Neanderthal
Arcane
Most on em, few rare gems i've mostly already mentioned.
Most on em, few rare gems i've mostly already mentioned.
You tell me. You said it. You wrote about "uninformed players". So you don't even know what you are talking about yourself ? Why i am not surprised.But why are you content with games being made with only the "uninformed" players in mind ?
What games?
Uninformed about what?
You tell me. You said it. You wrote about "uninformed players". So you don't even know what you are talking about yourself ? Why i am not surprised.But why are you content with games being made with only the "uninformed" players in mind ?
What games?
Uninformed about what?
You said that most games* being made are good enough for - again - "uninformed" (read = retarded and/or without education) players. So the question is - why does it matter ? Why do you care about those kind of players ? Why aren't You questioning if games for "informed" players are being made instead ? And why not.
* CRPGs remember ? Pay attention this time, it's the genre in question. I won't help you every time a word is used with a meaning that is obvious from the context.
I am not interested in AwesomeButton opinion on the subject but in Yours. I asked You what You meant by using those words in Your post. Your stance in this thread was - as i understand it - consistently that all this world building using actual knowledge and education is bullshit and unnecessary and CRPGs don't need it. Or did i misunderstood You this whole time ? If i did then please try to make one non-"hurr durr i am an idiot" answer and help me with my confusion about it. Or is it too much to ask ? Pretty please.You tell me. You said it. You wrote about "uninformed players". So you don't even know what you are talking about yourself ? Why i am not surprised.But why are you content with games being made with only the "uninformed" players in mind ?
What games?
Uninformed about what?
You said that most games* being made are good enough for - again - "uninformed" (read = retarded and/or without education) players. So the question is - why does it matter ? Why do you care about those kind of players ? Why aren't You questioning if games for "informed" players are being made instead ? And why not.
* CRPGs remember ? Pay attention this time, it's the genre in question. I won't help you every time a word is used with a meaning that is obvious from the context.
That was AwesomeButton who wrote about that, I'd rate you Participation Award but I've had that rating removed from my options for reasons unknown. So I'll just go with the good old fashioned
AwesomeButton didn't say "uninformed" (read = retarded), he specifically wrote
as I have previously said, in order to produce something that will be consistent, but still appear original to the uninformed player/reader/viewer.
What - what are you quoting. Where did i say this ? Instead of quoting something i haven't said - please could you make a real answer. You just made another "hurr, durr, me be idiot" one. Despite me specifically politely asking you not to.AwesomeButton didn't say "uninformed" (read = retarded), he specifically wrote
Are you a spastic?
as I have previously said, in order to produce something that will be consistent, but still appear original to the uninformed player/reader/viewer.
I am not interested in AwesomeButton opinion on the subject but in Yours. I asked You what You meant by using those words in Your post. Your stance in this thread was - as i understand it - consistently that all this world building using actual knowledge and education is bullshit and unnecessary and CRPGs don't need it. Or did i misunderstood You this whole time ? If i did then please try to make one non-"hurr durr i am an idiot" answer and help me with my confusion about it. Or is it too much to ask ? Pretty please.
What - what are you quoting. Where did i say this ? Instead of quoting something i haven't said - please could you make a real answer. You just made another "hurr, durr, me be idiot" one. Despite me specifically politely asking you not to.AwesomeButton didn't say "uninformed" (read = retarded), he specifically wrote
Are you a spastic?
as I have previously said, in order to produce something that will be consistent, but still appear original to the uninformed player/reader/viewer.
Not "superb editing" - i corrected my mistake instantly and since it didn't show as "last edited" under my post i thought it wasn't seen by anyone. Most of the time it works like that unless someone is REALLY quick to read and answer. Still, sorry about that - ok ?What - what are you quoting. Where did i say this ? Instead of quoting something i haven't said - please could you make a real answer. You just made another "hurr, durr, me be idiot" one. Despite me specifically politely asking you not to.AwesomeButton didn't say "uninformed" (read = retarded), he specifically wrote
Are you a spastic?
as I have previously said, in order to produce something that will be consistent, but still appear original to the uninformed player/reader/viewer.
Yes, superb editing there, shame I caught you in the act, eh...
I agree in principle, but I wouldn't shy away also using experts if budget allows it. I would like to return to something I wrote early in thread. I think it would be beneficial if management commits to this too and there are positions where just 'excel guy' may not be enough. If for nothing else, we may be talking quite different cultures here and I don't know, just thinking out loud here. Going in environment where there are people whom culture is influenced a lot by fantasy books, comics, other games, it might be tempting to give 45 min presentation which would be very easy going, very good experience, only that intellectual substance would be like 5 minutes.The average player has zero competence in the fields of archaeology, antropology, etc. so the designer (not "developer") doesn't need to spend "a lifetime" to become good enough for the kind of audience he is targeting with the game.
It's enough to have a good general knowledge, as I have previously said, in order to produce something that will be consistent, but still appear original to the uninformed player/reader/viewer.
I can easily bring out good examples from both books, films and games, but I will not do so, to prevent from nitpicking and sidetracking the conversation.
Walls of text battling strawmen which were never raised as arguments are as always welcome, and will be carelessly ignored.
Going in environment where there are people whom culture is influenced a lot by fantasy books, comics, other games, it might be tempting to give 45 min presentation which would be very easy going, very good experience, only that intellectual substance would be like 5 minutes.
Considering every tabletop version of Tékumel sold poorly, it's not surprising that no-one ever attempted a CRPG Empire of the Petal Throne. The combination of influences from Pre-Columbian Central America, ancient Egypt, and the Indian subcontinent are simply too alien to the foundations of D&D in classical mythology, medieval legends, faery tales, and the fantasy literature derived from them.I just want a PC RPG set in Tekumel
thank you
Considering every tabletop version of Tékumel sold poorly, it's not surprising that no-one ever attempted a CRPG Empire of the Petal Throne. The combination of influences from Pre-Columbian Central America, ancient Egypt, and the Indian subcontinent are simply too alien to the foundations of D&D in classical mythology, medieval legends, faery tales, and the fantasy literature derived from them.I just want a PC RPG set in Tekumel
thank you
I am skeptical towards the view that everything has some political motive, and even more skeptical towards the conspiracy theory that "leftists are trying to influence our culture by inserting their message into videogames". This is just too reminiscent of other scares risen in other periods and just as baseless.The issue is leftism stifling art. In order to be a non-hated successful artist you have to have left wing ideology, and that ideology is based on a cult philosophy of join us. Anyone can join, you just need to think as they do accept what your betters tell you to think. Of course elves and dwarves would be hated because humans hate everything and are bad. Of course 90% of the stories are about saving the earth mother from the evil humans who haven't been woke. Of course Vikings had a society filled with warrior women Shield Maidens, and the non-evil Vikings loved homosexuals and transsexuals and had perfect Christian values but don't call it Christian because Christians are evil but some of their values are current woke values.
Left wing entertainment is about the surface, the superficial, and about how to be a good cultist. It will always be devoid of complex imaginations and will always reflect modern society as it must celebrate wokeness and recruit the gullible.
Sci-fi and fantasy took a big shit in the 60s. Look at the stark difference between "The Mote in God's Eye" and the sequel to see how joining the fellow travelers can change writers from real sci-fi to fluff girls.
I am skeptical towards the view that everything has some political motive, and even more skeptical towards the conspiracy theory that "leftists are trying to influence our culture by inserting their message into videogames". This is just too reminiscent of other scares risen in other periods and just as baseless.The issue is leftism stifling art. In order to be a non-hated successful artist you have to have left wing ideology, and that ideology is based on a cult philosophy of join us. Anyone can join, you just need to think as they do accept what your betters tell you to think. Of course elves and dwarves would be hated because humans hate everything and are bad. Of course 90% of the stories are about saving the earth mother from the evil humans who haven't been woke. Of course Vikings had a society filled with warrior women Shield Maidens, and the non-evil Vikings loved homosexuals and transsexuals and had perfect Christian values but don't call it Christian because Christians are evil but some of their values are current woke values.
Left wing entertainment is about the surface, the superficial, and about how to be a good cultist. It will always be devoid of complex imaginations and will always reflect modern society as it must celebrate wokeness and recruit the gullible.
Sci-fi and fantasy took a big shit in the 60s. Look at the stark difference between "The Mote in God's Eye" and the sequel to see how joining the fellow travelers can change writers from real sci-fi to fluff girls.
I think these two posts illustrate this whole cultural battle very well.
I don't think either that everything has some political motive. But everything we do, how we act and what we say is an expresssion of internalized ideology. Everything is inherently ideological. Gamergate is a very nice example of that. Anti-gamergaters realised that a lot of the content in gaming opposes their political standpoint, so they are challenging this status quo. But the status quo is not apolitical since the status quo has been achieved through political means. Not wanting to change the status quo is, of course, not inherently bad, but it's also a political stance, even if you don't recognize it immediately This itself is even more proof that the status quo is some sort of political consensus. What many perceive as being political is changing the status quo and direct politics i.E. laws etc. This makes it difficult to talk about how ideology influences our culture, because subversiveness is a lot easier to spot, especially if you're status-quo-blind. It's interesting to see how some people on the Codex complain about the inclusiveness of Bioware RPGs as politically charged but idealize a game like Age of Decadence even though both have very distinct approaches to ideology. The latter glorifying distrust and a Hobbesian But it seems to some Codexers that only Bioware RPGs seem to be influenced by ideology.
Elves and dwarves are probably hated often in games because discrimination of race is an omnipresent occurence in human history. Western studios are bound to draw from themes from their own culture and history in some ways, because stuff doesn't just appear out of thin air. Wars, race politics and other conflicts simply were there as long as humans are on earth. And RPGs are always conflict scenarios. Most of those conflict scenarios are inherently political, see for instance Dragon Age: Origins. A power struggle, electing kings, animosities in face of greater adversities. If that's not politics I don't know what is. The only reason why it wasn't more political was that the Darkspawn are the most cliché enemy ever.
The viking thing is also easily explainable. Vikings are worshipped by conservatives because the romantiscised version of vikings in literature has always been that of manly men with beards, of women as mothers and homemakers, of easy conflicts (you die or you don't), of hero cults and so on. Vikings have always been a conservative favourite power fantasy. Now when, for example, there are suddenly more female warriors in a game about vikings, this counters the conservative interpretation of viking culture. To them, a traditional family structure is more important than other features of viking culture. Maybe leftists on the other hand just like the aesthetic of viking symbolism or the fact that vikings were an oppressed people in times of christianization. It's always a struggle of what's more important to your interpretation of the world, what's more ingrained into you ideology-wise. A culture is complex and you can draw vastly different conclusions. A leftist interpretation of a viking culture is just different from a rightwing interpretation. And no fictional interpretation will ever be close enough to reality to have a debate over what interpretation is more correct, since we weigh facts very differently.
Since fantasy settings are based on historical settings, it's a lot easier to explain prevalent conservative values with "historical accuracy" even though it's not really about accuracy. This is why I want to rebuke the claim that leftist entertainment is "devoid of complex imaginations". Leftist imaginations simply take place on a different level than the imaginations of a rightwinger. I'm not even saying there's one that's better than the other, inherently. Entertainment is, in one way or another, always a reflection of us. Building RPGs first and foremost aesthetics, and secondly needs, yearnings, hopes and emotions of our current time.
I am skeptical towards the view that everything has some political motive, and even more skeptical towards the conspiracy theory that "leftists are trying to influence our culture by inserting their message into videogames". This is just too reminiscent of other scares risen in other periods and just as baseless.The issue is leftism stifling art. In order to be a non-hated successful artist you have to have left wing ideology, and that ideology is based on a cult philosophy of join us. Anyone can join, you just need to think as they do accept what your betters tell you to think. Of course elves and dwarves would be hated because humans hate everything and are bad. Of course 90% of the stories are about saving the earth mother from the evil humans who haven't been woke. Of course Vikings had a society filled with warrior women Shield Maidens, and the non-evil Vikings loved homosexuals and transsexuals and had perfect Christian values but don't call it Christian because Christians are evil but some of their values are current woke values.
Left wing entertainment is about the surface, the superficial, and about how to be a good cultist. It will always be devoid of complex imaginations and will always reflect modern society as it must celebrate wokeness and recruit the gullible.
Sci-fi and fantasy took a big shit in the 60s. Look at the stark difference between "The Mote in God's Eye" and the sequel to see how joining the fellow travelers can change writers from real sci-fi to fluff girls.
I think these two posts illustrate this whole cultural battle very well.
I don't think either that everything has some political motive. But everything we do, how we act and what we say is an expresssion of internalized ideology. Everything is inherently ideological. Gamergate is a very nice example of that. Anti-gamergaters realised that a lot of the content in gaming opposes their political standpoint, so they are challenging this status quo. But the status quo is not apolitical since the status quo has been achieved through political means. Not wanting to change the status quo is, of course, not inherently bad, but it's also a political stance, even if you don't recognize it immediately This itself is even more proof that the status quo is some sort of political consensus. What many perceive as being political is changing the status quo and direct politics i.E. laws etc. This makes it difficult to talk about how ideology influences our culture, because subversiveness is a lot easier to spot, especially if you're status-quo-blind. It's interesting to see how some people on the Codex complain about the inclusiveness of Bioware RPGs as politically charged but idealize a game like Age of Decadence even though both have very distinct approaches to ideology. The latter glorifying distrust and a Hobbesian But it seems to some Codexers that only Bioware RPGs seem to be influenced by ideology.
Elves and dwarves are probably hated often in games because discrimination of race is an omnipresent occurence in human history. Western studios are bound to draw from themes from their own culture and history in some ways, because stuff doesn't just appear out of thin air. Wars, race politics and other conflicts simply were there as long as humans are on earth. And RPGs are always conflict scenarios. Most of those conflict scenarios are inherently political, see for instance Dragon Age: Origins. A power struggle, electing kings, animosities in face of greater adversities. If that's not politics I don't know what is. The only reason why it wasn't more political was that the Darkspawn are the most cliché enemy ever.
The viking thing is also easily explainable. Vikings are worshipped by conservatives because the romantiscised version of vikings in literature has always been that of manly men with beards, of women as mothers and homemakers, of easy conflicts (you die or you don't), of hero cults and so on. Vikings have always been a conservative favourite power fantasy. Now when, for example, there are suddenly more female warriors in a game about vikings, this counters the conservative interpretation of viking culture. To them, a traditional family structure is more important than other features of viking culture. Maybe leftists on the other hand just like the aesthetic of viking symbolism or the fact that vikings were an oppressed people in times of christianization. It's always a struggle of what's more important to your interpretation of the world, what's more ingrained into you ideology-wise. A culture is complex and you can draw vastly different conclusions. A leftist interpretation of a viking culture is just different from a rightwing interpretation. And no fictional interpretation will ever be close enough to reality to have a debate over what interpretation is more correct, since we weigh facts very differently.
Since fantasy settings are based on historical settings, it's a lot easier to explain prevalent conservative values with "historical accuracy" even though it's not really about accuracy. This is why I want to rebuke the claim that leftist entertainment is "devoid of complex imaginations". Leftist imaginations simply take place on a different level than the imaginations of a rightwinger. I'm not even saying there's one that's better than the other, inherently. Entertainment is, in one way or another, always a reflection of us. Building RPGs first and foremost aesthetics, and secondly needs, yearnings, hopes and emotions of our current time.
I disagree completely with everything after your first paragraph, and partially with that.
Vikings are. Period. They are worshipped by conservatives. Where did you get this nonsense? I don;t know many conservatives but most of them are not Viking loving madmen. The fact you think this makes you either retarded or so brainwashed it literally makes me sad.
I never said otherwise. Every interpretation of a world and culture is inherently ideological. Cultures are complex and that it's nearly impossible to weigh which things are important to a cultural representation and which things are not. Again, ideology is the determining factor. There are a lot of things wrong with the fictional representation of vikings. Yet most complaints come from the morals and gender department. You could complain about various other things too. The reason why these get singled out: ideology. It bothers people with conservative values to see something go against their values, even moreso if they concern things that they believed to be strongholds of their ideology. Same goes for leftists, I just don't have a good example. And vikings are really easy.Vikings of various periods had specific cultures and mindsets. Any attempt to acrostically to impose modern morals on this historical culture is political.
Common sense sounds so easy but try to define that.AoD was an attempt to create a more realistic culture based on history and common sense.
I don't see ANY difference here. Especially because imagining "how things happen" is always a product of your ideology. You can't escape it, even if you think you do.How would things have been if x and y happened. Not how should things be if my politics ruled this make believe world.
Though, in fairness, there is a lot of criticism surrounding the depiction of race in Tolkien's world. Some people don't take to kindly to the Easterners/Haradrim/and so on being inherently evil. Elves were an embodiment of the good, Dwarves are basically a direct port from nordic mythology.From what I've read Tolkien set out to create a rich mythology for his British culture which was mythologically poor compared to that of other cultures. Even though his age was filled with crazy racial issues, he still managed to create vast works without Elves and Dwarves being crushed under the boot heels of the Evil White Man.
I honestly can't comment too much on Conan because I haven't read enough of it.Howard was a Southerner in a very racist time and his Conan works still paint a far less racist world. Cimmerians were barbarians but white. Picts the same but considered dark. Then there where the black countries, some worshipped Set, others were still civilized and filled with tougher people than the Mitra worshipping white pussies. And he used black in the most offensive way in sentences for modern sensibilities.
Since left-wingers are indoctrinated to believe skin color is super important and a super relevant issue
and that conservatives hate people of different skin color
But conservatives do exactly the same. Exactly the same. And it's okay! It's okay to portray fiction in whatever way you like. You will ALWAYS be subjected to criticism. But it's still fiction. I don't see whya Fantasy game with women and black people in there is so freaking bad so people throw a tantrum about it.you can't help but to impose your enlightened truths into anything made - the same as all left-wingers.
For all the real conservatives I know, skin color isn't an issue. It isn't a big deal. It is like eye or hair color. Superficial nothing that means nothing and has no magic properties. All these little kids on this sight spewing racist gibberish and left-wingers. The will grow up unemployed, or underemployed, and nothing to society, and think the thoughts of retards and left-wingers about skin color and it's perceived importance.
Conservatives, real first world conservatives, believe in merit and culture. There are good and bad people and good and bad cultures. Bad cultures treat women as second class citizens and kill gays for being gay. Them not wanting people from bad cultures who do not accept the culture of their own country to move to their country isn't racist - it is normal. No sane person wants a person with savage views on pretty much everything to move to their land in great numbers. Anyone, of any skin color, who wants to bust their ass to achieve a dream, and accepts their new culture as correct, that women are equal, and no one should die over religious beliefs or gender preference, is welcome and expected to be mannerly and thankful. Or at least not huge pricks that whine and take and do shit to earn shit.
I'm not saying every conservative worships vikings. What I was trying to say is that a certain breed of conservative worships vikings because it's easy to see vikings as an embodiment of qualities and you deem virtuous and desireable. So certain aspects of viking culture get undoubtedly overexaggerated and romanticised. The same happened to Native Americans that are instrumentalised by certain eco-lefties.
Well, maybe you're brainwashed to think it's a non-issue? Maybe you just don't see it?
I don't see ANY difference here. Especially because imagining "how things happen" is always a product of your ideology. You can't escape it, even if you think you do.
Though, in fairness, there is a lot of criticism surrounding the depiction of race in Tolkien's world. Some people don't take to kindly to the Easterners/Haradrim/and so on being inherently evil. Elves were an embodiment of the good, Dwarves are basically a direct port from nordic mythology.
But conservatives do exactly the same. Exactly the same. And it's okay! It's okay to portray fiction in whatever way you like. You will ALWAYS be subjected to criticism. But it's still fiction. I don't see whya Fantasy game with women and black people in there is so freaking bad so people throw a tantrum about it.
Wow, now you're completely off the rails. I mean what does this have to do with anything? I simply wanted to say that people of all political beliefs will have their fiction influenced by their ideologies.
The problem with needing actual real life experience to make something accurate is experiences are very limited. I doubt anyone alive has been in a large battle with hand weapons. And if anyone has been involved on either side of a cavalry charge they are most likely living in a society with limited computer access and little knowledge of rpgs.
Also, people experience things differently. I have been in combat, but my experience is nothing like that of storming a beach in WW2. Or being at constant, brutal war for years like in WW1 and 2 for various European countries. My experiences are nothing like Alls Quiet on the Western Front. Modern day combat is usually short lived and for most of the time you are in relative safety without the oppressiveness people living in trenches for years, under constant threat of death almost all the time.
People also react differently in combat. I got tunnel vision which kind of blanket out everyone but me and my target and time was weird. It slowed down but not in a good way. This hurt me as I was supposed to be directing my team or squad, not in my own world oblivious to what was going on around me and outside my tunnel. But that doesn't happen to everyone, but is kind of common. My friend was freaked out the whole time and completely aware of everything and more observant than usually, but too freaked out for it to be a good thing. A lot of people are fine until rounds start flying, I was anxious and couldn't wait for and was relieved when they did. Not because I wanted to shoot at people or be shot at, but because it is better than waiting. I hate waiting.
Remember that Gurkha that killed like 30 attackers on his own within the last decade? His account makes it seem like he was present and aware and completely functional the whole time. I wish I could say I was like that. I'm not a coward but if someone was coming up behind me or on my flank in a fire fight I honestly would never notice it if I was alone and shooting at someone in front of me.
Also keep in mind that even the major battles of this century have been nothing like WW1 and WW2 where more people have died in a minute of some battles than in all the battles of this century. And their battles where nothing like when people used muskets and lined up. Which was nothing like when people used hand weapons. Anyone who has been in a lot of fist fights can probably agree that when you get completely winded you kind of stop caring so much about being punched. Was it the same when instead of a punch you'd get a spear or a sword?
Also, the more accurate rpgs are usually very annoying. I forget the name of the game but there was this one game that aimed to be pretty realistic. Your shield and weapon would break a lot. I ended up usually throwing spears and trying to keep my distance. Trying to fight up close against two people was usually a lose unless you got lucky. You versus three was impossible for the most part. Most of the combat rules and rpg rules led to cheesing battles, and it didn't encompass moral. I think most sane people would run from three armed people trying to kill them. I don't think most people want to play a game where they lose control of their character and run like a baby all the time.
If you think about it any realistic rpg system would be based around not dying instead of winning. I just don't think actual realism is what people want. People complain a lot about all the rariety of hitting in the old DSA system used for the RoA trilogy, and the critical fumbles, and weapons breaking, etc. I'd much rather have a very good and complex and interesting rpg system over a realistic one.
I think for settings sensible is a better aim than realistic. But, how much would people complain if there was no options for the modern day morals? People hated that there wasn't more options to save the orphan kids in the main Viking city. People want to be the hero as they believe heroes would act. If you had a setting where acting as most people day believe a hero would act gets them killed all the time, forcing them to make decisions they morally disagree with and anachronistically inserting into that setting, I think it would get far more complaints than praise.
Its also more noticeable in games that strive for it. When I wasn't allowed to do something I think my character would do in AoD it was way more annoying and noticeable than in Underrail. But AoD strived for options in dialogue where Underrail didn't so my expectations where different.
I, personally, like when a game allows you to do what you think is the right thing but attaches a cost to it. In TToN I kept that little girl in my party even though she sucked because my character wasn't a huge dick throwing little girls to the wild. It certainly hurt my combat performance. In Tuerigard and the Alliance with Rome it had things like setting the your slave free hurting you and the slave. There is also a mod for an overhaul mod of Skyrim that makes it so if you worship one of the good gods you have a limited number of times you can steal or assault people before they rejected you.
In my opinion you should be rewarded for doing what is the norm for the setting while being allowed to act otherwise, but acting anachronistically has a negative price. This also means no good points and bad points as that usually means equal reward and just picking a path and following the side that gives the most reward. Same with a karma system. It has the opposite impact of enhancing roleplaying, and curtails it or hamstrings it.
Conservatives want to conserve their own heritage and culture, and since the only countries beheading people for being heathens and treating women live slave shit are loved by liberals there is literally no country that can have a breed of conservatives that love Vikings. Vikings are raiders, pillagers, slave takers, and rapists. None of those are conservative values even a little.
What breed of conservatives? Do you mean dumb, young people with no real education other than revised history and indoctrination? I think you mean a certain type of liberal.
This is exactly what separates independent thinkers from cultists. Are there smart cultists? Sure. But just as some great thinkers throughout history have been blunted and shackled by the oppressive beliefs of their time that they also subscribed to, they all wear the yoke of THE RIGHTOUES TRUTH!!!!!
Though, in fairness, there is a lot of criticism surrounding the depiction of race in Tolkien's world. Some people don't take to kindly to the Easterners/Haradrim/and so on being inherently evil. Elves were an embodiment of the good, Dwarves are basically a direct port from nordic mythology.
thats the route I took with one of the of the longlived races in my world. That they have become really afraid of dying and spend an amount of time avoiding risks and conflict. Another one is that they have a hard time finding joy in things since they experienced almost everything. Of course, for these things you need to look into their beliefs, what happens when you die?
That still leaves Arcanum. So where are your examples to make your case?
Arcanum was exceptional and doesn't represent the realities of modern game development.
This is simply false. The experience of playing through a setting like the Witcher franchise is significantly different. You cannot tell the Witcher story in a classic Dungeons and Dragons setting, because the social structures of those settings render the importance of lone monster hunters incoherent. When dragons, elves, orcs, undead, golems, etc. are a matter of course, the existence of monsters is trivial and insignificant. The main actors in Dungeons and Dragons settings - powerful wizards and clerics, secret organizations, gods, demons, dragons, and other races - are not designed to be confronted by an individual protagonist, but by equally powerful adventuring parties and organizations. Hence the narrative structure of CRPGs derived from Dungeons and Dragons is completely different from that of the Witcher, which is highly personal, more reminiscent of noir than high fantasy.
So no, I don't agree that all fantasy CRPG settings are just Dungeons and Dragons with a slightly different lore structure - only most of them, making it all the more obvious when a game comes along that isn't the same.