Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

Wrong, do the math, I did. And because they disagree with your notions of respawns and what an RPG is, they are simply fanboys, and their opinions are not relevant?

Theyre fanboys because they are defending the fact that a feature is missing from a game and twisting a negative into a positive. It doesnt have anything to do with disagreeing with me. A measured analysis of this situation would make a normal person wonder why Larian didnt include an option for respawn so that both playstyles could accommodated. Instead people just say "its fine you arent a real RPG fan". Thats being a fanboy.

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford
Raze beat me to this with the most succinct answer, however, I didn't do any such thing. Simply stated a rational justification for why the devs didn't implement such a system, and offered alternative venues to seek such gratification.

Then ill post Raze's comment here and respond to it.

Originally Posted by Raze

So how do I avoid having to kill the same opponents over and over when they respawn along my path back to town?
How do I get any sense of accomplishment clearing an area when 5 minutes later there is no difference from when I started?
How do I become immersed in the gameworld when nothing I do makes a difference?

Limited respawns, such as along the borders of cleared areas, could fit into the gameworld, but the game was designed from the start without respawn. The whole risk-reward dynamic of mindreading, enemy balancing, game pacing, etc, would all be different if Larian had decided to introduce respawning opponents. It can not be tacked on as an after-thought.

Why would killing opponents be something you would want to avoid?
How does having to clear an area again deny your sense of accomplishment for clearing it the first time? Wouldnt that just mean your are satisfied with having cleared it twice? Double the satisfaction.
How does having to kill some enemies again equate to not having any effect on the game world? Thats an overreaction.

I disagree that respawns cannot be tacked on as an after thought. The solution to mind reading is simple: instead of consuming XP just provide a limited number of times it can be used. As for the enemy balancing and game pacing, yes that would be upset. Thats the idea. Some people like to earn that effect. Thats the point of respawns.

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

You missed the point entirely, when is enough, enough? Maybe there isn't for you, but even WoW has "endgame" level max. Just because you can grind endessly, and some would say mindlessly, there is still a limit to how far you can go. If you wanted to argue there should be DLC or expansions, then I'll certainly buy that argument. The point of this game is to reach the ultimate goal of defeating the final boss, with many subplots mixed in.

Enough is enough when I say its enough. Not when some developer says its enough. I want to be able to level as much as i please and then decide on my own that its time to finish the game. At my leisure. Lets be honest here. Capping the number of available enemies in the game is tantamount to controlling how long players can play. its really just a step short of simply teleporting you to the final boss when the last enemy dies and forcing the final confrontation on you, then closing the program. I want control over when that happens, and its not an unreasonable request for $49.95.

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

RPGs, we're talking RPGs here. Action or otherwise...check the gamesites, halflife is labeled a FPS.

I'm talking about how progression through the game world reminds me of playing an FPS. You're stuck on a locomotive heading to the final destination at a tightly controlled pace. there might be a few forks in the road but they all lead to the same place at the same time. The fact that this "RPG" reminds me of an "FPS" the most, despite the more cosmetic differences, is the point. That's not a good thing.

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

Bad? No. Unrealistic? Yes.

How is it unrealistic? Plenty of games have done it.

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

Because we would digress into what an RPG really is, which you and others have already done. I didn't say that your list would suck, I challenged you to come up with a list to prove me and the "fanboys" wrong, which you obviously can't.

Such a predictable response to which the obvious answer is that you didn't provide a list either, so i guess you obviously cant, too.

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

Because you jump to name and compare non-RPG's...doesn't take freshman level psychology to figure that one out. Also, I was there when JFK was shot, and remember it, so unless you were playing on supercomputers that had the prcessing power of my wristwatch, I doubt you were playing computer games when I was a tot.

Actually it apparently does take a freshmen level of psychology to figure that one out because you were wrong. I'm naming games that this game reminds me of. The fact that not a single one of them is an RPG is telling.

And yes, of course, once the question of age comes up suddenly everyone is a geriatric. Im 27. I played a hand-me-down atari when i was a kid, and have been gaming ever since. Saying that my gaming history originates from Devil May Cry is dumb.

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

All that means is that plenty of games have RPG elements, but that doesn't make that aspect the true allure of the game, or a TRUE RPG.

Says you! Again, youre defining what an RPG is and then declaring that games which dont meet YOUR definition are not true RPGS, but merely have "RPG elements". Again, the self serving rule emerges.