Virgil from Arcanum. Because that was my first experience of a companion in an RPG suddenly leaving my control and leaving my party on their own initiative. And then I had to go find him! Wonderful!

Q: What RPG setting do you wish for being used in a game? Could be a general setting (Vietnam War, or The Stone Age) or could be an IP (book, movie, etc.).

I know this question has been answered, but I feel like giving my own answer: Aldora from Romancing SaGa: Minstrel Song (PS2).

I'd like to see more alien fantasy settings. Specifically, fantasy worlds that might have many different races, but humans aren't one of them. (Paladin's Quest and its Japan-only sequel Lennus 2 are good examples of this, with a bit of ancient technology thrown in.)

Is there a particular historical change that's happened to single-player games that most people seem to think is for the better, but you don't? (For me, examples would be the introduction of mouse controls, voice acting, and 3D graphics (and yes, I know the game I'm currently playing has all three).)

Sure is,the games have gone back thirty years with the graphics/pixels and producing crap.

What happened to the good games graphically,like Skyrim,F3,FNV,F4?

The easy target is achievements. I see their appeal, but I don't think they are actually for the better. They take your mind off playing the game on its own terms and introduce meta-challenges. There is the odd game that plays them right. But even then, it doesn't improve the game, it just usually manages to be sly and tongue-in-cheek about the whole inevitable reality of achievements.

I know that on this forum ahcievements are pretty roundly hated, but my impression is that out in the wider gaming world, achievements are seen as pretty normal and desireable.

Q: Of all the "spiritual successors" and "reboots" and "remasters" and "homages" of late (I'm thinking of Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition with extra content and new characters, Pillars of Eternity the homage to Infinity Engine games, Resident Evil remastered, etc.), which do you think got something right? You don't even have to love the result, just you noticed something they did right. Example answer: I am playing Torment: Tides of Numenara, and it has a wonderful innovation in that instead of "combat mode" you have "crises" in which you can do more than just combat; you can interact with objects in the world, you can initiate dialogue, as well as fight. I am still finding the game a slog, but I am delighted by that particular innovation.

I guess Shadow Warrior 2013 did a pretty good job with the remake. Now I did play the original Shadow Warrior only a few years back, and also did not play till the completion, yet I feel they have made a lot of right choices with the reboot. The cheesy jokes gave homage to the humour of the original, the combat was fun with both the firearms and the magical sword being viable option. I also like the fact that like the 90s games, they included secrets in the levels.

Q: Do you consider video games to be a form of art? If yes then why?

They can be. Those that just focus on gameplay, not really, but otherwise they include art when they include music or storytelling (text or video or both) or voice acting, and they truly are an art form on their own when they create an immersive experience for the player, within the world and the story, or when they explore interactivity in an artistic way.

Q: What was the longest amount of time that passed between starting a game and finishing it, and what game was it? Of course, talking of games that can be finished, and can answer with multiple titles if the time may be similar as far as you recall, or if it's long enough to be worth mentioning either way.

I would argue that gameplay-focused games can be art. In particular, the choice of mechanics does matter here.

For example, making certain gameplay choices viable or not can be used as a way of self-expression. For example, if a game lets you play both male and female characters, there are many decisions one can make, like whether they're identical gameplay-wise, different but (at least on paper) balanced (see Elder Scrolls for the most part), or unequal with one clearly better than the others. Also, a developer might decide that two choices aren't enough.

Another interesting example would be a game called Balance of the Planet (I believe it is a Mac OS Classic game). In that game, to my understanding, it is not possible to do well unless you place a greater value on wealthy first world kids then an poor third world kids (or something to that effect). That is saying something right there.

So, I would argue that gameplay-focused games can indeed be art, as they allow the authors to express themselves.

Perhaps me with Paladin's Quest, as that game's final boss was so difficult that I believe I didn't beat it until near the end of the SNES's lifecycle, and I believe I cheated some items in on that playthrough. The final boss is far harder than the rest of the game, and there's no nearby place to save.

Perhaps Mega Man 4 and 5 could also qualify, largely because there's no password that will take you past the first stage of the first castle (my biggest complaint about classic Mega Man). They allow you to continue after a game over, so why not allow saving of progress so one can beat the game in a reasonable length playing session (without having to speedrun it, which is not a viable option if you aren't yet familiar with the game)? (Note that I never had Mega Man 6 as a kid, but that game has the same problem.)

Do you ever start playing a game, get up to the final dungeon or boss (or equivalent), but then stop without beating the game and start playing a different game instead?

Edit: For the first part of the post, I thought of a non-political example of gameplay as art. See Syoban Action, which is clearly a parody of a certain well-known game. See also Not Tetris 2, which is clearly a parody of a *different* well-known game.

Not entirely sure it's the only case, but the one case I remember is Final Fantasy 8. Got to Ultimecia's Castle, lost all skills, characters weren't strong enough to defeat that first boss with just regular attacks, didn't feel like using those gates to grind, so tried that fight probably about a dozen times, though after the first few it was clear that there was nothing to do about it, nothing I could do other than just hit attack after all, then uninstalled and watched the rest of it on YouTube.

Q: Since the above answer reminded me, what's your opinion of games that don't allow you to save anywhere? Or what about those that technically allow saving anywhere but somehow penalize the player for saves or otherwise significantly limit the number of times one can save?

Limiting where a player can save is OK, provided that such saves occur often enough, and that the player is able to go back to a save point (in other words, that the game doesn't trap the player without a way to save). Save anywhere, while a nice idea (and suitable for some genres), can get rather silly; miss a jump? Just reload that save from just before you jumped. Oh, you saved in mid-air? Sorry, but that save it now worthless. (That's actually a problem with save anywhere; it is possible to save yourself in a corner.)

With that said, not letting a player save often enough can be a fatal flaw that can ruin a game; it is an issue in Mega Man 4-6 (no password will take you past the first level of the first castle, and half the game is past that point), and is why I never seriously attempted to complete Lufia 2's Ancient Cave (no way to save at all in a 100 floor dungeon; the next game (Lufia: The Legend Returns on GBC) at least has a quit save feature so you don't have to do that 200 floor dungeon in one sitting).

Penalizing players for saving might be OK, provided that:
1. The penalty is more of a short term thing (for example, respawning monsters on the floor), and
2. Said penalty is something a player might want to trigger intentionally in some instances.
So, for example, Wizardry 4 got it right.

Limiting the number of times you can save, however, is a big no-no for me, and is an immediate turn-off. Having a sizeable cost for saving is what prevented me from getting into Quest for Camelot (early Game Boy Color game), and the save token mechanic is one of the reasons I did not get Breath of Fire V: Dragon Quarter (copy-protected saves and the D-Counter mechanic are two other reasons).

Can you think of a game that you would have liked, if it were not for one particular design decision that completely ruined the game for you?

I can't play anything with limited saves, which has killed my interest in quite a lot of survival horror games, Resident Evil being the most obvious. Even save points in general turn me way off. I'm so used to quicksave on PC and in my normal genres (RPG and FPS) I just can't stand save shenanigans.

Question: Which game sequel was an amazing improvement for you due to one change from the original game, and what was that change?

People sure won't (and didn't) like this, but HoMM4: heroes actually fighting! And units not needing heroes to move too. But mainly heroes actually, well, being heroes, not cowards-hiding-behind-their-armies-and-running-away-if-left-alone, and being able to gather more together and use them as a party.

Q: If you ever tried to make a game, can you say what it was about? Is it (still) available anywhere? Anything counts, RPG Maker stuff, text adventures, JS, HTML games...

Guadia Quest Saga (subgame of Game Center CX 2). They added the ability to assign Guadias to characters, which would give them special abilities, like the ability to make a more accurate attack, a healing ability that works at the start of the combat round, an early revive ability that lowers the caster's HP to 1, an MP restoring ability that puts the caster to sleep, and many others. That one change makes the game considerably more interesting then the original Guadia Quest (from Game Center CX, released in the US as Retro Game Challenge).

Question: Which game sequel was significantly worse for you due to one change from the original game, and what was that change?

A long time ago, I made a few games; my first ones were made on the Apple 2 in Applesoft BASIC. Unfortunately, the games aren't available anywhere online; I'm not sure if I even have them around anywhere. Said games were generally simple RPGs, where you would only control one character and fight one enemy at a time. One RPG I wrote in QBASIC had you fighting yourself at the end; the only way to survive was to run away.

Actually, there is one game that is preserver in my head; it is a (non-video) card game that is basically Egyptian Ratscrew, except that, instead of slapping the deck when the same number are played consecutively, a round of War (where the top cards of each player's deck is compared) is played and the winner gets every card in play. I also had some rules for Jokers which would get rather complicated. (For those War rounds, my rule wass that Jokers tie everything.)

(Due to a race condition, I already answered another question; see what I posted above for the next question.)

Oh man, Oblivion's level scaling popped right in my head for this question. Morrowind is literally my favorite game of all time and I was SO psyched for Oblivion it was insane. I remember they did those daily countdown videos for a couple weeks and I was bursting with anticipation. Every review acted like the game was a revelation. Then I get it and... it was okay, but the level scaling was SO bad, like it seriously almost ruins the game entirely. Then add some console port issues on top and it just made for a bummer sandwich. Mods really helped my eventual second go at it though, and I might try a third soon.

Question: Has a "romance" option ever worked for you in a game? What's your favorite video game love story?

To be honest, I avoid romance when it is optional, and I simply can't relate to straight romances.

My favorite video game love story is probably one from SaGa Frontier; specifically, the one between Asellus and Gina. It's nice to have a non-straight romance for a change, interesting in that the damsel's rescuer is female (and said rescue is optional), and interesting how Gina shows up in the ending regardless (there are three endings).

Are there any games that you don't enjoy playing, but that you do enjoy watching other people play? (This can either be in person or over the internet (via sites like twitch or youtube).)

This one is super easy! Vampire the masquerade bloodlines, my top favorite! Been waiting for a sequel for years. Sadly, the chances of getting a rich single-player sequel (not MMO crap) seem even more elusive then a needle in a haystack. Perhaps, CD project red could buy the rights and make that sequel we've been waiting for. Pretty snappishly! :D

I always pick my gender (female) every-time I have the choice to do so. This is because of how I play. Escapism, where I imagine being teleported to lavish and huge new worlds, embarking on thrilling adventures abound. In different varieties, where lies fixed characters therein, games that twinkle with excitement, shining with an enticing resplendence, grab me well with a good fancy.

4. Single Hero with an army behind.

Just to ask, did you mean the single hero is your main hero, and your army are your party members that you can control directly in combat? This would be my choice. I'm kind of assuming here that "A group of adventurers" means a gang sharing the spotlight equally, the entire brigade as a singular entity. Something like Wasteland 2.

Question:
Is "graphical style" a big key to what gets you excited to play or decide to purchase a game? And by that, I don't mean everything is held to a splat epic 3D. For example, I have an appreciation for ranging styles. From gorgeous, elegantly done 1D (visual novels), to crisp and beautiful isometric 2D + point n'click adventures + platformers, to your usual blockbuster 3D brilliance. However, the revolving point, is that they have to invoke my imagination, capture a wheel of attention and immersion before I would want to delve further into knowing more of the game. What about you?