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.

Firstly, there were many posts against respawms that were first posts or less than 10 posts. Hardly counts as fanboys in my book. Secondly, Larian probably did a MEASURED ANALYSIS of their resources, coupled with their vision of the game, and concluded respawns couldn't/shouldn't need to be implemented. Besides, how would they accomodate your request...a on/off toggle? I can't even imagine the technical problems or dev resources that option would spawn wink or eat up.

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 drove from Florida to New York and back over the holidays...I was damn glad I got through it and I sure don't want to do it again, UNLESS I HAVE TO! No more of an overreaction than his point.

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.

Come again? What in the hell does one have to do with the other? As for being tacked on later, that's accomplished more readily with DLC and expansion packs...make the game bigger/longer AND have more enemies to fight.

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.

You could play this or any other game 24/7/365 if you so choose. As others have said, EVERY game has it's limits...there might be different restrictions, but they exist. Diablo 2, WoW, Civ4, Baldur's Gate, Sacred, the list goes on...but at some point, you accomplish all there is to accomplish and you either start over, or you move on to another game. That's debatable for MP and MMO, but IMO, those are the main two types of games that you can come close to what you are describing.

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.

Oblivion, NWN, Fallout, KOTOR, Starcraft, Gothic, Div2...examples of less or more linearity, but all have the same thing in common: no matter what path you choose, or is chosen for you, the game was designed to have a final battle. It's the nature of the game...

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

Lists, man, lists...I ain't from Missouri, but show me anyway.

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.

"face palm"...don't work that way, I challenged first, it's called put up or shut up. From a favorite movie, "I triple-dog dare you".

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.

Isn't that where that game came from where that little white dot keeps respawning, so you can hit it over and over? It's all so clear now...

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.

Nope, call me a sheep...I'm very unoriginal and follow the herd, if you will, that pretty much say the same thing. Larian, Bioware, Bethesda, Interplay, Black Isle, etc., you know, the ones that develop and call their games RPG's.

Last edited by SheaOhmsford; 14/01/10 02:34 PM.

Is reality just a fantasy?