GhostofAnakin

I must do a lot of grinding then. I'm currently at level 12 (about a big kill away from level 13), but some of the sidequests I have available to me are listed as level 8 trivial.

I don't like timed missions where the end result is outright failure if you don't complete the mission within a certain time. IMO, those are just flat out frustrating and not fun. What I do like the idea of is, if a mission is "timed" or urgent, that the longer you take to finish it the more consequences you have to deal with. For instance, a village is under siege and asks for your help. It's "timed" in the sense that, eventually if you leave it for months to get around to the quest, perhaps the entire village is taken over by whoever is attacking it. So then your quest for help becomes a quest to liberate the village from an entrenched enemy. That's the extreme case, but even minor delays could produce consequences like the villagers losing their will to fight at your side the longer you take, because they've had to witness a lot of their friends and neighbors dying. Or they lose their trust in you. Or now you have to contend with some villagers being spies for the enemy because the enemy has had enough time during your dallying to infiltrate the town. So outright timed missions are a big NO for me, but missions where there are consequences if you don't do them right away are fantastic, if implemented well.

It's beyond ridiculous how every time the CBA expires, the two sides can't come to an agreement until after a new work stoppage. At this point, both sides are just being greedy bastards. Meanwhile, the folks who make their living working at the arenas, or whose restaurants/shops around the arenas thrive on the business on game nights, are the ones suffering while the millionaires hop on planes to play in Europe.

That part stood out for me, too. Gamers really are getting more dumb.

I didn't answer my own question when I first posted this, so I'll do it now. I personally thought Baldurs Gate was a bit too limiting, but at the same time it did add that much more importance to when you were able to level up. So I wouldn't be against that sort of thing. Overall, my preference would be for the level cap to match the content. Like with the Star Forge example, the XP/levels didn't match the content. You could reach the highest level before even finishing that section. So I'd like to see the XP and subsequent leveling be in line with how much content is available to the player.

Probably early in the development cycle, but has there been any indication about a level cap? Will it be similar to Baldur's Gate, where at the end of the game you're likely to be around level 6 or 7, or will it allow for a lot more leveling like in Planescape: Torment? For the fans, which do you prefer? A lower level cap where each level up seems like a monumental achievement, or more frequent level ups?

Next up is the $2 million mark for a player house. The one I'm excited about reaching is the $2.2 million mark, which will include a new region, new faction, new companion, and that Monday announcement.

I ended up playing a mission with my cousin's kid. His character was really low level, though, so he was getting killed constantly by the enemies we were facing (he joined my game). I'm guessing it's better for the lower level character to be "host" then.

You big tease.

I might end up doing that. Though my cousin also just recently bought the game, so maybe I'll play with him. Only problem with him is he's a CoD freak, so he plays that 99% of the time he's on. He won't be a "regular" player of BL2.

I agree with the general sentiment of the OP. It would be nice to play an evil character who isn't just basically a bully and an extortionist. In fact, it might make more sense for an evil character to *pay* a NPC money, instead of trying to strong-arm them into giving it to you. For instance, guards are looking for you. An evil character could pay a low ranking guard to be their informant to both keep tabs on what the guards are doing, as well as lie about the PC's whereabouts to the rest of the guards. Unfortunately, in most games that would be deemed the "good" action because it involves not killing the guard or stealing all his money. So I'd like to play an evil character that actually has some brains, rather than just kill, kill, kill all the time just to prove how EVIL! he is.

Straight points buy. I want to make the character however I feel like making him, not rely on chance to decide what character I'm going to roleplay as. If it's random, it almost feels like I have to roleplay according to how the stats happened to come up and build my character based on that, rather than build my character how I want to.

I'm wondering if I should attempt playing MP with strangers. Do people tend to be dinks in this game and run around stealing all the best loot? Also, do you get matched up with players similar to your level, or could I end up being in a game with a Level 50?

IMO, beta access should be reserved for those who donated toward the higher tier stretch goals. Whether that be $65+ or $100+, that's up to Obsidian to come up with. But I don't think just anyone who donated even $5 should be in the beta. It should be one of those bonuses for those who not only donated, but donated a sizable amount.

For starters, I'm assuming Obsidian's going to have various levels of difficulty for one to choose from? If that's a correct assumption, then I'd guess anything other than the easiest level will be somewhat of a challenge if you're not prepared, even against goblins. I'm fine with that, so long as there's one level where horrible players like me can switch it down to in order to not get creamed every fight.

Just under $27,000 to go to reach the $1.8 stretch goal. Hopefully they can reach it/surpass it by the weekend.

I hope that the companions will need a bit of strategy when it comes to who you recruit, or who you keep in your party at a given time. Something as simple as one companion refusing to come along in the group if a certain other companion is in your group (perhaps they belong to warring religious factions). That way the player has to put more thought into it than "oh hey, this one is an archer and this one is a mage, and I need both of those in my group". If they refuse to "party up" with each other, then the PC has to decide a]which to bring along and b]what the rest of the party make up needs to be like.

It's kind of discouraging that threads about romances are generating more interest than threads about companions archetypes/depth of backstory or the technology rampant in the world or any of a dozen items that should be more important than whether or not the PC can sex it up with a pixelated vixen.

Interesting update, especially about the souls and the technology. This game's sounding more and more promising.

It depends entirely on the story. If it's more open world, like a Fallout or something like that, where the main quest isn't necessarily the main focus of the entire game, then continuing after the main quest is finished is fine. But if it's more story driven, then I think the game should end after the story of the main quest is concluded.

I think this could be a good addition to the game, particularly so if there is no level scaling, and thus some encounters could be against enemies that are well above the player's current level.

I hope they'd go with whichever is the cheaper option and spend the available funds on the actual game content.

I'm partial to the BG1 style, but really any of the options are good. And I like random encounters. Adds flavor to the traveling.

I play video games to get away from reality, thank you very much.

It wouldn't be as big an issue if I had other friends who play the game. As it stands, he's the only person I game with who owns Borderlands 2, and was a major reason behind me purchasing it. Maybe I'll try and speed ahead of him in levels, then when he sends me a game invite, I tell him I'm not going to play with him until he gains a higher level!