LadyCrimson

Hubby is playing Borderlands 2 as I speak...it's so adorable it makes me want to dance. <---this sprite apparently steps in time to Katy Perry music...

The word "donate" does not always = non-profit charity. It's often used thought of that way because of organization association but you can donate to anything that you think is a worthwhile cause/endeavor. I started writing this longish post about the topic of Kickstarter vs. actual investment, but realized I didn't want to get caught up in that kind of debate/totally derail the thread. So I'll just say that: Yes, consumers do deserve this, but this is true even when a product is not a crowd-funded project. ...and... I don't think anyone's going to disagree with that sentiment.

BL2 - why did they have to put a slot machine in the game? Don't they know there are people with serious mini-game addiction syndrome? Now I spend all my money on it in the hopes of winning Eridium. And Eridium isn't even super-rare later on. Must ... pull ... lever. *shakes fist*

That first episode of Revolution was fairly disappointing, even tho I'm willing to suspend disbelief on the physics angle. The female lead acts like a spoiled whiny brat out of Twilight and her brother isn't much better, making them unsympathetic. Miles character feels like a mix of O'Neill of SG-1 and MacGyver. The scene transitions are abrupt and leave you not caring about characters or motivations. The mystery set-up reveal at the end was not a surprise. Giancarlo Esposito (Breaking Bad) is the only redeeming thing so far, and even that's a bit thin given the material. The fight action wasn't bad, but on the other hand was pretty ludicrous. I did, however, enjoy/giggle when two guys were trying to reload their front-loading muskets. I'll give it a few episodes to turn around but yeah ... kind of a mess.

No, just no. We're not the publishers. We're not even investors. We're donators (or "crowd funders" in today's seeming terms), currently with no actual legal rights over the product outside of them delivering a game that at least basically approximates what's in their pitch (fantasy rpg video game), versus, say, taking the money and running or sending us all a chiapet instead of a video game.

Some of are just stubbornly old skool and don't like DRM in principle, fondly remembering the days when you could just buy a disc-game and there was nothing, sometimes not even a CD-key check. Steam has its uses/advantages but many don't like it when a game requires extra programs just to be able to run it. Or the "forced" downloads of patches and stuff. That said I personally did give in and use Steam these days ... I just try to avoid it when ever there's the option to do so.

I don't know if we need three subforums (at this point) but having it split up into at least two - say "General" and "Suggestions" would be nice. I was thinking about this the other day too.

It's also why there are often multiple tiers of beta testing, with each tier having different types of beta goals/access. Which is why I said if there's a very late stage QA beta, that could be for "everyone" via email invites. I'm still of the opinion that for early or overall beta testing, it shouldn't be an en-masse pledge reward.

*reads new update* GoG? Beta access? More swank loot? Strategy guide? More pledge tiers to help inspire potential pledges with a wider range to choose from? *Joy-puking all over the room* I'm a little unclear however ... is the GoG drm-free only for backers or a general availability?

That's my general opinion too. Certainly not for initial beta's .... perhaps when they're very close to finishing and want a much bigger beta pool, they could mail out invites to all backers at that time. But initially ... yeah, I'm going to agree with any of the others who don't want/don't think beta access for all backers is a good idea.

The reasons for an editing time limit aren't completely unreasonable, from a mod's point of view. It's not just about a troll making other users look like a moron but that it then erases the evidence so mods may not be able to see/judge complaints. But it is often frustrating as a user and it's a fine line to draw.

Not to mention the smell!

What if the arrows are enchanted with shock damage? I understand what you mean tho....I recall in BG1 that at some point I started using almost nothing but ranged in the party, in one game, with half their inventory stuffed with arrow stacks. Fighters, archers, and even the mages would often be slinging their slingshots instead of casting spells (simply because I couldn't "rest"). Then add enchanted arrows all the time and most combat became very very easy. It seems pretty difficult to balance ranged combat vs melee combat in terms of the player in many games, even when ranged characters are weak against melee. So first up, I suppose, is to not have enchanted arrows, except maybe for a slow DoT poison effect. Enemies with shields should have a high chance of blocking arrow damage altogether until the shield breaks (or something). But I don't want them to be any weaker against melee than they tend to be already. Other than that ... I have no idea how to keep archers from feeling overpowered in a game setting, while still being viable enough (eg, not dying every 10 seconds to melee) that people want to use them in their party.

Choice 2. Unless you're making an actual undead/zombie horror game, the undead should be left in the graveyards and tombs. Or as spelled summons.

It's a deliberate choice to not allow editing after a short period of time.

Depends on how detailed those tiny figures are. There are a lot of games where I can see a lot of details even on small character models. But I agree it's not of vital importance in general in this case. I don't think we'll be getting tiny drawn naked feet with toes.... That would be most excellent. I seem to recall playing a game where a companion did something like that, but I can't recall the game offhand...

Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale for the older games. KOTOR2/FNV for newer. But for me it was largely the fact it was Obsidian. I'm an extremely loyal fan of the people behind Obsidian and as long as it's a game concept that I'm remotely interested in (South Park's not it, heh) I will toss money at them at any opportunity to support them because I want them to keep on doing what they do. Their writing and characters have created pretty much the only RPG's where I end up actually caring/paying attention to what goes on in the story/quests instead of just obsessing over, say, alchemy, stats, loot gathering and being able to kill everything with a wave of my pinky finger. edit: I have been terrible with typos and missing or repeated words lately...

Show off. Liking it so far? I'm having a blast.

Ideally, yes, I'm like that too. I don't like permanent gloves, hats, boots or whatever. Don't care too much about going down to the underwear, specifically, but doesn't bother me when they do. Only, please don't make them tighty-whities.

I often played 6-party rpgs with 3 or 4 in the party, because that was my personal "sweet spot" for the amount of challenge I wanted (6 was easier than I wanted, 2 harder than I like). The choice of more or less party members in the type of games like PE seems to be going for is, to me, akin to difficulty settings.

Where's the "Doesn't matter to me?" poll option? I think guns in a more medieval setting could be interesting. Guns vs. magic ... I've read books like that and it can work well. So I'm open to the idea. I'd would rather not have guns = too modern a setting, however. It's fantasy - it doesn't have to follow Earth history in terms of what (for example) clothing or cultural style period goes with what tech.

I don't think I care about washing my hands or brushing my teeth (in a game - IRL is another matter, haha), but I'm one of those weird people that likes stuff like ... fishing ... in a game. There doesn't have to be any gameplay reason for it, ala cooking profession. Just put a fishing pole in the game and certain places that are fishable, play some nice music or rain sounds, and I can park my character for a while and toss a line in, waiting to click "reel in" when there's a nibble. I can't do that for hours, but I do find it somehow more immersive and relaxing when a game has minor options like that. My characters/party need to relax once in a while, after all, and it's always pleasant when you can "see" them do it vs. just a black sleep screen or something.

I want it to be "hardcore" in terms of gameplay mechanics complexity and where I don't feel like I can "LOL faceroll" through it from the very start. I want to take plenty of damage and wonder if I'm going to make it through to the next area/city or thru the woods to grandma's house without companions falling or running out of resources. But I do not want to feel like every minor combat I come across = instant death and constant re-loads to make it through, because that's just cheap. imo.

And further, the issue that everyone has different tastes in art, or what they think of as artistic/beautiful/awesome... Um. No. It's not. Not that I don't like it. I do...I like it very much. And I'd agree I'd love to see that type of art/graphic style in games again, more often. But it's not anywhere close to becoming/heading into photorealistic.

Completely agreed. One doesn't have to be overtly explicit about such things in order to show that the world isn't a perfect place, or to have a compelling, adult narrative that doesn't feel like Barney-world. At the least, keep the in-your-face stuff limited to only a few scenarios (thus having more impact since they aren't commonplace occurrences).