Sartoris

I would be fine with this system. But I foresee some issues in implementation. Nevertheless, I would like it much better than quest-only.

If you go back and read the 1500 posts on this topic that are all in the threads that got locked.. I mentioned like 5 ways to get around this abuse.. one of them is close to what your saying. Yeah, I'm not surprised. I've heard a lot from people who want Kill XP and next to nothing from people who don't. Do these people actually exist? In the end, as Polanski said, the devs likely are already well enough aware of the pros and cons, I suppose all that's left is to show them our preference while there's still (possibly) a window of opportunity for such a big change to gameplay. Actually, I'm not sure that they could even make such a big change at this point without delaying the game... I've waited 14 years for an actual well done successor to BGII. I'm willing to wait longer if we can make Pillars of Eternity that game. Accept this isn't going to be a BGII successor. It's an infinity engine style game. And last time I checked, BGII isn't the only infinity engine game. Every single IE game had xp gained by killing monsters (as well and lots of other fun stuff), even Torment for crying out loud.

"we have faith that quest xp is balanced and simple. the reason we have faith that the developers will implement balanced and simple is because it requires 0 Faith. it is the balancing system o' xp that requires no faith because it is requiring Zero balancing." So you have faith because... you... don't have faith? Wha...? Do you... do you even read the things you type? Are you responding for any purpose other than to try to say other people are wrong for expressing their preferences? How about I remove the offending word the following way. Your responses seem to suggest you believe that have a lot of faith in the developers will to implement their chosen systems in a way that will lead to you having a fun time with this game. Some of us don't share that optimism, or are at least much more wary of this than you are. Is that all right with you? Did I get rid of the scary word now? And I seriously fail to see how me saying that you believe the developers will implement the quest-only xp system in a way that will cause you to have fun is at all a strawman. In case you need to be educated, from wikipedia: In what way is saying that you think the developers will create a game you enjoy with quest-only xp an incorrect representation of your beliefs? Seriously how? Moreover, I'm not even using that summary of what you are saying to argue with you! I'm not trying to argue with you! At this stage I've simply accepted that you are slavishly devoted to the quest-only xp system and believe that is the best choice. I, and some others, believe differently. And that's ok. Do you understand that Gromnir? I'm not arguing with you. All the things I've wanted to say have been said. At this point I'm just enjoying watching you flail around in your sad attempts to defend a system that you seem to be irrationally attached to.

If you go back and read the 1500 posts on this topic that are all in the threads that got locked.. I mentioned like 5 ways to get around this abuse.. one of them is close to what your saying. Yeah, I'm not surprised. I've heard a lot from people who want Kill XP and next to nothing from people who don't. Do these people actually exist? In the end, as Polanski said, the devs likely are already well enough aware of the pros and cons, I suppose all that's left is to show them our preference while there's still (possibly) a window of opportunity for such a big change to gameplay. Actually, I'm not sure that they could even make such a big change at this point without delaying the game... I've waited 14 years for an actual well done successor to BGII. I'm willing to wait longer if we can make Pillars of Eternity that game.

I'm pretty sure that you don't even try to understand.. I didn't get that from what he is saying.. I think the problem is that I am willing to see your side of the argument.. I totally get and agree with the pluses that no kill-xp is trying to achieve.. my beef is just the method to get there. You and a few others are actually just against the kill-xp system because it seems "archaic" and "dated" 2014 YOLO.. No matter what explanation or half measure I offer.. it's not enough.. inexcusable.. NEVER! Like you just won't allow it to exist even though people in this thread who are against it.. are explaining in their own words that fighting is lackluster because it doesn't feel like it has purpose.. but nobody is allowed to say.. Kill -XP is missing.. no we have to point and type around that but still we say .. "Theses wolves and beetles and lions are boring and I want some meaning from fighting them" 100% agree. Unfortunately, because people are likely going to feel like the combat, or at least some portion of the encounters (the devs can't design perfectly), are not rewarding enough, when they come across those they will just reload to avoid them. To Sawyer and Co.: Please stop trying to make me engage with your content only in the way you want me to. Let me do whatever I want and reward me as best you can. If the reward you give for various playstyles is not perfectly equal, that's unfortunate, but very similar to the games you are seeking to emulate e.i. the IE games. I would much rather play a game that has the same flaws as the IE games than one that has a whole host of new ones implemented in a misguided attempt to eliminate the old ones. Especially since those new systems don't even eliminate the old problems. They just substitute degenerate gameplay with a different kind of degenerate gameplay.

He would just call us an irrational grognards who love degenerative gameplay and hate balance, if he did show up here. Then he would once again declare Baldurs Gate 2 as a terrible game, and that we are idiots for liking it, because Darklands is the best RPG ever. The sad thing is that due to his misguided quest to remove any source of degenerate gameplay from Pillars of Eternity, he's simply introduced it in another form. I can see the strategy guides on GameFAQs now. "Ok so we're on the quest to kill the Ogre, so you can safely sneak by the first and third group of beetles, but we might as well kill the second group because we need the broken crown in the treasure chest from the attached room. You'll get another quest once you kill the Ogre to retrieve it." "But definitely avoid the group of fire elementals on the 2nd floor. The +2 Longsword of Burning isn't worth the likely rest you will need to take between them and the boss. Especially since the +1 Longsword of Might that you have does only 8% less damage..." UUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHHH The inevitable strategy guides for this game are going to focus on which encounters to avoid and why, instead of providing interesting tatical setups for how to experience them.

Here is one of my major concerns with the quest only xp system. It can lead to the player feeling like they should only experience content if there is a quest directly associated with their current activity. I had this thought initially while reading Sensuki's comments about the wolf encounter in this thread. One of the fun aspects of BG and BG2 for me especially on my first playthrough was simply wandering around. Once you started BG2 Chapter 2 you were simply inundated with quests and new maps to travel to. Although it was often a quest that opened up the new map, you as the player were free to explore that content as you wish. This would still be the case with Pillars of Eternity's quest only xp system, with one major drawback. If you are exploring an area simply because you enjoy wandering around to experience the content (heck maybe you are role playing as some Gandalf-like figure that wanders around getting cool nicknames and nearly getting smallfolk killed on adventures) and you run across those wolves in the ruins. You dispatch them, but not without taking some amount of health damage or expending a non-zero amount of consumable resources. If those wolves aren't directly tied to some reward then you as a player have just needed to spend strategic resources (or mental effort dealing with tactics) without equivalent compensation. Maybe you are ok with this, just like some people are ok with playing a character that might receive less xp in BG2 for being diplomatic. If no, then no harm no foul. You move on. However, maybe not. Maybe you feel like the resources you had to expend to deal with the unrewarded fight was not worth it. This worries you because now you feel like you won't be as prepared to face the undoubted encounters you will face when you decide to actually do that quest that brought you here in the first place. You are now worried that by expending resources to deal with the wolves you have essentially "gimped" your party's ability to complete content that will be rewarded. I could go into detail about why this is silly, but I know there are plenty of players that will think this why. Why do I know that? Because that is the same thinking underlying the "degenerate gameplay" that Josh Sawyer hates so much. What is so sadly ironic is that by trying to eliminate the possibilities of degenerate gameplay, the designers, with this quest only xp system, have ensured that a portion of players will participate in it. There is a non-zero number of players who, when faced with the wolf scenario I outlined above, which we already know is in the game, will simply reload and sneak past or never engage the wolves unless they have a quest that requires it. The only way the developers can ensure that kind of gameplay doesn't happen is to make sure each and every encounter is either tied directly to a quest or tied to other rewards e.g. loot (but not xp!) that makes it worthwhile. By trying to eliminate degenerate gameplay by removing combat, skill, or dialogue xp, Obsidian has just insured that a portion of the playerbase will participate in degenerate gameplay by reloading and not experiencing that content unless it is tied to a quest reward. This is bad game design. XP is simply another reward system, similar to loot, or plot, or whatever. If you think you can remove degenerate gameplay by having quest only xp you have fundamentally misunderstood why some gamers play the way they do. Moreover, quest only xp wasn't how the IE games handled this mechanic. So why change it? Considering that the developers laid out their guiding principals for this game as: and Why is there not a very high bar for changing these kind of core mechanics? Wouldn't it just be easier to stick to what is known to work (even if its not perfect) so that the development team can instead commit more resources to producing fun and engaging content?

They cant really do anything, every post the devs would do would only generate rage from one side or another. InXile has no real forum for tides of numenera right now afaik. Which is a good thing cause else it would be a immense "why did you go turn based" s*it storm. You're absolutly right that a response may generate rage on both sides. However, perhaps if the devs said "We will be giving xp for completed quests and skills use, dialogue, and combat because we want players to be rewarded for engaging with content we put in the game in a more intermediate fashion. We realize that this system can be abused by players to seek to manipulate the xp system to extract maximum rewards. However, as Pillars of Eternity is designed to closely implement the IE games, we feel like this choice adhears most closely to that principal." I would wager that would make more sense to a larger number of players given that the Kickstarter described Pillars of Eternity in the following ways: But I definitely understand there would be quite a few players who would be very upset given that Obsidian has strongly hinted that this game would be quest only xp. Plenty of players are very exited for that mechanic too. I'm just not one of them.

I can't support these sentiments strongly enough!

"getting xp is not, in and of itself fun" That's no problem if that is your opinion, but for me it is fun. It is an aspect of the game that I enjoy. I definitely understand that for you, its not. But I enjoy the recognition given to me, in the form of xp, by the accomplishments I make in the game. Before you try to explain to me why I don't actually find this aspect fun or why I'm deluding myself in some way can you please instead try to accept that some people have a different sense of what is fun than you. I understand that this game will reward me for completing quests. I would also enjoy being rewarded for defeating monsters, picking locks, dialogue choices, etc. Different strokes for different folks. "from the prospective of the developer" I fundementally reject the need to tailor all discussion to within only the lanes in the road that you keep trying to establish. Yes I am clear that Obsidian has stated that the game will only provide quest xp. However, I think it is useful to provide feedback that this decision will negativly contribute to my enjoyment of the game. "improve the game in many other unforeseen ways" What if I want to improve the game by having it give combat, skill, and dialogue xp? That is what I want to do. What is so wrong with laying out my preferences? I realize they may not be implemented. So what. I want to provide Obsidian feedback. That to me is what is so toxic about your responses to people in this thread. Your comments center on telling people that combat, skill, and dialogue xp simply will not happen and activly attempt to argue with people who are simply stating their preferences. I don't believe your contributions to this discussion are constructive. Its fine if you want to talk about why you prefer the quest xp system. But please stop trying to tell people their preferences, if different, are somehow invalid. They are well within the designed purpose of this forum to offer those thoughts. Your responses seem to suggest you have a lot of faith in the developers to implement their chosen systems in a way that will lead to you having a fun time with this game. Some of us don't share that optimism, or are at least much more wary of this than you are. It should be completely appropriate to express that concern in this forum and indeed in this thread as the original developer feedback echoed that concern. Please stop trying to tell people their concerns are invalid simply because Obsidian seems to have made particular design choices. Those kind of responses do not contribute to a healthy forumn environment. We should be encouraging the free exchange of feedback, all you appear to be doing is explaining to people why their feedback is wrong or otherwise inconsequencial.

*groan* am trying to be patient. am not sure what you is tying to achieve with what you think is insightful but is clearly misguided quotes. you will be able to sneak and diplomacy your way past many obstacles and achieve success in may quests. the obsidians don't need tally and balance the weight o' the value o' those skills because all successfully completed quests, regardless o' your solution, will achieve equal payoff. am not certain how to make this any more simple or clear. as to helm: "If you guys hate combat XP so much, then why did you back the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate that Obsidian promised us? " we will get plenty o' experience for combat, but it will be exactly the same amount o' experience as we get if we snuck past all the spiders and then tricked the ogre through dialogue. ​we all get to be wieners. yay! sart: "Are you saying that for every playthrough of BG2 you always killed every creature you encountered in every instance, always?" and you complain about strawman? *chuckle* that being said, especial if we were close to leveling, we would be more inclined to search out a mob to kill just for the experience Points and not 'cause the experience o' combat were fun. thanks for helping illustrate that point even if it ain't what you were hoping to reveal. "Hopefully that apocalypse of horrible game design will not come to pass. As it stands I am not convinced. I'm worried." dear lord. you didn't go there, did you? HA! HA! Good Fun! Gromnir, what I did was ask a question of you. I was seeking clarification of your earlier remarks, which you have now provided. I was not making an argument. That is why it was a question. But hey, my bad for taking such a combative tone that it seems like all I want to do is argue. I'm serious. I understand that for you and some others a quest based only xp system seems fun. For me and some others it clearly doesn't seem fun. I've tried to lay out the reasons why I think it is a bad design decision. You've stated why you think its a good one. Time will tell. I can say that this is another area where I wish the developers would have stuck much closer to the IE model that they proposed in the Kickstarter. P.S. And thank you so much for not including your "challenge" on that last question.

So Gromnir I'll try to take you at your word and see where that leads. You say, "if Gromnir is certain that by choosing a certain play style we is gimping ourself out of significant xp or usefulness or whatever, we will be disinclined to play such a build." Are you saying that for every playthrough of BG2 you always killed every creature you encountered in every instance, always? Hence you never role played your character in BG/BG2 as someone who seeks out diplomatic and or stealthy solutions to quests? Or if you did so are you saying that every time you did you always went back and killed the creatures you would have otherwise skipped? This seems.... unlikely at best. Instead I would wager that sometimes you went out of your way to kill stuff, sometimes you didn't. In fact, especially on your first playthrough, I bet you did what felt fun not what metagamed the content. You say, "josh also has observed that while fallout allowed near limitless gameplay builds using special, only a handful ever got widespread use. in spite o' the potential for fun, the reality is that there were only a handful o' builds that were efficacious enough to merit playing." The same can be said of the IE games. Most Wizards stacked Int, Priests Wis, Fighters Str, etc. Did this somehow make these game not fun to play? It doesn't seem like it. BG/BG2 is widely regarded as one of the best rpg's (and in some lists as one of the best overall games) of the last 20 years. Having every build be "viable" is is not way a requirement for a game to be fun. In fact I hold that it actually contributes to the opposite effect. Since every stat does the same thing for every class (Might increases damage, intelligence increases AOE and DOTs, etc) I contend that it actually will make players stick more rigorously to "optimized" builds. The unfortunate thing is that these builds will be the optimal ones for multiple classes. So in the IE games we had a system where there were a small number of optimal builds per class (if you include multi/dual classing there were actually quite a few good but different builds for the same class), to a Pillars of Eternity system where we might see that there are only two optimal builds, one for DPS ranged/heals, one for DPS melee, and one for TANK melee. Hopefully that apocalypse of horrible game design will not come to pass. As it stands I am not convinced. I'm worried. You say, "you still fail to answer our challenge. is a simple truism that obsidian has a goal o' making all builds if not equally powerful, then at least equal viable and hopefully equally fun. so, "provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player." you do not see such a goal as worthy?" I do see the goal as worthy, but the "challenge" you are posing is similar to asking someone to design a internal combustion engine with modern parts that can somehow make a car fly to the moon. Its just not going to happen. Its a silly thing to ask people to try to do, as Azrael Ultima tried to point out with his time xp example. I think you keep offering the challenge in some juvenile attempt to try to say, "I challenge you to do X, but you can't so all your other arguments or discussions are invalid because you didn't meet my (or Sawyer's) challenge." Well I'm sorry, but I'm simply not going to play your game. I will continue to try to tell you why that is a stupid question to ask given that multiple people have expressed their opinion that the challenge is inherently unworkable, false, or simply wouldn't produce fun gameplay.

"how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun?" Oh I don't know. I guess you have a development studio and internal QA testers ya know... do what they do. Seriously why is this a question? Its like asking, how do you decide how many monsters to put in a level in Quake? This is what game designers are paid to do. I think its the least we can expect. Its interesting that you mention that Obsidian has disagreed with people who want kill xp as well as other xp gains in the game. Here is a list of all Obsidian RPGs ever developed: KOTOR II - 2004 - had kill xp NWN2 and expansions - 2006 to 2008 - had kill xp Alpha Protocol - 2010 - had kill xp Fallout: New Vegas - 2010 - had kill xp Dungeon Seige III - 2011 - had kill xp South Park: The Stick of Truth - 2014 - had per battle xp Previously you tried to say that old pnp games didn't award kill xp but only awarded xp for completing tasks. I showed you, although you refused to admit it, that the original D&D and all its offspring are designed to award xp per monster killed. Although as always it is up to the DM how they decide xp gains. Nevertheless, the systems are designed to give xp upon kills. In response you created a strawman argument pretending that what I said what that the systems did not give lump sum xp rewards at a later date. However, this is completely specious non-sequitur as no one in this thread has expressed a problem with characters being given the xp, they would earn per each kill, at the end of a quest. I told you before to get your facts straight if you are going to try to build an arguement on them. I'm calling you out again as it seems to be a recurring crutch for you. If Obsidian disagreed with kill xp as far back as 2002 why did they incorporate kill xp into every game they have produced since then? The better question is will you throw up another strawman to try to answer this or will you be willing to admit that D&D systems are designed to give xp for monster kills (as well as other things) and that Obsidian games until Pillars of Eternity have done so as well? it might be worth noting that all games you mentioned other than ap, which weren't genuine a rpg anyway, is expansions... and you really don't know what is straw man. it did occur to you that expansions might be forcing limitations on the developer o' the expansion seeing as how it ain't obsidian's licence or ip? *eye roll* is not your fault you weren't here for bg3 or fo3, so you didn't get the full arguments from the bis and obsidian developers, but this is one topic where you simple couldn't be more wrong if you tried. josh, in particular, were brutal with the ad hoc proponents. this game has also been in development for more than simple the week the beta has been available and the obsidians no doubt reexamined the quest xp issue during development. so, again, "provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player." still no adequate response. surprised? no. HA! Good Fun! ps 'cause maybe missed, but there seems to be great misunderstanding 'bout xp awards for d&d pnp at the time o' the ie games http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67963-backer-beta-developer-impressions/?p=1494840 Actually I was around (the codex at least) during all the BG3 and Van Buren talk. I'm well aware of Sawyer's visceral hatred of many IE games mechanics. However, I also closely followed the mechanics of released Obsidian games, in which this quest only xp mechanic never emerged. You are very right to point out that Obsidian did not have complete creative control over KOTOR, NWN2, New Vegas, DSIII, or South Park. However, at a minimum I believe did have enough control over NWN2 to enforce quest only xp. Do you know who didn't have creative control though? Josh Sawyer As we all know he is the lead designer of this game and clearly has enforced this particular xp mechanic. It may very well be that no amount of people expressing dissatisfaction with the mechanic now will make an anthill of difference in the end. Because, as you point out pedantically, no one has proposed an alternative xp mechanic that preserves the lead designers misbegotten devotion to the mistakenly worshiped principal of balance. But that is because the entire premise is based on a fallacy that I tried to point out to you. No one is cheating you in a game if you choose to play in a way that would give you somewhat less xp as long as that playstyle is still fun. That playstyle was fun in the IE games. I still play them like that to this day. Once Sawyer got the reigns of complete creative control he chose to implement the systems he prefers not necessarily (that is the key word here because there are people on both sides of this argument) the systems that his players would prefer. If by discussing the mechanics of the beta in the "Backer Beta Discussion" forums I am somehow crossing a line then so be it. If a mod tells me to stop I will. But I am trying desperately to get an opinion on the record post beta release that this system is not what many players want. It may not make a bit of difference in the final game, but if the people that disagree with this design decision don't make their opinions known both before and after the beta release then the playerbase will only have itself to blame when the game is released with this poor xp system. I intend to make sure that Josh knows that this design decision will probably negatively contribute to many peoples enjoyment of this game. Your incessant desire for someone to come up with a system that meets the impossible balance demands placed on it by Josh, combined with the reasonable desire of many of us for it to incorporate xp rewards for combat, a mechanic that probably comprises over 50% of the time spent in the game (and up to 70% or more if it is anything like BG2), is simply inane. Its impossible. Its either quest only xp or quest, skill, combat, exploration, etc xp. The second options worked and continues to work in the IE games. I don't believe quest only will contribute as much lasting enjoyment to this one. Time will tell. At least now there is a record of people telling Josh he was wrong in 2002, wrong at the beginning of development of Pillars of Eternity, wrong during the beta release, and very likely, wrong during and after release of the game as well.

"how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun?" Oh I don't know. I guess you have a development studio and internal QA testers ya know... do what they do. Seriously why is this a question? Its like asking, how do you decide how many monsters to put in a level in Quake? This is what game designers are paid to do. I think its the least we can expect. Its interesting that you mention that Obsidian has disagreed with people who want kill xp as well as other xp gains in the game. Here is a list of all Obsidian RPGs ever developed: KOTOR II - 2004 - had kill xp NWN2 and expansions - 2006 to 2008 - had kill xp Alpha Protocol - 2010 - had kill xp Fallout: New Vegas - 2010 - had kill xp Dungeon Seige III - 2011 - had kill xp South Park: The Stick of Truth - 2014 - had per battle xp Previously you tried to say that old pnp games didn't award kill xp but only awarded xp for completing tasks. I showed you, although you refused to admit it, that the original D&D and all its offspring are designed to award xp per monster killed. Although as always it is up to the DM how they decide xp gains. Nevertheless, the systems are designed to give xp upon kills. In response you created a strawman argument pretending that what I said what that the systems did not give lump sum xp rewards at a later date. However, this is completely specious non-sequitur as no one in this thread has expressed a problem with characters being given the xp, they would earn per each kill, at the end of a quest. I told you before to get your facts straight if you are going to try to build an arguement on them. I'm calling you out again as it seems to be a recurring crutch for you. If Obsidian disagreed with kill xp as far back as 2002 why did they incorporate kill xp into every game they have produced since then? The better question is will you throw up another strawman to try to answer this or will you be willing to admit that D&D systems are designed to give xp for monster kills (as well as other things) and that Obsidian games until Pillars of Eternity have done so as well? If they worked in a d20/D&D game, they have to use xp on kills. Seriously. If they do an expansion pack for a game by another company and it has xp for killing, what are they supposed to do? Sequels (and not spiritual successors) sin of similar stuff to expansion packs. New games can use anything that the devs want. That they don't want xp on killing for PoE means absolutely nothing about what they did/tought in 2010 or 2014 or in the past century. Unless you are Doctor Who or have a time machine built into a DeLorean, past is past. Now rant because I say so (aka feel free to ignore the rest). D&D has evolved quite a bit since its origins. Hell, new D&D even encourages roleplaying in a big way compared to previous editions. Characters are supposed to beat encounters and get experience from them. An encounter can be anything: from killing an annoying kobold bard to avoid a public confrontation between two factions. The means by how the players solve the situation is meaningless per se. The DM just designs the adventure, populates it with proper encounters/rewards and the xp of those encounters can be given any time or at the end. Whatever the DM, and not the rulebook, says. That is what a real cRPG should encourage. It doesn't mean not getting xp from killing stuff, it means not getting it as you are used to. It's abstract enough that you get experience by killing wolves and use that experience to level up pickpocketing. Or gain experience disabling some traps with your rogue class and get enough experience to raise your fighter class. Random encounters in such a system shouldn't exist. Or be special cases that break the rules. But monsters in a quest map, should be part of the xp budget of the quests to solve in there. The beetles and spiders to reach the cave for the farmer's quest? Should be considered. That you deviate exploring and find wolves? That must have been considered too. Not getting xp on kill doesn't mean getting less. If the game is well designed you still get the same no matter what you do. It may require lots of scripts and whatever but far from being impossible. I really don't see what would have prevented them from implementing quest only xp in NWN2. It was their own game and really only shared a name with the first NWN. Likewise, I can't see what would have prevented it in KOTOR II or New Vegas or even DSIII for that matter. Would it have been strange. Of course. The system itself is strange already. And I'll go ahead and point out that Alpha Protocal was a new game. So was South Park. But the real reason I brought up those games was because Gromnir was once again trying to rely on a complete misunderstanding of history to back up points he was making. If there is one thing I can't stand its a person who makes up their own "facts". I don't mind anyone expressing their opinion. I will agree with many above posters that ultimately this entire issue boils down to what peoples preferences are. Mine are strongly on the side of providing xp of all types, kill xp, skill xp, dialogue xp, quest xp, etc.

I can't agree more. Although since I didn't really have a chance to back the game before now I can't really say I've been "sold" anything.