate non combat behaviour.
And also, NPCs attitudes and behaviours that discourage the murderhobo attitude. Like credible law enforcement.
And then also, that would require a lot more deisgn work on NPCs, dialog, and such, to make it worth the time.
Also, the skill system is very limited as it stands now, and a talented player can reach absurd modifiers of diplomacy. Some spells also, are very detrimental to murder mystery solving, as they give away far too much information, at far too low levels.
The black raven wrote:
And we don't agree on this one.
There should be danger and the threat of losing, at least some of the time. And no the DM should NOT have to rework everything in the adventure so that happens. This is not what happens currently. Recently, I almost soloed a module with my "weak" by your standards build for Eldric with just the help of a cleric that healed me. I finished the end boss alone in three rounds. Should it not tell you something ?
Offering better options for the players to customize their characters is fine, but this is also exactly where the arms race is. The arms race IS there. So if you do not offer a higher challenge in the adventures while allowing every option available to the players, the game becomes a cakewalk. And I don't believe in restricting players choice too much.
I believe you will understand my point of view soon when you master Jade Regent and see for yourself.
I think Pathfinder is already overpowered for Pathfinder, so ToB is definitely no go :)
No seriously gimme
DEADLIER Adventures !!!
I want a Hard mode. Like now ! No more mr Nice guy !
I have experienced players who are way too comfy with the rules loopholes.
The PCs are not the problem. the opposition IS.
I have only played the first Assassin's Creed II game, and not the others yet. I don't remember QTE's in the first one. If there were some, then they were good enough that I forgot them, or else they come later in the series.
I have definitely to try the second game, but first, I am going to advance more in skyrim.
Scott Betts wrote:
That sounds reasonable, and I could agree with that, but no I don't recall any game with a good QTE. If you know one, ask me, that might change my mind.
Yeah mostly, you get a prompt at a very counterintuitive moment, that usually makes no sense at all, and by the time it is displayed on screen, it is too late, you die horribly, and have to reload the game, waste ten minutes, and learn the sequence by rote in order to hope winning.
And then, that's the good part, usually, they are bug-ridden too.
No, thanks. Give me back my cutscenes.
Scott Betts wrote:
Yes.I have found that I don't like games with QTEs, and that however the rest of the game may be good or not, QTEs ruin the enjoyment of the game for me after a short while.
Past examples that were ruined for me : Dead Space 2 and 3, Tomb raider.
So now QTEs = no buy.