AlperTheCaglar

The juvie started cussing out and flaming me because of my location in Istanbul, and told me to join ISIS, called my nation and race some pretty insane and hilariously angry stuff. Which, setting aside his permanent irrelevancy in anyone's life, cultural ignorance regarding Turkey, or my own staunchly secular views, should not be tolerated on a forum where supposedly smart people are commenting on a very specialized form of game-- trying to improve it via discourse and analysis. /pol/ boarders from 4chan keep thinking the the real world is like their sheltered little threads where they act, cuss, and troll their way to attention.

No. No, you really couldn't. While I appreciate the point you made in general (i.e. "the greatest problem with trying to simulate "realism" in a game is that first, you have to determine what reality is"), in this specific case the notion that one could just as well argue the opposite is simply not true. The brain is mutable, sure. But it is well established that you can't really train your general intellect. It's not like you can do math for a year and thereby increase your IQ by 15 points. It simply does not work like that. If you, however, haven't been working out a lot and then start going to the gym for several hours a day, six days a week, every week of the year, your strength and endurance will increase massively and quickly. (Unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.) Well said. Imagine yourself as a bundle of basic attributes. It isn't that hard. Let's take AD&D (my fav) for a spin. Albert Average is 6 feet 1 inches, he's a regular at the gym and can do basic body lifting exercises that form the benchmark for muscoskeletal strength. Though he isn't an 18(100) world record level, he might be considered 15 STR. He's pretty fast on his foot, but his stretching sucks and hence he isn't as mobile as a gymnast, he will never win any rewards for nimbleness -- 12 DEX Albert does get tired pretty easily but he has a robust immune system, whenever he had a close brush with a fall or an accidental trauma, he's fortunately never broken any bones, but had some nasty bruises to heal, 16 CON Albert is very smart, his intuitive deduction and capacity for learning are top notch, he's always been a good student, though due more to nature than nurture -- 16 INT Albert however, is a very bad decision maker. His short term appetites always land him in trouble in every area of his personal life, everyone wishes he would have been more of a long distance thinker -- 7 WIS Albert personality and looks-wise is a normal person, your average sort of guy, nothing exceptional, well liked, not idolized or emulated -- CHA 10 Now Albert lets say is 26, he's pretty much done with his development, or rather core attributes in terms of adolescence. His life may take him many places. Albert enlists to fight in some war, and after an arduous tour of duty returns. He has become more jaded, lost some friends, views the world differently, but nothing in that grueling experience could ever change who he was at his core physical and mental being. He still made bad decisions, caught on quickly, carried his LBE full of stuff because his muscles could handle it, and never stuck out as a leader or outcast amongst his buddies in service. A life altering experience didnt change his physical mental foundation no, it added experience and gave him skills, certain amounts of knowledge and/or medical expertise. It gave him additional facets to his being, but nothing that would suddenly make him a strongman competition winner, or a quantum physicist nominated for the Nobel prize for finally solving how exactly dark matter makes up most of our universe without creating any gravity at all. As for the strength issue, swinging a sword and carrying loot isnt squatting for years or getting on a 6day brosplit strength routine. Now imagine adding 1 to any of those attributes above just because Albert leveled from 1 to 2, or 4 to 5. They become numerical representations of the metagame, rather than the character being played. Sounds trite doesn't it? I'm not against a very major quest, an item or some exceptional event altering these stats -- afterall this is fantasy, heroes do develop in multiple lifetime speeds. Remember playing through Fallout 1/2 with the lowest intelligence possible? Remember the sheer hilarity and outrageousness of that design choice? It wouldn't have been possible if you had 25 points to spread during your 25 level increases in the wastes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onGWF8mz1Zw I will not be able to stop myself from creating a barbarian while listening to this, I apologize.

Even though I'd rate WL2 with a solid 9/10 (completed in 108 hours)-- one thing I thought was missing were redundant areas/moments. rather than campy ones That's where Fallout 2 edges out. Areas or towns or cities which are wholly unrelated to the main quest, where you can dismantle or alter the status quo however you like, construct a sincere suspension of linearity. An investment like New Reno pays off big in the end. Areas which arent tied to the weave of the main plot quest are crucial for the breadth of immersion.

Put some yogurt on it, it'll help the burn.

The fact that you adore Resident Evil 4, and mention that console drivel on a thread that examines the possibilities of an old school cRPG speaks volumes about your taste.

I like that idea, a savagery ratio, fear-inducing mobs pretty cool. Nobody is gonna tolerate permadeath in PoE without savescumming, but I for one will play in Iron Man so that tension will be exquisite. After playing Xenonauts on Iron Man, I'm prepared for moments of sheer terror.

All of what you just said come off as a meta gamer trying to justify his min-maxing You progress and advance through feats and abilities and spells you gain, not cybernetically changing core attributes whenever you like. Its not realistic, its not good RP, its not even fun when you get rewarded for nothing at all. And if you view that as condescending, that's probably because my criticism strikes too close to home for you. PoE should be an exemplary product which tries to rejuvenate the old school principles of depth before loot, character development before stat minmaxing. For the past 15 years games like BG2, Fallout1/2, Planescape: Torment, Arcanum etc. have become "niche" because consoles and immediate-satisfaction junkies ruined proper and immersive storytelling. Little by little, publishers and ADD casuals chipped away stuff like the one we are discussing or implanted hand-holding dumbed down linear experiences to create a massive drought of quality games. PoE has great potential to build upon the resurrection of this genre, I do not think it should compromise to sate some powergamer who's shocked he has to struggle within a heroic quest.

They just look off right now, the head looks aesthetically imbalanced. I'm not saying make them Space Marines a la 40K, but just slightly more proportional. Ahhh... Dark Sun... you had the best dwarves...

Specialization means mastery in a given single weapon, that's been its definition from AD&D to 5th Ed. Proficiency on the other hand means basic knowledge of that weapon. In 2nd Edition AD&D, which to me was the finest balance between roleplaying and combat of the entire D&D franchise, if you spent a single proficiency point, you become proficient (no penalties), two proficiency points and you become specialized (bonuses to damage and no of attacks/round).

Attributes are a numerical representation of your character, her weaknesses and strengths, her liabilities, and her potential. Changing them outright means you are changing something fundamental about her physical or mental being. It is not supposed to be something taken lightly. That is why a major quest, a major item, or a major character epiphany/triumph is needed to even nudge it a little. Rewards given lightly become under appreciated, and in the current dark age of S.M.E.G. (Spoiled Millennial Entitled Gamers™) we have need of rarer and hence more precious cRPG rewards on the stat department.

But it can be balanced so easily. Why are you limiting the right decision for the hypothetical argument that "weapon diversity may penalize us for that". That's why we trust Obsidian regarding this project. Even if you spec with a short sword, a) they must provide a benefit of the short sword in mechanics (better accuracy, faster speed, etc.) b) they must design or develop enough possible short sword drops, unique and mundane, to guarantee the demand for that specific build I'm absolutely sure they'll achieve both. But why are you limiting the entire scope of the weapon mechanics or options just on the assumption that "it might feel like I made the wrong choice at some point". Surely you can feel the same way about class choices, ability choices, attribute choices, etc.

Short post really, but on my 120 hz monitor the game looks stunning. It's all I dreamed a modern conversion of IE would be, lush, clean, and very well balanced regarding model aesthetics. I did notice 2 things regarding models. Consider these humble suggestions: 1) We should be able to play with character model size (within the parameters of the racial maximum minimum heights) during creation 2) Dwarven heads are too big. I mean, encephalitis big. Just shrinking those handsome dwarf craniums 20% should balance their proportions from chibi to proper.

Well AD&D, my hallowed reference point for a good IE game had this: You could spec by 3rd level if you wanted. Baldur's Gate 2 expanded that into grandmastery etc. But the fact remained that by level 5 (when you got 2 attacks per round if specialized) most fighters were keen to select their weapon identity. I don't really empathize with the "loot" and "aww it limited me" arguments. After all its a designers' objective to create equally compelling endgame weapons for every little class they made.

Agreed. However then a distinction between proficiency, skill and specialization should be made. I dont think a PC should become a Master with 6 weapons at once just because he gave a point to it. What I'm saying is he can achieve proper use in bundles, but should branch out as a fighter only ability into a singular weapon should they want to. Imagine if there were a 3 tier system of proficiency with a weapon -- Good, Exceptional, Master. First point can be bundles. Second point probably shouldn't be bundles but perhaps the selection could narrow to 3 very related weapons. A hypothetical final mastery point definitely should be a singular weapon.

I think penalization for a given stat needs to begin below 9 Since the attribute system is an improved version of AD&D, numerical amounts matter. If 18 is the human max for a given statistic, 9 should be the average. Every increase above 9 can give %2 bonus to a maximum of %18. 19 and 20 the rare "natural" peaks give 20% and 22%. OR If you are keen on keeping the 10 as the average stat, then the percentages need to be increased a little bit I think. The distinction between AD&D str 18 and 17 wasn't supposed to be just 2%. I know many people might say "this isn't AD&D"... but the simple truth is, its inspired by AD&D philosophy-- a system where numerics provides a great foundation for good roleplay.

Leveling related attribute increases has got to be the lamest, most immersion-destroying, most metagamer thing I've ever seen. Your attributes are who you are as a person regarding the game world. If quests or very special results increase them, awesome-- If magical items, or specific potions permanently or temporarily increase them, awesome-- But making the player increase their attributes just because they reach some number of levels, frequent or not, is just mutilating precious character development into some powergaming hack n slash numbers game. PoE should not be a brother to Diablo III, it should be a brother to BG2.

Every single counter argument you used actually supports the fact that bundling specialization helps metagame/looting/gearz and not the storytelling aspect. The fact that you're being frustrated for being limited to a weapon when you could have specced the top tier magical loot or flail of ages or such, just demonstrates your powergaming ideal. But alright I'll bite. There are bound to be metagamers as backers such as yourself always trying to find the leet weaponz. A compromise could be reached where at least the bundles make more sense. Rather than social classes deciding spec ,actual weapon mechanics can. Proficiency options at start: Two handed bladed weapons One handed bladed weapons Heavy thrusting weapons Light thrusting weapons Heavy blunt weapons Light blunt weapons Specialization options within o.h. bladed weapons: Long sword Battle Axe Scimitar Yataghan Short sword etc. Also when you spec with a specific weapon within the proficiency bundle, then you can get some bonuses with all others. Weapon system on Age of Decadence regarding this logic/meta balance is fine tuned I suggest you check it out. A compromise between the two extremes of single weapon and bundles can be the ideal solution to avoid the pitfalls of either. TLDR: I suggest a Pathfinder-like solution to this issue. Begin with bundles, then branch out to specific weapons so you get the best of both worlds.

I searched but couldn't find any topic regarding this issue. I think "bundling" groups of weaponry in fighter specialization will be a hindrance in the long run. I can understand grouping them as ruffian, noble, soldier for once at the beginning as it would be just a reshuffle of the "one-handed blunt", "one handed bladed" distinctions. However making the fighters specialize in a bundle of weapons is counter-intuitive for 2 reasons: 1) How would a pike and a great sword have any fundamental mastery similarities? Specialization, specifically the brand of spec that exists in IE, AD&D etc. is a permanent and qualitative choice by the player. It's a commitment and a decision that needs to be heavily thought out. This rumination on that choice is something that is beneficial because it creates a character's identity. Imagine all the archetypes and poster children of the genre. Gatts with his great sword, Drizzt with his scimitars, Sigmar with his warhammer. As long as there's a substantial amount of magical, and epic weapon diversity, this choice becomes a defining and enjoyable moment of attachment to your character. Imagine that excitement when your long sword spec fighter first found a red hilted longsword +1 in Baldur's Gate. 2) Specialization with a single weapon creates so many opportunities for both role-play, and combat. They allow many minimalist dialogue options, that don't even need to branch out. It becomes an opportunity to enrich the fighter experience. Imagine walking into a town where you're known for you deeds, good or bad. Imagine a head text that says "Isn't that Alper who saved the mayor's daughter? I hear he's a monster with a longsword." Aside from reputation floating texts, a specialized character, for example, should he choose to specialize in one weapon rather than a bundle (if devs truly wish to keep the bundle system) could get certain mastery bonuses both in combat and perhaps in dialogue with craftsmen. Instead of going the entire bundle and choosing greatsword, my character could get a defense bonus with that given weapon. (Its only logical that a person well versed and a master of a certain weapon be able to deduce possible attacks or devise easier evasion during combat) A single weapon specialized character can also get bonuses to crafting or slight damage/accuracy bonuses. In AD&D 2nd Ed Baldur's Gate this was balanced out perfectly. 1 proficiency = using without penalty 1 proficiencies = specialization, get a thac0 bonus (accuracy) 3 proficiencies = mastery, get a thac0 and a damage bonus and they kept expanding this with similar, and yet not too overpowered treats. Call me old fashioned, but in my understanding, truly becoming a master of a weapon is feeling that hunk of metal as an extension of your body. The bundle system is convenience that comes at the cost of both player-immersion and opportunities for side quests, crafting, and perhaps a certain amount of realism.

My whole life I compared Fallout 1/2 to their rivals, but I realized later on that comparing a new game to the nostalgic marks of your impressionable youth is not fair to new games. I'm sure PoE will be a blast to play, but it needs to create new memories of our adulthood, not compare itself to the lofty standards of an earlier age. Not to mention with the console-stupefied age we are in now-- an entire generation needs to be reoriented to... well... intelligent games.

The subject of this thread cracks me up. It's like early 2000s spam mails.

Its ironic that most japanese games that are referenced by some here got their evolution ignited by the 90s American/Canadian RPGs. The names some of you actually mention, were made half a decade (some a decade) after many Interplay, Black Isle, Microprose or SirTech/Talonsoft games. Some were made practically a decade later from the godfather of tactical/rpg games -- Microprose. So to correct the misconception, it was the west which influenced the east regarding many facets of such games.

Nice work, but the worst thing for PoE group-inventory-interaction would be a shared inventory. A shared inventory implies the removal of separate character motivations or possessiveness. I'm all for IU sorting and mechanical practicality, but a shared inventory is too hack 'n slash and harms the illusion of autonomy for NPCs. A stash-mentality will hurt immersion, especially for an heir to Baldur's Gate 2.

I just properly started indulging myself with PoE properly, but all I can say is this-- Fighter was murdered in 3.5ed and 4th ed with the arrival of "cooldown" abilities a la WoW. I don't mean to be close-minded about such abilities, but a fighter's appeal and tradition in AD&D is that he had the unique specialization potential, making him a dependable workhorse in melee, and a very very powerful disher of damage once you had him properly protected from any hindrances from enemies / environment. I can see the fighter gaining role-play abilities unrelated to his mechanical engagement abilities, but I for one, in my humble opinion, dread the cooldown and special ability mechanic that made fighters so trite for the past 10-15 years after IE games. A cat can imagine that he's a fish all he wants, but she can't breathe underwater. This is why World of Warcraft, and stupefied RPGs like Dragon Age 2 have tarnished the fighter's nature. He is a grunt, or a weapon master, or a killer in battle. He doesn't need to be 12030890 things at once. When I click on a fighter I want him to be the go-to guy for a direct foray into the thick of it. I don't want to juggle seven different special abilities (not tied to personality/story). Fighter's were in their ideal and proper incarnation as they were in AD&D 2nd ed.

On a personal sabbatical-- It sort of began with the rpg/tactical munchies I began having. I got Xenonauts, and saw how it actually improved upon original X-Com (not the firaxis abomination), and actually make it deeper. Then I started my yearly tradition of Jagged Alliance 2 (with 1.13 mod) and spent dozens of hours on it. Few games come close to SirTech's perfect product. Then, as you said, I finally started Wasteland 2 with a beta save I had from around Damonta, 40ish hours already upto that point. Now its time to properly test PoE, and play this little fallout1-esque gem called Underrail occasionally.