Volourn

You are on an internet forum dedicated to a rpg video game company. you like 'being magic'. Sorry, bud, you *are* a nerd.

That depends what you are hoping for. If you are hoping for 'best game ever' it is almost certain to fail since that is a lot of competition. However, if you are like me, where you hoping for a fun and enjoyable game than you are far less likely to be dissapointed.

"In my D&D Campaigns I keep resurrection powers to very few privileged, charismatic and not-known-to-the-grand-masses people. Otherwise the world starts to crumble by default. So my PCs know in advance that if they die this will most likely be the end, barring special circumstances." Then why were you bashing DnD ressurection/raise dead? The way you describe is the way it should be. Raise Dead is not some pamby bamby spell. Death is not something that one can shake off in DnD for giggles. If it is, it's being played wrong (like most CRPGs). "If one or more people in your party fall unconscious all you have to do is finish the fight with people still standing, then unconscious party members will be revived. Gave Over (and reload) is when whole party falls." I know. That's even worse. Thankfully, we get an option to make it if you die you die. None of this mamby pamby KOTORish-JEish-NWN2ish- new age nonsense. (beining actually unconcious (ie. through sleep spell) is different than 'dead' but not really dead nonsense). L A M E And, not a good defense of the this game's default 'death' system.

Someone hates to read? Perhaps RPGs aren't actually your things since tomes ie. books ie. reading should be part of the package. Wizards with tomes is awesome and inetretsing. Sorcerors are way more boring, one dimensional and a fake creation by the lsoers in control of the new age DnD to bypass memorization because whines found it 'too limiting' because *gasp* you had to pick your spells WISELY.

"I don't want the type of player who like multiplayer to be a part of the community / audience for this game" That's funny since RPGs are at their best played MP. Afterall, CRPGs wouldn't exist without pnp which is about adventuring with other players. MP doesn't equal MMO which is horribad 99% of the time. Why not have a PE where each character is played by a different player? Works in BG. And, works awesomely in NWN. That said, like 99% of CRPGs PE is FAKE role-playing with multi headed monsters. It's not a real RPG. That said, it'll be hella fun in the ol fashion CRPG way. . P.S. This discussion is worthless since the decision has already been made so non issue. If it's deal breaker for you don't buy the game. Period.

"This is not D&D ruleset. People don't die and get raised back in life saying: 'Oh boy, what did I miss ?'" If that's the way you dealt with death in DnD, that's a failue of yours not DnD. Yeah, and guess what people will do with death in PE? RELOAD. LMAO Just like every other game with perma death (ironman mode notwithstanding).

AS an option, no issues for it, though I find it lame. If experience is such a turnoff to you perhaps you shouldn't be playing RPGs but adventure games. RPGs are largely about the character and leveling up is a part of that. Yeah, story, role-playing, C&C, and npc are all a part of it as well but it seems odd that people are always trying to make role-playing games less like role-playing games.

"Insta-kill doesn't make a game with unlimited saves challenging. It just makes it repetitive." Nope. Simply not true. Games that have insta kills abilities are definitely challenging. To say otherwise is delusional. Why do you think people are fearful of things such as wyverns, medusas, or even ghouls? Because they have abilities that change combat in an instant unlike say an orc with axe who can do damage. But, being killed, turned to stone,or even paralyzed are actual true threats no matter your level (saving throws and resistances not withstanding). Now, I'm not a proponent of just throwing these characters at random to 'surprise' players in a situation where they had no chance because that IS silly and unfun. But, to ban these abilities is weak willed and lessen challenge. Challenge is about having different encounters and these things bring variety. In M&M7 going into the lower dwarven mines where the medusa live is definitely a threat and parties have to be pepared. Now, as for 'savescumming'.. O really don't care if people do it. It's a SP game so if people want to 'savescum' inbetween every 'round' to try to avoid these attacks (or criticals for that matter) let them. Developing a game around that is just a waste of resources. The only person you should be worried about 'save scumming's is yoruself. And, if you hate doing it, just iron man mod. I'm not a fan of IMM though because too many things an go wrong that isn't the player's fault and sicne there will always more combat and danger in a CRPG than a pnp game the risk of 'losing's is phenomenally high. Afterall, you will never likely fight a a small army of vamps in pnp like you did in BG2, or other CRPGs. "though I will say that you're deluding yourself if you think unfairness equates to challenge, because the two are fundamentally antithetical." Except, I don't think 'insta death' attacks are unfair. At all. The players have ways to deal with them just like they have ways to deal with taking normal damage (better armour, better dodge, killing melee monsters before they enter melee, healing, etc.,e tc.). How is this any different? It's different. Why do people ant things to be simplifed? Variety and challenge go hand and hand so if you start saying a, b, c, d,e, and f should not be allowed there's not much left outside of sheer direct damage. That's cool BUT all the time? L A M E

It works in games too. And, I don't feel sucker punch when I have characetr instea killed in a CRPG. If you do you aren't playing for the right reassons. Games are to be challenging. That is why they are games. if you just want a story (I like stories in games too) read a book, watch tv, or watch a movie. I don't watch that silly Throne show but people seem to LOVE that show BECAUSE it kills off popular and unpopualr characters alike. 'Borderline unfair'. OMG! 'It's so unfair mummy, the mean game killed my character! WAAAAAAAAAA!" Why do people want their hands held and be comforted while playing games? Baseball should go to 4 strikes since it's not fair that a pitcher only needs 3 strikes to get a batter out while a batter needs 4 balls to get a 'free' pass. LMAO

Good interview.

Perhaps have a % based on 'damage' taken and have it be slow acting so it takes a day or so to take effect. To balance things out, these obviously should be rare encounters and power magic items like atificats should obviously be immune or HIGHLY resistent. Afterall, I don't see Thor's Hammer being destroyed by a random 4HD monster. L0L

Yet those were popular with the ladies../

"In a way I believe hers is the only morale path in the whole game," You believe the one who mass murders in cold blood and enjoys inflicting pain on others intentionally is the 'only' moral path? Are you on crack? Kreia is one of the most evil , delusional, corrupt, pyschopathic scumbag characetrs ever. Jon irenicus has more of a soul, more humanity (and he's not even human!), more morality than kreia does. LMAO

If you are too wussy to deal with vampires that's your problem not the vampire's issue. Poor little Grom can't handle losing levels.

"In my opinion, Kreia (from KOTOR 2) is the best NPC character I have ever encountered in any game. Her interactions with the player shred all the preconceived notions about being both a White Knight or an Evil ****. The conversation where she tears the player a new one for the ostensibly "noble" act of charity toward the traveller trapped at the port in Nar Shadda is permanently etched into my mind." EPIC FAIL. While Kreia has her good points, she is nowhere the best npc ever. Maybe top 100. She doesn't tear anyone anything. All she spams is juvenile limited editiion pyscho babble. If I were rating characters out of 10, I'd give her a 6/10.Slightly above average that's it. I do love the Goodsprings example. But, it shouldn't be over done. "This has always struck me as shallow and ultimately conceited; the White Knight's motivation is seemingly helping others in need but in actuality, his/her true motivation is the feeling of power gained by doing so." Only one being shallow is you. Why are you putting your own motivation on other players' characters. Stop trying to think you know what player A's Charcetr D motivation is. You don't know. Also, don't confuse the players' desire for ph@t lewt and levelling for the character's potential desire for being a 'white knight'. You also forgot a third option, the PCs are adventurers trying to survive a dangerous land. or maybe the PC is a victim of assasination attempts and needs to find out why people want to skill him (or her) and put an end to it. Games have given all sorts of motivations for characters as has players. It's not just a) or just b). It's like saying a doctor who accepts money to ply his trade only does so because he's greedy and wants to get rich and not also the fact he became a doctor to try to save lives. Only shallow people limits others' motivation to just one thing. That's silly talk. I do agree that npcs should be more pro active at certain times though (however, kreia never was until end game because she was the lame big bad which hurt her character imo but that's a whole 'nother subject).

"No game is a must play to become a developer, but Neverwinter Nights is a must play to become a Volourn." I was a Volourn well before NWN.

"What about when it disables four of your party members? Five? Including the only characters who can make it stop?" Getting out of tough spots like these is some of the most fun one can have in these games be it CRPGs or pnp. Some of my favorite memories are exactly situatioons liek that wher ehalf the part is disabled in some fashion yet I manage to squeak out victory!

Seriously, if you can't remember what the spells do after using them a couple of times you likely just don't have the brain power to play these types of games and it doesn't take genius levels to do so since even I can do it.

Boston over Detroit in 5 Montreal over Tampa Bay in 6 Pittsburgh over Columbus in 4 New York over Philly in 5 Anaheim over Dallas in 5 LA over SJ in 6 Minnesota over Colorado in 7 Chicago over St Louis in 4

Yup. So if you freed a slave when it is legal to have one... you are the animal... not the slaver. LMAO

"I don't know how "common" this is, but I would definitely call it a pitfall: trapping us in a place where we have to fight a monster who can only be hurt by a certain weapon we probably don't have and may not specialize in even if we do have it, and then giving that monster regenerating health. I've been fighting Kagour (sp?) on the Werewolf Island in Tales Of The Sword Coast, and frankly, he is impossible for my party to beat even with the Sword Of Balduran and using cheesy kiting tactics. Which wouldn't be so bad, if I had any other options than to fight him. But I'm stuck on the island, and the only way to move the story along is to fight a character I straight-up cannot defeat. At this point, I'm just going to give up and edit his entry in Shadowkeeper until I can beat the motherf***er. Does that bother you, Baldur's Gate grognards? It sure bothers me. I don't want to cheat, and I wouldn't, but the game cheated me first." The game didn't cheat. You just sucked at the game. Don't blame your failure on the game. It's a game. That means losing should be a possibility. As for you 'cheating'. Meh. It's a SP game. I don't care what you do in your copy as it don't effect me.

Actually, there's a way to fix the randomness but still have it though I don't what kind of scri[pt/computer power one would need to do it (I'll leave that to 'experts'). Why not have the 'random loot drop' be determined at the very first save/start of actual game. That way, if someone hates the loot drop they would have to retsrat the game. This will stop the savwe scumming. That said, people shouldn't be worried about other people save scumming in a SP game. It should not matter. It doesn't hurt you in any way.

"^i.e. eliminating death. Making death mean something other than "You're Dead because you failed". Consequently, this is basically the developer saying: "hey kiddo, if you recklessly and foolishly approach combat throwing all caution to the wind, don't worry about it. You, and your companions are immortal." ie: Neverwinter nights. " Only if you play it wrong. "But the Solution is NOT to reduce the challenge or reduce the penalties. The solution is to...Not Give a F*ck about the playing habits of crappy gamers." Agreed 100%.

My biggest issue with GOG is I'm addicted to it. I spam buy old games, play them for a while having fun, then stop them midstream. Wasted 100s of dollars on that silly site. L0L

"Not quite as bad, because you get one good hit before you're worthless." If you think a rogue is 'worthless' ina fight outside of backstab/sneak attack, your idea of 'worthless' is weird. A rogue as per DnD can do many things in battle. Just b/c their attack roll isn't as high as a warrior's doesn't mean they can't hit anything either. A fighter using a long sword does 1d8 damage while a rogue using a short sword does 1d6 damage (those are two 'stereotypical' weapons) so not much difference there then it depends on individual strength. Then yu throw in scroll/magic item ability. Heck, a rogue can read miror image, stoneskin, and other useful battle spells crolls to get an edge on the warrior. "PS. I'm also amused by the argument that rogues shouldn't be as good at combat as fighters because it makes everyone the same, but paladins and rangers and barbarians are totally fine" Paladins and rangers are special warrior classes. They have differences from fighters both 'good' and 'bad'. There's a reason why, originally, these classes equired more xp to level up... but, this unholy pursuit of balance in rpgs has changed the general mindset where all has to be equal. "That's weird. What, you think people would all just play as other classes and not the Rogue? For what reason would they possibly do that? Could it be due to some failing on the Rogue's part in some relativistic comparison to the other classes?" That's weird. Never once in my pnp life did I see a rogue not be played ebcause it was 'too weak'. In fact, it was often chosen because prferred it. Rogue has its ROLE in ROLE PLAYING GAMES. Now, people want a rogue to be basically a fighter. Why bother with the class then? That's the issue I have with the DA version of it. There's not enough of a difference between rogue and warrior to make a huge difference to matter. DA would have been served better with 2 classes - Adventurer and Mage. Period.