Vox said:
The timeline in Arcanum was pretty simmilar to our timeline.
No, it was not. Stop saying stuff that makes no sense.
Vox said:
There's no need for quoting Nietzsche if you won't create any parallels between our world and the world of Arcanum. They just could leave the quotes out or create own ones. Same with the other real world stuff.
Nietzsche is not quoted in Arcanum itself. There is a little reference to Nietzsche in the character creation screen (one of the backgrounds mentions his name), but that's it. There is also a reference to Frankenstein in there, by the way. However, I'd say the character creation screen isn't exactly an in-game feature. It's like the preparations you make before diving into the game, a little like changing your screen resolution and sound volume before actually playing. So, yes, it can refer to the real world we live in, why not? It would be like a game where you can choose the "Shakespeare perk" (+20% to speech) or the "Woody Allen trait" (+15% to gibberish) whilst the actual game takes place on planet Ampersand in the Hox nebula and you play as a titanium android with the brain of a squid from Trafalmadore who doesn't have a clue there exists a planet somewhere with the grave of a poet and playwright who was called Shakespeare.
I hope you get my point, but in case you don't, here's another example: in the character creation screen you might have to define the age of your character in normal earth years, while time (and age) in the game itself is measured in, for instance, "quetzalcoatls", which are rougly the same thing as a months.
Vox said:
Arcanum was the most 'realistic' fantasy game I've ever played.
Then your idea of reality is a weird and twisted one.
Vox said:
And since the timeline is similar, I'd rather prefer, that Arcanum evolves.
The timeline is not similar, as others have already pointed that out. Stop trying to sell your nonsense.
Vox said:
Arcanum is not the avarage fantasy game you see everywhere. You see heaps of interesting new stuff, never seen in a fantasy game before.
True. Arcanum is quite a gem. But that's something I already knew.
Vox said:
It's all about technological advantages, and remember the instruction, how some of them praised the NEW TECHNOLOGIAL MIRACLES blah blah.
No, it's not about technological advantages, dawgunnit. Have you even bothered to play this game? It's about a place of wonder, in the midst of an industrial revolution that is reminiscent of 19th century Europe, a place "where magick and technology co-exist in an uneasy balance" as the box clearly states. If the game would have been all about technological advantages, as you seem to think, then why are magick and technology mutually exclusive? Powerful magick can make trains fail to function properly, while a mage might fail miserably at casting spells when surrounded by a hungry pack of automatons.
And, of course, just like every brilliant game, Arcanum is about so much more. It's about quick wins and pride, about racism and some good ol' fashioned fun at Madam Lil's, about life and death. One has to play the game to know these kind of things, of course.
Vox said:
And setting it in the same time as Arcanum would make the whole world ridiculous, because for a great game we need a great story. For a great story, we need something big.
Wait, for a great game we need a great story? Bullshit. Remember Pac Man? Remember Pong? Remember goddamn fucking Tetris? All great games, yet all of them with a plot about the size of a speck of dust. Multiplayer Age of Empires 2? Ever played it? Best gaming experience ever, yet the story is about as basic as it gets: defeat your opponent. Great games are great games because they have great gameplay and whether the gameplay is something great depends on a variety of things, varying from intuitive controls over nice graphics to a great plot and whatever. Some games will score more points in simply generating heaps of fun, others will score bigtime because the story is so well written and the characters feel so real, that you get sucked into the game as if it were your natural biotope.
Also: for a great story, you don't need something big. Some of the greatest stories ever written are about such trivial things, that it is a wonder anyone ever noticed the beauty in them. I have read stories about snowflakes and bugs and an account of a writer's personal diet that have moved me more than all those books about life, the universe and everything. You have no idea how stupid you make yourself sound when you say things so blatantly wrong.
Vox said:
And the plot in Arcanum 1 was BIG enough to make any further stories set in the same time totaly unimportant.
I don't even want to try and understand what you mean by this.
Vox said:
Maybe going in a fantasy fourties was a little bit far, but at least 10 or 20 years of technical evolution would be great in Arcanum.
Vendigroth Wastes. 'Nuff said.
Vox said:
I screwed up elves and dark elves. BUT that were basic ideas... to be honest, I wouldn't even mind if there would be no sequel at all.
Me neither, even though I think it's the best game I ever played. For obvious reasons which I have stated before.
Vox said:
Sorry, but maybe I used the wrong word. What I wanted to say, that Arcanum is set in about 1890 or so, unlike other fantasy games, set in the year 4509 of the second golden age of krmikrar, the dragon prince....
So, your point being? This doesn't make the game anymore realistic if that's what you're trying to prove.
Wooz said:
Arcanum was ok, but I always got the feeling it was a half-baked game. The game's ending, compared to all the quests in between, sucked bigtime. And the combat. The dungeons.
Combat is less boring with thrown weapons and guns. The fact that Kerghan is a weaker opponent than, for instance, Stingy Pete is a little weird, though, I agree. But Kerghan's speech and the accompanying slide show... Wow, just wow.
.
