GhostofAnakin

I wonder how fun the new class is for Borderlands 2. My cousin's already gone back to using his commando. I haven't spoken to him about it, but he tends to play stuff he likes. And if he's already back to his commando not even a day later ...

Perhaps the PC can be revived *if* there's a party member who can perform that spell. But if there's nobody in the party capable of using that spell, the game ends? It could be a compromise between being able to revive the PC no matter what, and not being able to revive the PC at all.

If the OP is going to make a post about this (which I disagree with, by the way), at least present other options for what Obsidian should have made as the $2.8 million stretch goal. It seems kind of lazy to just criticize, but offer no alternatives.

The issue is that, in terms of compromise (different players want different things), if there is to be only one method of saving ... then, while self-discipline isn't something we always have a lot of, all the time, it is definitely a player option to exercise it...whereas no multiple saves etc. creates a distinct lack of option. So while you're not getting what you specifically feel you need, it is, imo, the best way to handle it. The game designers are not responsible for individual's lack of gameplay self-discipline any more than an author is responsible for an individual's inability to not read the last page of the book first. I don't really care about your rationalization. The "best way" is subjective. And you support the one approach that caters to you. Your frustration (15 minute spaced apart saves) is by no means more important than mine. What you want is no more imporant what what I want. What you consider a compromise isn't one, no matter how many times you claim it is. There's more to this than just saving. You keep dancing about the issue by repeating the "just ignore it" mantra (basicly saying, the system is not the problem, you are) I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. I'm not the problem. You are. ... see, I can do this crap too? The difference is, if you get your way, the people who want to save often can NOT play the game the way they want to play it. They're forced to play it the way YOU want to play. Yet if the option to save anytime is present, you can still play the way you want; it just requires a bit of willpower on your behalf. But at least in this situation the OPTION is there for you to play as you like.

Seriously though, playing as Axton the Commando is so much easier than when I was playing Zero the Assassin. That turret is such a life saver, especially when you're swarmed by multiple enemies. I don't know if I'm going to bother going back to my Zero play through after I finish the game as Axton.

I'm all for anything that adds depth to the game, and Monte Carlo's OP suggestions certainly do that. So count me in as liking the broad idea of the thread, even if not every detail outlined.

Those gifs are both hilarious and disturbing all at the same time.

This echoes my thoughts. If PE looks anything like the OP pictures, it'll look really spectacular.

So much for that. I don't have access to the new Borderlands 2 character. Maybe's it's one of the pre-order bonuses? It shows up as costing 800 MS points for me since I didn't pre-order.

This is a really good post. And it brings up a really good point about the fact that implementing a system of being able to save any time allows *all* players options, whether they choose to limit themselves or not is another case, while a system of limited saves removes that option for players who do want to save whenever they'd like.

Downloading some new add on for Borderlands 2. Apparently there's a new character class. My cousin was excited about it when he messaged me.

I think that was just in reference to the original funding goal of $1.1 million, not subsequent stretch goals after the project has already reached its funding level.

As far as your first point goes, there are plenty of games with save points that allow you to "Save and Quit" regardless of where you are. I've seen the mechanic mostly in GBA and DS games. A game I'm currently playing has a save system that's slightly annoying, and one I'm referring to. Borderlands 2 has a "save and quit" option, but in a lot of cases it saves back to the last autosave point, which often times is at the very beginning of a level. So for one example of why it's annoying, there's this one quest called "Save Roland" where you have to make your way through a huge bandit "dungeon". Depending on difficulty/how well your character is made, it could take over an hour to complete the quest from start to finish. What if I only have half an hour to play games? It would have been better if I'd been able to save at any point, instead of having to basically go through an entire hour again, even if I'd made it all the way to the three-quarters mark previously. Again, I think folks who want limited saves only see the "challenging" aspect of it. There's also the time limit (real life spare time) people have for games that makes being able to save a game when you need to save it important, IMO.

I don't think you're understanding (or you're completely ignoring) the points I've made in this thread. It's not necessarily about *no* evil or *no* good choices, period. It's about choices that aren't clearly marked as being more evil or good than other choices. In my idea, you can still play the bad guy. But instead of it being easy for you to decide which option to take, you'd have to think harder about the choice because of the potential consequences down the road. For example, most games have a "good" choice and a "bad" choice, so you'd just have to click on the bad one to make sure your evil character continues his reign of doom. Like in KOTOR, if you were trying for an uber-bad Dark Side character, the game made it easy for you to raise your DS points by virtue of the options available to you, both in quests and in dialogue. There could still be good and evil, and you can still make a super good or a super bad character. But the options shouldn't be so blatantly obvious that it takes one second to click on your choice.

I'd like the level-up rate be a bit more than what we saw in BG, but not so much that it no longer feels like an achievement to gain a level for your character.

I'll just state that I absolutely hate when games have limited save options. It has nothing to do with wanting to save before every fight, but rather everything to do with the fact that, if I have to leave or have to stop playing, I want the ability to save at that point. I don't want to have to have to either play for another half hour to reach a save point or risk having to play through the same area all over again the next time I load the game.

I played it through one time. I don't know, there was just something about it that didn't interest me in multiple play throughs. Maybe it was the lack of polish, or maybe I just didn't like how certain events took place, with no player input in changing them, even though they involved my character.

I can see where you're coming from, I too prefer developer-made companions than making them myself, mostly due to the depth the characters have when they're made by the developer, but I have faith that Obsidian will still put the same amount of time and effort into the companions they're creating, even if the Adventurer's Hall stretch goal is reached and that feature is added.

I really don't think the announcement about the expansion will affect the quality (or quantity in terms of game length) of the core game. I take it as a good thing, because it suggests that Obsidian is not only committed to Project Eternity, but to future games/expansions after it.

The facebook thing is purely advertising (which is a good thing), the Wasteland 2 thing is a reward to those who pledge a high amount and who may also be interested in the Wasteland 2 kickstarter, and the expansion pack ... expands on the game. It's not like they're wasting resources/man time on these things that are going to cause certain features to suffer. They're just added stuff that hopefully will generate even more hype for Project Eternity. So I'm really not seeing the issue here. *shrugs*

Which begs the question, why were you cutting it that close, anyway? Just shut up! That's why.

Played the ME3 multiplayer for the first time in a long time. Had my lobby getting pissed at me because I caused a partial extraction. Wasn't really my fault, entirely. I was running toward the extraction zone with about 3 seconds left when my character got caught on one of those waist-high barriers. So instead of jumping over it or avoiding it, the character ducked down against it and caused me to miss the extraction.

It's good for BioWare financially if it works. But, has it? How many from the CoD crowd have started purchasing BioWare games after they started changing their games to fit a broader audience? (I'm honestly asking, not being sarcastic)

I want to know very little about the story or its characters. Just very basic stuff, perhaps. But nothing that would spoil any moments I have learning about this stuff when I play the game. Mostly, I'd just like to hear stuff about the game mechanics. Stuff that tells me how the game will play, but without the risk of going into spoiler territory.

Get out of my head, Monte. I was thinking about this topic a couple of days ago. I really don't know which I'd prefer. On one hand, I do like control over how my party levels up so I can manage my overall party's strengths (and weaknesses). On the other hand, a NPC leveling up on their own kind of gives them an "independent" aura about them. It makes them seem as though they truly have their own minds, rather than just a lump of clay for me to mold. So ... honestly, I'd be fine with either way because I see the positives for either way.