I mean, you can do whatever you want. But I would strongly recommend not using AI at all.

If you can’t draw (like me), then find an asset pack that’s close enough to what you want and do some minor edits to make it fit. Even a quick little doodle will have more heart and soul than an AI can ever try to poorly emulate.

Ever seen a game called “Thomas was Alone”? Every character is made of simple rectangles in different colours and sizes. You don’t need much.

I just checked, and Dragon Quest 2 released in January of the same year as both of those games and ends with you fighting Malroth, god of destruction. If anything is patient zero, it’s the Dragon Quest series.

You can always spot a Kirby fan based on how they react to a butterfly appearing late into the game.

Oh, and you can see the steps. Bioware condensed the mental stats into cunning, giving them space to add magic and willpower. Then the RPG needed to add two new stats just to keep cunning from being too bloated.

Then they made Fantasy Age, which is the Dragon Age RPG without Dragon Age, and they immediately got rid of the magic stat.

Sadly, no, but I’m sure a classic “how do you want to do this” can fill the gap.

Skies of Arcadia.

For one thing, the entire setting is just a bunch of floating islands, and I love that trope.

For another, there’s 6 moons, each with elemental powers. The land under each moon is affected by these powers, making the land under the red moon a scorching desert, and the land under the green moon a thick jungle.

Then there’s the subtle mysteries. There’s an iron star in the atmosphere, which is a satalite but everyone forgot what it’s called. There’s a black moonstone, but no black moon to go with it. There’s a looper of every moon colour, but there’s also a black looper that only shows up once you defeat the main villain.

I think, most of all, I love the tone. Pirates fight an evil empire, and a heroic, upbeat attitude is never punished.

I’ve seen multiple people adapt Dragon Age to 5e, including reworking every class to fit into the “mages are rare” nature of the setting. Then I turned my head to the left and looked at the Dragon Age RPG on my shelf.

No, it doesn’t prove your opinion, because I am not talking about those movies. I am talking about recent movies with equal or worse writing that were better received. If it was about writing quality, Captain Marvel would have gotten apathy, not hatred. That proves it’s not about writing quality.

Shang Chi and Loki were both released after Captain Marvel and did not suffer due to superhero fatigue. So that shouldn’t be a factor in Captain Marvels reception either.

Captain Marvel was released so late into the MCU due to Ike Perlmutter being deeply misogynistic, so there is absolutely precedent for misogyny in the superhero space. Why are you so insistent there isn’t any?

What does Brie Larson’s charisma (which could be argued either way but I won’t) have to do with the writing quality? Considering everyone blames the writing quality for her reception, as seen above. And people being tired of superheroes didn’t apply to Shang Chi or Loki, which came out AFTER Captain Marvel.

Whenever someone gives me an reason for their opinion that is provably untrue, but they don’t change their opinion, it makes me question what the actual reason is. And when I look at the bad (or even just okay) movies and look at which ones the “fanbase” is angry about, I can’t help but notice it skews towards hating the ones with female leads.

What does that have to do with anything?

Thor has never been consistent. His every appearance does whatever it can to throw away the set up of his last appearance. When he was serious with a few fish out of water moments, everyone called him boring. He was better received when he became more irreverent, but this undercut every serious moment and became grating (see Love and Thunder).

Note how Captain Marvel fills a similar space as Thor originally had, being a serious cosmic hero with a few lighthearted moments sprinkled in. Note how the Captain Marvel films are better than half the Thor films. Note how much angrier people are towards Captain Marvel than they EVER have been towards Thor.

Most of the male heroes are boring and poorly written. And yet people are more angry about the female heroes than the male ones. You can’t pretend it’s about quality at this point.

I’m not sure how much credit Disney should get for that compared to James Gunn, considering they fired him and he was able to turn Suicide Squad into a hit as a result.

I also enjoyed the Captain Marvel movie, and even the Marvels was pretty decent compared to the rest of marvel’s recent crap. But they have female leads, so I guess they’re tainted with original sin.

We don’t actually know the size of the hoard, though. We know it’s big enough for him to sleep in it, and we know the Arkenstone was worth one share of it, but we don’t have specific numbers (at least, none I can see). Any valuation has to be an estimation, and any estimation will be contested.

Also, the value of gold today is 75 times that of what it was in the 1930s, which makes it even harder to put a price on Smaug’s hoard.

Regardless of the specific number, there is a certain level of wealth and greed that makes it morally good to shoot someone through the heart. Smaug is not the only one to have hit that threshold.

Forbes did the math once and determined that Smaug, a dragon embodied by greed and selfishness, is worth $62 billion. There are 17 people richer than him.

Smaug was shot in the heart and it was a morally good act.

You don’t get to be a leftist just because you claim to be one. There’s a whole dang ideology. Authoritarianism is about as right-wing as you can be, which is exactly what tankies support. What makes them left-wing besides their own dubious claim?

I make an effort to support my claims. You just try to appeal to the fallacy fallacy without even addressing what I said.

Tankies support right-wing ideologies and a right-wing government, but Russia told them they’re left-wing and they’re dumb enough to believe them. I see you also believe them. Not sure why.

And no, that’s the general definition. Liberalism places importance on personal freedoms, whether that’s freedom of trade, speech, belief or expression. There are branches focused on trade and branches focused on expression, and they are ALL liberals. Not all fruits are lemons, but all lemons are fruit.

The right wing has done a lot of work to make the left believe that liberals (people in support of equal rights and social justice, to give the actual definition) aren’t leftists in order to turn the left against itself. And people like OP actually believe them. They claim liberals are useless, but people like them are actually detrimental to the left.

Also worth noting that OP’s rant wasn’t about liberal ideas, but about pacifism.

The O in illusion is a loop.

It’s not statistical probability. It’s cause and effect. All cops are bastards not because of luck, but because only bastards remain cops.

Ever heard the phrase “Nazi bar”? You let one nazi stick around, then more nazis come in and people who aren’t nazis have to either leave, be nice to the nazis, or put up with a lot of nazi attacks. Either way, the entire bar becomes full of nazis.

Law enforcement is a bastard bar. If you’re not a bastard, you leave. If you stay, you’re either a bastard, a bastard enabler, or you have a target on your back and won’t be a cop for long.