Brad Wardell's site for talking about the customization of Windows.
Published on June 18, 2009 By Frogboy In Elemental Dev Journals

Elemental_WorkerInAction

Our friends in the Demigod community seem to like having journal entries that answer a lot of questions in one swoop so we've decided to do the same in Elemental.

Q: What is Elemental?

A: Elemental is a fantasy strategy game (turn-based) developed and published by Stardock Entertainment. In it, players take on the role of a powerful sorcerer known as a "Channeler" whose goal is to build a kingdom and restore the devastated world of Elemental back to its former glory.

Opposing you are up to 11 other kingdoms and empires who have a similar objective except with the world under their control.

Players can win the game in a variety of ways including achieving the spell of making, completing the quest of mastery, diplomatic victory as well as the traditional military conquest means of victory.

The game puts most of its development focus on the single-player experience but there will be multiplayer as well with clans support (kingdoms and empires) and a series of multiplayer modes (and single player modes) that let people play the game in some unusual ways.

Q: Are the screen shots we see indicative of the final quality?

A: NO! The engine we've developed is still being enhanced. For instance, in the screen shot above, the shadows aren't in yet. There are still a lot of features left to be put in visually.  That said, one of our primary objectives with Elemental is to have a game that has unprecedented flexibility in terms of the systems it can play on: Netbooks all the way up to 64-bit Core I7s with monster video cards.

Q: What about modding?

A: Elemental will support in-game modding where users can create their stuff and submit it in game. It then gets moderated and becomes part of the game world. Players can decide which mods they want to use (ones just from Stardock, favorite ones, categories of them, etc.).

Elemental_TileEditor_1

Q: How many factions are there?

A: There are 12 pre-made factions made up of 2 official races (Men and The Fallen). Each faction will play substantially differently. Players will also be able to create their own factions and modders will be able to add more races.

SnowYetiQ: What kinds of other creatures are in the world?

A: Elemental has a large set of species that inhabit the world. They are, however, individually rare and much of the strategy of the game is to recruit some of these creatures onto your side.  You will not be able to, for instance, simply "build" dragons.  The only units you can build are those of your race.  Other races (Dragons, Demons, Ogres, Yetis, etc.) are ones that you have to actively recruit to join you.

Q: When will the "beta" be?

A: We expect to have an alpha out in the next 30 days that will be available on a very limited basis. However, we anticipate launching the beta officially at the Penny-Arcade Expo on September 4th. This beta will be available to anyone who has pre-ordered the game.  Be warned though, our betas are not fun. They're real betas which means they're incomplete and unbalanced. But through these betas, users can help mold the game by working with us online.

Elemental_1244581868 Q: I've heard this game referred to as "Master of Magic 2"

A: While Master of Magic is definitely a major source of inspiration for Elemental. A lot has changed technologically since then that we (game developers) couldn't do back then. In an age of multithreaded supporting OSes, we can have much better computer AI for enemy players and game mechanics that benefit from what is possible today (3D engines for doing very very nasty things to the game world when you have enough magic -- think Populous).

Another example is how cities can be handled now. There isn't a separate interface for managing cities. Cities grow on the main map itself. When players click on any part of the city they get the options for the entire city right away on the same main UI. The idea is to keep the user interface out of the player's face and let them concentrate on playing the game.

That said, there's a lot of influence here. Tactical battles, for instance, will have some inspiration from XCOM (though much shorter in length).

I would describe the games as being in the same family of the same genre. But someone looking for a Master of Magic 2 would not likely find Elemental to be similar enough to be considered a genuine sequel.

Q: What are some of the game modes you have in mind?

A: We are looking at having a lot of different ways of playing the game other than simply the classic "start a kingdom, conquer the world".

For example, we are looking at game modes where players can just play an extended tactical battle.  Another example is "duel" where 2 humans play against each other with the AI players as pawns in their struggle. 

The idea being that we want to let players play games that are very short in length if they want or can potentially take months to play.

Q: Will there be native 64-bit support?

A: That is our intention. Right now we are relying on Intel's Havok for the physics of Elemental and so it will largely depend on where its support of 64-bit is.

Our engine, however, will natively support 64-bit thus we want to provide (with the game) both a 32-bit and 64-bit version. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Comments (Page 8)
9 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9 
on Jun 23, 2009

KellenDunk
I wouldn't call it Dumbed down as much as paired down.  Why is making combat simpler in this case a bad thing?  Having different rules for different attacks was stupid.  Static defenses across the board is something I would import into a 3.5 campaign.  The ruleset has nothing to do with how people choose to play the game, I've had a variety of game experiences in 4th ed. Hack n' slash dungeon romp not really being one of them.
Who said anything about combat? It's virtually everything. The entire system is done as if there's a CRPG adaption around the corner. "Making combat simpler" isn't bad in itself. It only becomes bad when it's detrimental to choices and consequences. Surely they could say "everyone does 1d2 damage every hit" and do away with critical hits, but how much does it take to -  or rather when, exactly, does it go from "simpler" to "retarded"?
KellenDunk
Your claims that indulging childish impulses in a game of pretend is somehow destructive shows your level of pretentiousness.
Pretentiousness? Do you even know the definition of the word? Am I pretentious? Sure. Probably. It's not so much about how great I am as to how much everyone sucks, though. But more importantly, it has nothing to do with this situation in particular.

Surely you can see a difference between "adult" "pretend" and "childish" pretend? Strapping more guns to a gun in an effort to SHEWT MOAR is childish (unless it's in the most sarcastic sense, for hilarity). That is the Rule of Moar, which i loathe so vehemetly. It's when you add demons to a game because you want to play demons, developing a ridiculously contrieved retcon to accomodate the childish impulses of yourself or your customers. It's when you add every single feature that you can into a game without considering upsetting a perhaps delicate balance. It's when you strap guns onto guns with extra guns and go "I'm not dead, I shoot you with double guns!" ;"Well I shoot you with triple guns, nyah, nyah, pew, pew".

Creativity, 'make believe', Fantasy ≠ Childishness, retardation, nonsensical.

KellenDunk
I thoroughly enjoy both systems and the worlds.  I understand what the changes in 4th are about and like a lot of them.  The changes in setting and cosmology are cosmetic.  If you don't like the setting since its a game of pretend you can make it like it was before.
If I had the tenacity to make my own system and setting, I would. But without playtesting and arguments with peers, it'd not only unbalanced, but indulgance without afterthought would make the setting suck ass harder than anything Post-Gygax DnD could ever cook up.

That, and I'm fickle to the extremes.

KellenDunk
Although this whole conversation probably belongs somewhere else.  I just brought up the 4th ed UNcorns as a reference because we were talking about unicorns.
Bah. I doubt anyone is noticing us, anyway.

Addenum:

landisaurus
[...]
I imagine an "evil" faction could enslave a unicorn or in some unlawful way bind it to their will.   Something along the lines of putting a magical collar on it and forcing it into battle for fear of something worse happening.  Its the same idea that the dragonmaw clan enslaved the red dragon flight in warcraft 2.  So an evil faction might be MORE likely to use a unicorn just because a "good" faction would be happy to leave it in the forrest it protects.
I like that trail of thought. But on the other hand, I think the expectance on the part of the good guys is that the unicorn will freely offer it's help - not that the good guys would contemplate drafting it.

on Jun 23, 2009

the Gorgon
The good/evil debate has apparently gone off in all directions. And if you ask me, the many examples (evil unicrons, good demons ...) just show what was brought forward in the earlier posts:  there is a reason behind archetypes / clichés, so don't break them without being sure the new idea is really a good one. (and that demands good backstory)

For sure. And like people have said before, archetypes shouldn't be smashed to pieces just for fun. There should be a reason for it, and there needs to be a good idea behind it. Having backstory, or short descriptions, of units in games is not only simple, but common. There doesn't need to be an essay with a timeline attached or anything, but a well-written short paragraph giving a well-thought out description is more than capable of doing the job (and is a must in my opinion whatever Stardock does with alignment).

the Gorgon
We discuss first and foremost a game and not literature - in Elemental it will be difficult/impossible to have a new well-thought out background and explanation to why, say, a deathmagic-wielding vampire on the map would join a good army. So, it will in my view not work.

I actually disagree. You kind of just described one of the protagonists in the Coldfire Trilogy (which I mentioned before), and it would take a matter of minutes to come up with a decent summary of his history to sufficiently convince you that such a thing like a death magic-wielding vampire joining a good army could happen. Self-interest and remorse are both very powerful incentives.

I'm not the biggest fan of innate alignment because it doesn't make much sense for most races/beings. Any race that has a choice (ruling out, for example, angels in the strictest sense) shouldn't be confined to such rigid alignment categorizations. 

the Gorgon
Why should a unicorn be good? There are a lot reasons, one being that it can only be approached by an innocent (and GOOD) maiden. Also, it's white, it's beautiful, it can heal the wounded, it is linked in harmony to nature and forests and tends to protect these. If it's evil the creature doesn't make any sense as of above. Why should  you open up Pandoras box by letting any creature have any alignment?

First, the vast majority of fantasy that uses unicorns ignores the bit about maidens - it's a property that can easily be removed without changing the unicorn into something else entirely. Being white is hardly a reason for being innately good. I hate that stereotype. The power of healing is not innately good - it can be used to whatever purpose its wielder intends - for example, healing evil wounded people. Being linked to aspects of nature and forests doesn't make things automatically good in my book, either. There is an enormous number of stories with evil forests, evil aspects of nature, and even unicorns dwelling in fairly evil forests.

I'm not saying "unicorns should be evil in Elemental!" It was merely an example to make a point: rigid, innate alignment for non-human races is more often than not nonsensical and one-dimensional, and maintaining clichés and classic archetypes is not always the best route to take.

Possibly my biggest gripe of all is that self-interest is almost always ignored. Frankly, if I, a good guy, confront a being or group of beings that tend toward the evil side with the options of being destroyed or joining my ranks, I expect them to seriously consider the latter. Likewise if I'm some evil bastard presenting the same choice to a group of unicorns that prefer roaming freely in their flower forest, I would also expect them to consider self preservation as an option. Or even if I were to say, "I'll let your forest flourish, I'll even help it out with magic, if some of you unicorns join my ranks - but if you refuse, I'll burn it to the ground," well that should be powerful incentive. I don't expect Stardock to be able to implement a system complex enough to allow such detailed interaction, but merely having alignment be one factor among many in interactions between various peoples and beings would go a long way.

If they have to have rigid, absolute alignment (which I suspect they will for the sake of time, effort and simplicity), then at least don't make it be the only factor.

on Jun 24, 2009

pigeonpigeon
We discuss first and foremost a game and not literature - in Elemental it will be difficult/impossible to have a new well-thought out background and explanation to why, say, a deathmagic-wielding vampire on the map would join a good army. So, it will in my view not work.

I actually disagree. You kind of just described one of the protagonists in the Coldfire Trilogy (which I mentioned before), and it would take a matter of minutes to come up with a decent summary of his history to sufficiently convince you that such a thing like a death magic-wielding vampire joining a good army could happen.

Of course it could happen, you just say "this vampire is good". But it does not make it a good idea. And quite frankly, you just wrote a paragraph about this character from the Coldfire trilogy that I haven't read, and I'm sorry but I don't get turned on. So, for me it doesn't work. This is a strategy PC game, and you won't have the time, nor the inclination to hear a backstory about each and every unit you randomly meet on the map.

First, the vast majority of fantasy that uses unicorns ignores the bit about maidens - it's a property that can easily be removed without changing the unicorn into something else entirely. Being white is hardly a reason for being innately good. I hate that stereotype. The power of healing is not innately good - it can be used to whatever purpose its wielder intends - for example, healing evil wounded people. Being linked to aspects of nature and forests doesn't make things automatically good in my book, either. There is an enormous number of stories with evil forests, evil aspects of nature, and even unicorns dwelling in fairly evil forests.

I'm not saying "unicorns should be evil in Elemental!" It was merely an example to make a point: rigid, innate alignment for non-human races is more often than not nonsensical and one-dimensional, and maintaining clichés and classic archetypes is not always the best route to take.

Sorry, but I don' agree with most of this reasoning. About the maidens: just skipping a key part of a creature is hardly a good argument to why it would work as well as evil. It's just diminishing the power of the archetype.

About "white is good": why do you think Darth Vader is completely black while Princess Leia is dressed all in white? Do I need to say more? It's not a coincidence. Even if you don't like it, most people love Star Wars, and this aspect is one key reason. Even when I heard the "evil unicorn" idea launched, involuntarily I immediately saw a black unicorn with a blood red horn in my mind' s eye. These are the reactions you have to work with when doing good fantasy.

About healing being neutral: taking a "scientific" view (any power can be used for any purpose) doesn't help us in a discussion on what fantasies work best. It is the ACT of healing which is important. It implies that you help people, care for them. The act of destroying and killing could of course be used for good or evil, but the ACT of killing is more linked to evil creatures. Of course it's not an absolute rule, but it IS an important guideline. And it doesn't make the evil unicorn one inch cooler.

Guardian of nature: yes there are evil forests in literature, but that's not the point. The act of caring for and protecting nature/the environment I would say is more linked to good than evil in our society. Especially today with Climate change coming!

The last paragraph seems to say that after all maybe unicorns shouldn't be evil after all. So there at least I fully agree. And I have difficulties finding a lot of other good examples where Elemetnal would be a much better game if you turn the classical good-evil dimesion upside down. I'm not a purist, in no way, but I don't see the need for good demons and evil unicrons in this game.

on Jun 24, 2009

the Gorgon
Of course it could happen, you just say "this vampire is good". But it does not make it a good idea. And quite frankly, you just wrote a paragraph about this character from the Coldfire trilogy that I haven't read, and I'm sorry but I don't get turned on. So, for me it doesn't work. This is a strategy PC game, and you won't have the time, nor the inclination to hear a backstory about each and every unit you randomly meet on the map.

RE the "this vampire is good" bit - you completely missed the point. That's hardly a convincing story or description, and thus utterly fails. Secondly, I didn't write a paragraph about the character from the Coldfire Trilogy, I told you almost nothing other than that you had vaguely described a character like him in very general terms, and that with a little bit of expansion could become a convincing and believable character.

the Gorgon
Sorry, but I don' agree with most of this reasoning. About the maidens: just skipping a key part of a creature is hardly a good argument to why it would work as well as evil. It's just diminishing the power of the archetype.

I would hardly call maidens a key part of unicorns considering they are almost always ignored across the board.

the Gorgon
About "white is good": why do you think Darth Vader is completely black while Princess Leia is dressed all in white? Do I need to say more? It's not a coincidence. Even if you don't like it, most people love Star Wars, and this aspect is one key reason. Even when I heard the "evil unicorn" idea launched, involuntarily I immediately saw a black unicorn with a blood red horn in my mind' s eye. These are the reactions you have to work with when doing good fantasy.

I'm a fan of the [original] star wars trilogy, but Leia dressed in white and Darth Vader dressed in black is not what make it good. White can symbolize good, and black can symbolize evil (and it often does in fantasy - LoTR is another example). But Star War and LoTR are two classic cases of Good vs. Evil - you're one or the other without shades of gray and without different perspectives. One side is right, the other is wrong. This can be a very powerful storytelling tool, but it also gets boring (to me) when it's used over and over. And white can be convincingly evil - the White Witch in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe is a prominent example of evil dressed in white.

And tell me, when you think of evil people, do you think of black people with blood red eyes? I'm guessing no. And in many cases the evil human[oid] antagonist is portrayed as handsome or beautiful - why can't the same be true with non-humanoid beings? Evil can look pretty, and good can look ugly. I understand that people have preconceptions, but in my humble opinion, people's preconceptions are boring and old and I'd rather something fresh and new. Whether that's something completely original or a new take on an old idea, I don't care, as long as it's done well.

the Gorgon
About healing being neutral: taking a "scientific" view (any power can be used for any purpose) doesn't help us in a discussion on what fantasies work best. It is the ACT of healing which is important. It implies that you help people, care for them. The act of destroying and killing could of course be used for good or evil, but the ACT of killing is more linked to evil creatures. Of course it's not an absolute rule, but it IS an important guideline. And it doesn't make the evil unicorn one inch cooler.

I don't understand the bit about a scientific view. Healing can very easily be used for cruelty and evil. It allows you to torture someone to the brink of death, heal them, torture them to the brink of death, heal them, etc. There was even a Stargate episode where Ba'al did just that to Jack. On the topic of Stargate, the sarcophagi can heal any wound and even bring back the dead but they strip away part of the soul every time they're used.

We may be used to healing being stereotypically good, but that's no reason for healing to be considered an innately good ability or for anything capable of or connected to healing to be good. Healing is as useful to an evil general as it is to the nicest good-two-shoes in the world - being able to shoot fireballs out of his face isn't going to do him much good if his army atrophies away due to wounds and casualties. 

the Gorgon
Guardian of nature: yes there are evil forests in literature, but that's not the point. The act of caring for and protecting nature/the environment I would say is more linked to good than evil in our society. Especially today with Climate change coming!

Bah. I want to play Elemental: War of Magic, not Elemental: Climate Change!! I don't care about modern problems or concerns, I want to play a fantasy game in a fantasy world. And I don't think nature is inherently good, I don't think forests and trees and flowers are inherently good, and I don't think beings and creatures who care for and protect nature are inherently good. Nature includes things like thunderstorms and floods and plagues and avalanches and volcanoes and rip tides, and mosquitos and black flies and venomous creatures and plants. Nature can be beautiful and peaceful, but evil can be as capable of enjoying beauty and tranquility as good is. Mindless evil, maybe not. But sophisticated, intelligent evil - definitely. Additionally, an evil being that requires a thriving natural environment to survive would logically be a caretaker of nature. 

the Gorgon
The last paragraph seems to say that after all maybe unicorns shouldn't be evil after all. So there at least I fully agree. And I have difficulties finding a lot of other good examples where Elemetnal would be a much better game if you turn the classical good-evil dimesion upside down. I'm not a purist, in no way, but I don't see the need for good demons and evil unicrons in this game.

I'm not saying Stardock should turn the classical good-evil dimension upside down. I'm saying that Stardock should change some things up. I'm not even arguing that unicorns should be evil, or even neutral. I'm saying that such a thing can be done, and done well. It could take some people a little while to get passed their preconceptions, but if implementation and descriptions are well-done, then I think only the most willfully stubborn people would continue to object.

And again, good demons would be as stupid as evil angels (angels in the strictest sense - servants of some inherently good god or avatar). Demons should be inherently evil, like angels should be inherently good. Unicorns, however, are a different matter entirely, as are vampires and the majority of intelligent fantastical beings. And really what I want to see is for alignment to be a fuzzy thing - just like humans represent the whole spectrum, so should other races. And sort of next to the good-evil spectrum, off to the side, is the category "totally self-interested." Anyone so self-interested would do whatever is best for them, be that good, evil or some shade of gray. If something like this is too difficult to implement, or if it's just not going to be implemented, I'd at least like to see some originality even if just for the sake of freshness. I don't Stardock to just randomly alter the alignments of all the traditional archetypal creatures for the hell of it, I want them to make calculated, though-out decisions while thinking "how can we make this interesting and new, while keeping it believable?"

on Jun 24, 2009

pigeonpigeon

I don't understand the bit about a scientific view. Healing can very easily be used for cruelty and evil. It allows you to torture someone to the brink of death, heal them, torture them to the brink of death, heal them, etc. There was even a Stargate episode where Ba'al did just that to Jack. On the topic of Stargate, the sarcophagi can heal any wound and even bring back the dead but they strip away part of the soul every time they're used.

Wouldn't the torture be the evil act here? Healing them isn't, you could just let them recover on their own over a few weeks, then torture them again anyway.

Healing someone so you can do something else to them doesn't make healing evil. As its generally portrayed, healing is an inherently good action.

on Jun 24, 2009

Please pardon me for aiding this severe threadjacking, but on the black-and-white/good-and-evil thing, I have to mention again that Gandalf was "the Grey" for most of his extremely long life--i.e., you're mistaken if you think that LotR is a pure good vs. evil story. Tolkien was a serious Catholic, so I can accept the idea that he might have thought he was writing a pure good vs. evil thing, but the text itself is just not that simple.

Also, the colors for good and evil in any given story should work for that story. Think about wedding dresses as a sideways example. In many European, a 'proper' wedding dress is white. In many Chinese weddings, the bride is dressed in red. Both colors mean "fit to be married," but there are different local details to explain why each color is appropriate symbolism for that highly abstract criterion.

So, for the game, if good and evil need colors, I want the artists to be OK with the parameters as a common task limitation, and for gravy, I'd like to see a few hints in the text content about why the colors are what they are. (I won't worry if the latter doesn't happen; writing as a craft hasn't yet gained much status in PC games.)

on Jun 24, 2009

I think people are muddling with the concepts of what really is evil and what really is good...

on Jun 24, 2009

And white can be convincingly evil - the White Witch in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe is a prominent example of evil dressed in white.

Let's not forget Saruman the White Which was big deal when Gandalf became the White after his little Balrog encounter..

on Jun 24, 2009

Annatar11

And white can be convincingly evil - the White Witch in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe is a prominent example of evil dressed in white.


Let's not forget Saruman the White Which was big deal when Gandalf became the White after his little Balrog encounter..

But if you recall, when he turned evil he became Saruman the Multi-colored/rainbow/whateveritwas, the point being that he wasn't "the White" any more.

on Jun 24, 2009

Sure, but it still shows that white is not inherently good Though admittedly, Saruman isn't a very clear cut case since he has been good for quite a while.

on Jun 24, 2009

Not surprising that I'd get the badguy wrong, can't stand LOTR.

 

I think evil should be hot pink.

 

Why?  Because people that paint their houses hot pink are evil fucking bastards.

 

This thread got weird, I can't help myself.

on Jun 24, 2009

I'd like to see a hot pink house.. nobody around here is that insane.

on Jun 25, 2009

Tridus
Wouldn't the torture be the evil act here? Healing them isn't, you could just let them recover on their own over a few weeks, then torture them again anyway.

Healing someone so you can do something else to them doesn't make healing evil. As its generally portrayed, healing is an inherently good action.

Intention is everything. Healing is merely a tool and can be used for whatever purpose the wielder desires, whether it's good, evil or indifferent. People often consider guns to be evil, for example, but really they're just a tool that can be used to commit evil acts, but also good ones. If a psychopath breaks into your home and shoots your child for shits and giggles, the gun is the tool used in an evil act. But if the police barge in and shoot the psychopath before he can hurt your child, I'd say the gun is the tool used in a good act. Healing is slightly different in that it cannot directly cause harm, but it can indirectly and in my opinion there is no difference as long as there is the intention to use it to cause harm. Like a gun, like a car, like a tranquilizer, and like the human body itself, healing is a tool that can be used for good or evil or anything in between - and intention is what makes these things situationally good or bad, not some inherent property therein.

The only way I'd ever consider something to be absolutely good or evil is if there is no way it can be used for the purposes of one or the other. Healing, therefore, does not fall under this category. Not unless Stardock restricts healing magic to good-aligned people and beings - but that would sorta suck.

GW Swicord
Please pardon me for aiding this severe threadjacking, but on the black-and-white/good-and-evil thing, I have to mention again that Gandalf was "the Grey" for most of his extremely long life--i.e., you're mistaken if you think that LotR is a pure good vs. evil story. Tolkien was a serious Catholic, so I can accept the idea that he might have thought he was writing a pure good vs. evil thing, but the text itself is just not that simple.

Gandalf was "the Grey" most of his life but he was always a purely good character. And Saruman ceased to be "the white" when he became openly evil, and Gandalf fairly quickly thereafter became "the white" in his stead. Pretty much all of the main characters in LotR are either completely good or completely evil. All the members of the fellowship, including Boromir are completely good (the Ring drove Boromir mad, which doesn't count as being evil), as are all the elves in the story and others like Theoden and Faramir. Denethor wasn't even evil - he was also driven mad by using his Palantir. The Nazgul, all of Sauron's other servants and Sauron himself are purely evil. Then there are the Valar - purely good gods, and Morgoth - the ultimate evil. The only two characters that have any dimensionality in this respect are Saruman (who almost repented, and went to ask Gandalf for help and forgiveness when he realized how badly he had screwed up when the Nazgul came knocking - only to discover that Gandalf had already escaped from Orthanc - then dug himself in even deeper in a vain attempt of self preservation) and Gollum. In my book, LotR is about as pure a good vs. evil story you'll find.

GW Swicord
Also, the colors for good and evil in any given story should work for that story. Think about wedding dresses as a sideways example. In many European, a 'proper' wedding dress is white. In many Chinese weddings, the bride is dressed in red. Both colors mean "fit to be married," but there are different local details to explain why each color is appropriate symbolism for that highly abstract criterion.

So, for the game, if good and evil need colors, I want the artists to be OK with the parameters as a common task limitation, and for gravy, I'd like to see a few hints in the text content about why the colors are what they are. (I won't worry if the latter doesn't happen; writing as a craft hasn't yet gained much status in PC games.)

Totally agree. Also, in Hindi custom white is the traditional color for funerals.

on Jun 25, 2009

Annatar11
I'd like to see a hot pink house.. nobody around here is that insane.
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/ny/7-18-hothouse.jpg

Some people are walking pro-abortion plaques. 

on Jun 25, 2009

pigeonpigeon

And again, good demons would be as stupid as evil angels (angels in the strictest sense - servants of some inherently good god or avatar). Demons should be inherently evil, like angels should be inherently good. Unicorns, however, are a different matter entirely, as are vampires and the majority of intelligent fantastical beings.
You contradict yourself there. Angels and demos are equally intelligent fantastical beings as Unicorns, trolls, elves or dragons. That they might be culturally associated in some cases to some real life massive religions doesn't mean they should get "privileges" when talking about creating a fantasy world.

In my fantasy world, angels are demons are exactly the same but with two differences: demons are just angels that don't favor self control and are more emotional (which at the same time affects their appearance in different ways) and they use a different name (demon) to differenciate themselves from their "cousins". Their attitudes? Decided by me, desiring to play with the western traiditonal ideas about angels and demons (and I like the idea of winged human beings) with the twists I need for the story they are going to play.

And in Stardock's fantasy world (supposing there were angels and demons)? Maybe they are nothing but human and fallen mutations created by the dark energy used by old times channelers. While humans would be more functional and retain more human appearence, demos would be fallen mutations with... well, a fallen touch. After all they respect power above all so a creature with claws, fangs, horns... seems fitting.

And Unicorns in Stardock's fantasy world? They could be purely horses with one horn (because of weird evolution or a bored channeler). A plain simple horse with a horn. Or maybe just horses imbued with essence and mutated by some channelers to create a better war mount. The Beasts are mostly old times bioweapons after all.

9 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9