Supporting GGG and PoE, but not necessarily Bestiary Leaguespansion

"

Kasapnica wrote:

"

BTW I'm ignoring all the 'sjw' and 'it's just a game' crap because these people, and most of the antagonistic posts are by the usual suspects and local badasses, are deliberately missing the point to cause trouble and/or react with the typical gamer's acumen and willingness to engage in topics that require a little more critical thinking than 'which number is bigger'. I've no time for that.

Ignore it all you want,its true.

Know what is funny and what the difference between you and me are? I have lot of pets,i probably love animals more than humans. Yet i don't get triggered by a damn game.

The fact you even posted this thread is the very definition of a SJW. The same people with the same argument is why we can't have things like Married with children today.Complete and utter inability to distinguish reality with fantasy.

Just to remind you,in china they EAT cats and dogs. Wonder how you feel about this,oh and fry mouses alive. Me? I feel bad,but i won't judge.

"

Boem wrote:

Spoiler

All i see in this thread is people incapable of differentiating between the act of killing out of necessity and the intent to torture.

And i think a fair point is being made, but not because of the way GGG presents it, but because of the way GGG is not presenting it.

That is to say, its an action role playing game, thus inherently it should present the player with feature's to enable acting out different roles.

For example, if you had the option between

1) a beastiary
2) an animal sanctuary

And if out of that arises the consequence of choice to

1) ritually kill the animals for personal gain, perhaps even torture increasing their inherent hatred making them better cultic sacrifices
2) ritually fight them to release the corruption and then release their purified forms again

In this case, choice is presented to the player and he can develop his "role" in the grand scheme of wreaclast. Wherever he wants to position himself inside the story morally.

The fundamentals of the league are pretty clear cut.

- hunt and collect
- enable them as functions within the crafting system

Nothing dictates out of this that this should inherently only happen in a morally corrupt way.
Which does in fact go against some of the characters we have the choice of playing.(ranger being the easiest to identify as "not being ok" with this whole ordeal)

Peace,

-Boem-

"

The_Scourge wrote:

The albino rhoa is an interesting case that I can't talk about. I know some things and probably not others. But your side-point there is relevant here because...why? I'm curious why you feel the albino rhoa is above anything else.

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

Spoiler

All i see in this thread is people incapable of differentiating between the act of killing out of necessity and the intent to torture.

And i think a fair point is being made, but not because of the way GGG presents it, but because of the way GGG is not presenting it.

That is to say, its an action role playing game, thus inherently it should present the player with feature's to enable acting out different roles.

For example, if you had the option between

1) a beastiary
2) an animal sanctuary

And if out of that arises the consequence of choice to

1) ritually kill the animals for personal gain, perhaps even torture increasing their inherent hatred making them better cultic sacrifices
2) ritually fight them to release the corruption and then release their purified forms again

In this case, choice is presented to the player and he can develop his "role" in the grand scheme of wreaclast. Wherever he wants to position himself inside the story morally.

The fundamentals of the league are pretty clear cut.

- hunt and collect
- enable them as functions within the crafting system

Nothing dictates out of this that this should inherently only happen in a morally corrupt way.
Which does in fact go against some of the characters we have the choice of playing.(ranger being the easiest to identify as "not being ok" with this whole ordeal)

Peace,

-Boem-

Please. Come on. You guys have to be trolling?

Necessity/intent to torture? To answer this, you have to define necessity to me. We can talk all we want about the choice we should have. Hell, in "most" RPG's you have the choice to talk yourself out of a fight. You do not in PoE. Is it morally corrupt to kill because of it? Why is it more morally corrupt to capture an animal than to kill it - slowly - with poison?

Yes, we could have been given the choice. But we were not. Wraeclast is a dark place. We kill gods for power. Animals for power. Humans for power. And the moment "capture" comes into play, we demand choices?

I actually feel VERY stupid now, something I rarely do, because I do not understand this debate. I may be showing it pretty clearly.

"

Boem wrote:

It's pretty simple though.

Path of exile is an ARPG, there is no role playing element in this expansion. The designers specifically dictate what role you are performing.

This means they fundamentally failed at creating ARPG content.

I mean, this would be fine if the game presented you at the start with 1 character and specifically said upon starting to play "you will be taking on the role of X".

This might be meaningless for you, and i won't be losing any sleep over it either, but it is important to acknowledge it because it is an accurate assessment.

And i say PoE is an ARPG, because it gives itself that tittle.

While more accurately its an ARPG for the first 20 hours and then is a shoot-em-up.(with accompanied simplified character progression)

Peace,

-Boem-

"

MarloStanfield wrote:

ARPG is just a moniker, does one exist where there is actual meaningful role playing?