GhostofAnakin

For me, it's not about my created characters not speaking, period. But it's more about the backstory, and learning about that backstory from a developer character that has a history I'm not aware of (until I talk to them and learn about it). For example, getting to know Cassidy's story and what lead her to New Vegas in the first place added a lot more to my play through than if she was a created character with no interesting story to tell. It's also about extra content. Most games with companions tend to have quests related to their backstory. Whether it be BG2 (I'm currently playing it, so it came to mind) or the newer games like Mass Effect or Fallout: New Vegas, the companions had side quests of their own. Created characters aren't going to have those sidequests and fleshed out history associated with them. That's why I'm the complete opposite of you; I enjoyed the BG/PS:T party member setup much more than the IWD one because of the added stuff it brought to the game.

If my party companions are off doing fighter-for-hire stuff while not in my party, then I'm going to be really upset if when I re-recruit them they still have no more gold in their pocket than when I left them.

I'm going to assume you're *not* using the unofficial baldurdash patch then, as it fixed that and soooooooo much more... Use it! Really! You assume correct. When the PE Kickstarter began, I got an itch to play an IE game again and went with BG2. Re-installed it, but just off the disc with no add-ons or patches.

Do you have Keldorn in your party? That would be one reason IIRC. Edit: Something about one of his items doing "retaliatory" attacks counts as magic use for game purposes. I do have him in my party. That would probably explain it, then. Stupid idiot. He also had to tell that artist that I'd chosen the imitation material instead of the real stuff, causing the guy to run off.

I agree with the OP, if for no other reason than it could actually add replay value. If you've got one companion who has sat around not gaining XP and is really low level, chances are you'll just save him for your next play through rather than XP grind to help him catch up to the rest of your party.

Still playing Baldur's Gate II. I don't know why, but the Cowled Wizards keep popping up and attack me whenever I fight vampires in the Bridge district, even though none of my party members used magic during our battle.

This is how I feel, and why I might not even get around to trying out the Adventurers' Hall. I prefer Developer-made party members with dialogue and backstory over self-made mutes.

What's the keyboard key that you can press that will highlight all items and loot stashes on the current map?

I don't have a specific quest from a previous game in mind, but in general my favorite quests are the ones that end up revealing more information and backstory about a person, place, or thing. The kind of quest where you go into an unknown city, with almost zero prior knowledge of its inhabitants or its history, but during the quest you learn the origins of the city, and learn the dark secrets of the various factions residing there. Similarly, I like quests where you begin with an almost one dimensional character you have to track down, but over the course of the quest you learn a lot about that character and his/her background, motivations, etc., and thus he/she is fleshed out into an interesting character compared to the one you'd first learned about. So basically, quests that flesh out the world as a whole, whether it be more details about a city you're traveling through, or more backstory for an individual you come across.

I never understood why so many people are so concerned with how other people want to play their game. Why does Obsidian have to make sure players don't power game, or don't save any time they want, or don't do a whole host of other "cheap" things? It's a single player game. If someone wants to do that stuff, it isn't Obsidian's job to spend all this time and resources trying to make sure people don't "cheat" at their own game.

Depending on how it was implemented, or whether there would be more variations to choose from, I don't think that's any better than the ending we got.

7 times? Where did you come up with that number? I simply asked if you've finished Alpha Protocol even once.

So you finally got around to finishing Alpha Protocol? Or are you still judging the entire game based off of the first mission in Saudi?

It seems like it's faster to level up in Borderlands than in Borderlands 2. I've only been playing it off and on the last week, but I'm already at level 30 now. In comparison, I was only around level 15 to 20 in BL2 after this much time spent playing it.

While I think PS:T was a deeper game, and had better dialogue/party interaction, I think BG's setting was better. My one complaint about PS:T is I always found the setting kind of ... weird. For me, the game was a masterpiece in spite of the setting, not because of it. So for me, setting-wise, I'd rather they go with a more ... conventional BG-type setting. But dialogue/companion depth-wise, I hope it's PS:T-type. So I guess a combination of the best aspects of those two. As an addition, I'd like to see some of the quests be similar to how the Witcher 2 did them, with sort of more "morally grey" choices to choose between.

My feelings on (hypothetical) Obsidian going with a publisher for the sequel depend entirely on how strict the publisher will be, with regards to timeline for release, hands-off when it comes to design decisions, and proper fund allocation. If Obsidian can find a publisher who won't rush the product, who won't insist on certain features be added (or certain features be removed), and who is willing to give them a good budget to work with, I don't see an issue. The problem is, is there a publisher out there who fits that description?

That's the question everyone's still waiting for a legitimate answer to. I think that's why I make such a big deal about the ME3 ending, whereas I don't really harp on the various issues DA2 had. The DA2 team seemed to either acknowledge their mistakes, or at least explained to the masses why they took directions they took. The ME3 team, specifically Casey Hudson and Mac Walters, seemed to brush away criticism with vague "artistic integrity" and "want to create discussion" statements. In short, DA2's team seems to understand the complaints and seems to be more willing to admit there were issues, whereas the ME3 team still seems to think ME3's ending was spectacular and that fans just don't get it.

This. And this. IMO, the inclusion of food becomes more annoying than fun. I don't think it adds more "realism" to the game any more than making the player required to take regular bathroom breaks does. I've always found these kinds of items just add one more mundane chore you have to slog through, rather than see it as an addition to the realism of the game. If it *is* implemented, hopefully it's either reserved for the highest difficulties, or there's a toggle switch in the options that you can turn this feature on or off.

I'm not really a fan of games punishing players for being good (or evil, for that matter). I just think the game should offer difficult choices, and associated consequences that come along with each choice, to act as a way to make decisions more difficult to make than simply choosing one decision because it yields the best reward. For example, it could come down to a choice between two options, both of which are "good" options. A village is being attacked by raiders, while at the same time one of your companions needs your help because someone from their family was kidnapped. Now, you could choose to help the village with the hopes that the companion's family member will still be okay until you finish with the raiders, or you could show loyalty to your companion above the good of an entire village and hope that you can rescue the family member and still have time to save some of the villagers. Both are "good" choices, but both have consequences if you choose one over the other.

I'm not sure it's the ladies making all the fuss. Unless I'm completely off on the posters' gender, a lot of the posts about the boobplate seemed to come from men. As for the topic, I do agree that in this specific game worrying about how the female characters will look is a bit of a waste of time, since detailed graphics aren't exactly going to be a selling point. The only areas that will be affected are character portraits. If this was a Triple-A title that was going for state of the art graphics, then I could see it being an issue since a character running around in boobplate would be noticeable every single moment of the game. But in an isometric game? I don't know.

I'll state ahead of time that if either aspect is bad, then the game likely won't be fun for me. So assuming that both features are at least "average", then I vote for story. A game's story is what draws me in. In other words, I'd choose a game with a great story and average gameplay over a game with great gameplay and an average story.

This just seems kind of boring. While it could be a decent way to earn money as well as extra XP, it just seems like a mundane way to do so.

I'm curious about this too. It would give a general idea of how much PE could potentially cost to make, and could alleviate any fears about how far the $4 million raised from Kickstarter can be stretched.

I thought the conversation system worked well for a game like Alpha Protocol because it was supposed to be an on-the-edge-of-your-seat spy thriller, where quick thinking and quick words were needed to navigate through interactions with others. But I'm not sure it would work as well in a game like Project Eternity. While decisions are obviously important, I don't think the game will be as geared toward having to make split-second decisions on what to say, and thus, no need for a conversation system that's got a sort of time limit attached to it.

For those Triple-A titles that have $20+ million budgets, how much of that budget goes toward fully voiced dialogue? How much goes toward top-end graphics? How much goes toward advertising spots on prime time television? Those are things that, for the most part, Obsidian won't have to spend the $4 million budget on. So I don't think it's easily comparable situations.