GhostofAnakin

Battle cries or companions yelling in combat are okay by me: 1-On the onset of battle, when each companion is sort of yelling out what they're about to do. 2-Perhaps when they score a critical hit, or take down an opponent. 3-When their health is low. Other than that, it does get really annoying hearing non stop battle cries, often repeating the exact same phrases over and over and over again.

I think I'd be more in favor of a sequel that's not necessarily dependent on the PC or his continuing story, but rather just a continuation of the world as a whole after the events of the first game. I'd rather see the consequences of the PC's actions in the first be seen in the sequel, with his actions shaping the world we encounter when we play the second game, but not necessarily a continuation of the PC's story. Each game should be a self contained story, with a resolution at the end that leaves no cliff hangers. One of the main reasons I'd prefer this is because you just never know what will happen over that time. Planning a game's story over multiple games doesn't always pan out, and often times the individual games suffer for it. A perfect recent example of this is the Mass Effect trilogy. The main plot for each game was supposed to build on the previous, but in actuality it was like when it came time to develop each new installment, they decided to change the story. The result was three games whose main story arc is only loosely related, with plot holes and inconsistencies galore. Another example that hits closer to home is the KOTOR series. Obsidian made a great sequel, IMO, but the ending was just crying out for a KOTOR III. But that never happened, so the series kind of got stuck in limbo until a novel came along to tie up (rather poorly, IMO) the story. So I'd rather see PE and its sequels focus more on the continuation of the world based on the actions of the player in each game, but not necessarily a continuation of the player's story from one game to the next. If that makes sense.

Pause. Usually though I concentrate on my characters who use spells. My fighters I tend to just press attack and let them do their thing, only pausing when I need to cast another spell. So if it's a particularly easy fight, or if it's a fight that's mainly melee-focused, I don't bother to pause until I need my clerics to heal or buff my fighters.

Eh, I was also disappointed in how linear ME3 was, and how you finally got to visit various homeworlds and they didn't have any real quests other than whatever main mission you were currently on. I know the whole game was supposed to be a "race against time", but I still felt they underused the various homeworlds, most notably the Asari homeworld. Ironically, ME3's combat was its saving grace for me. Since the game is obviously meant to be more of an action/shooter, I think the faster pace shooter elements worked well for it. But I thought a lot of the other aspects fell short, not just the ending fiasco (though that was kind of the giant turd on top). I still maintain that if you could combine ME1's main quest, ME2's party sidequests and depth, and ME3's combat, you'd have a pretty stellar ME game.

Re-installed IWD today. It looks like I'm going to have to play the vanilla game. Every time I try to install the patches for both IWD and HoW, it screws up the game. When I go to start a new game, it crashes to desktop each time. The only way I can actually create a new game is if none of the patches are installed.

I'm not sure how well it would work with regards to the main quest; it might end up making the player feel like they have to rush through to make sure that some other group of NPCs doesn't solve all the quests first, so to speak. But I'd be okay in certain instances, like those "bounty boards" that RPGs usually have up around taverns. It could work one of two ways: 1- The "timer" doesn't trigger until you actually accept the bounty, so you don't have to worry about missing out on quests if you don't have time to do any bounty quests at that moment. But as soon as you agree to the bounty, you can't just accept it and let it sit in your "to do" pile for months at a time. If you do, then some other group could very well claim the bounty before you. 2- There's a rotation of bounties available which stay listed on the bounty board for a limited number of days (in-game time), then after that time expires, chances are someone else has already claimed the bounty. To add realism, some of the tougher bounties (perhaps any dragon fighting bounties, for example) remain up for a while because people keep failing to claim the bounty. But the easier ones (find a farmer an egg that a goblin stole and took back to its cave) have a relatively short shelf life before someone else claims it.

I'd like to see some kind of hybrid of BG and PST. BG's "epicness" combined with PST's deeper writing and more fleshed out NPC companions.

Project Eternity's given me a massive IE itch I need to scratch. I'm re-installing IWD, to go along with my current play throughs of PS:T and BG2. It's going to be tough finding enough spare time for the three games at one time.

No wonder that dude had his family heirloom stolen from him and needs me to retrieve it. He's walking around with a big yellow arrow above his head for all the muggers to see.

It's been so long since I've played PS:T I'm forgetting half the stuff. For instance, I'm carrying around a bunch of unidentified items and can't seem to find a merchant who can identify them.

For me, realism matters but only to a point. Do I want duel-wielding greatswords that look like they came right out of some Anime that are the size of an ogre? No. But at the same time, do I want my character to have to eat 3 meals a day and go to the bathroom on a regular basis or die? No. I don't mind when certain things are based on reality: various things in the setting (ie. Kings, religious worship, technology matching certain periods of history of our own, etc.), usage of weapons in a realistic way, that sort of thing. I draw the line when realism turns to tedium.

The quality of BioWare games seems to have started to decline right around the time they hired Alanschu. Coincidence?

I'm not a fan of respec-ing in RPGs. It kind of cheapens the original choices you made by allowing you to alter them at any time (or even just one time) during the game. During character creation, you don't have to think long and hard what kind of character you want to build or which skills to focus on, since you know you can just change them later on. So it kind of takes away from the importance of creating that character.

I think recognition of the choices players make is one of the most sought after features that everyone wants from PE, and one that I believe Obsidian will do their best to implement. It can literally make or break the replayability of a game for me.

Alternating between a BG2 and PST play through. I decided to scrap my Bard (Jester) play through in BG2, and instead focus on finishing my Paladin play through. PST, I'm right at the beginning, having just exited the mortuary.

Surprising. Lucas has kids, does he not? I guess either they didn't want to take over the reigns, or he didn't want them to. Instead they'll just have to settle for his billions. I'm a bit surprised they'd already be announcing a 2015 movie estimate. We'll see. I'm optimistic for no other reason than maybe a new "direction" can spark my interest in the franchise again after the PT and especially the Clone Wars cartoon series have pretty much made me disinterested.

I'm finding it difficult to play an evil character in BG2. It seems most of the "evil" choices boil down to being a jerk or rude in dialogue. Not to mention it seems you miss out on a lot of quests by being a jerk to people you meet.

I'm not sure that DA:O mage/Redcliffe example is a good one for where more randomness to the outcomes would have improved the quest I actually think that quest is a perfect example of how actual consequences for your decision would have improved it more than anything else. As for the topic as a whole, I'd be okay with it in certain situations. For instance, by luck of the roll perhaps sometimes a castle you're trying to siege is fully guarded, and sometimes the reinforcements have been delayed and you'll only have to take on a half-guarded castle. It's a random event that the player had no part in creating, but can either help or hinder the player.

Same. I had no issues with the link using Firefox.

No one ever accused them of being very bright. If they were smarter, they'd be trying to take over a guild.

The one issue I have with this idea is that sometimes you're kind of stuck with a limited selection of weapons early on, so you're sort of forced to increase your ability in those. Then when you come across a better weapon-style later on, there's no point in using it since you're already much better with the other weapon. Just an example of my current BG2 play through. Shortswords are plentiful in Irenicus' dungeon. I don't recall seeing a flail until D'Arnaise Keep's great Flail of the Ages. So until I got a chance to get the Flail for the Ages, my character's proficiency with flails would be zero, while his proficiency with the shortsword would be pretty good by that point. It would sort of make finding the Flail for the Ages irrelevant since I can't really use it with much proficiency anyway. IMO, the scarcity of certain weapon types early on would be one of the bigger reasons I prefer players having the choice where to put skill increase points, rather than it being based on player weapon usage.

I don't necessarily want to see quests tied to the day/night cycle, but I wouldn't mind seeing the random enemies you come across differ between the two. For instance, muggers and cutthroats are out at night and your party has a greater chance of being accosted by them then. During the day, more guards patrol the city and thus the chances of you running into any nefarious individuals is slim.

When do the beta testing stages usually begin? I'll need to know so I can avoid the forums in case any beta testers get any smart ideas about revealing stuff I don't want to know about before I get a chance to play.

It's not so much that I'm having trouble in combat with him, but more the fact I haven't really seen any real strength he brings to my party that makes him useful to the group. Which is a strange predicament seeing as how my character should be central to the group. Right now he's along because he's the PC and has to be there, rather than because he's an asset to the party. I haven't come across any Elven chainmail at this point. I'll have to look more closely at his abilities. If confusing enemies is his only real strength, he's still largely irrelevant in my party because my mages also can cast that. I was hoping he could do something that no other party member could.

So I decided to play as a Bard (Jester, to be exact, for the kicks), mainly because I've never done so before, and a few hours into the game I'm wondering why I chose this class. I really don't see a benefit to it. I can't wear armor because it means my mage spells get disabled, but at the same time my mage spell level is pretty low as to not offset that. So I've got a weird hybrid of a mage/pickpocket guy, who can't open locks or detect traps, and who can't wear armor. Maybe I'm just not very familiar with the class, but I can't see a single thing that's appealing about playing a Bard (Jester).