H0RSE

Okay... I tried following the link, but it wouldn't download. I clicked on the "download" button - both places it was on screen - but it just did nothing. (I even tried signing up for Box and installing the software, which appeared to do nothing.) Any ideas? I also couldn't get it to work. I changed the link. It should work now.

Link and preview are in my sig. The file will add over 100 original artwork portraits. No retouched works or edited photos, and all the portraits match in style. It is among one of the best collections of portraits I've come across.

As the title says, where is the Adventurer's Hall? Is it a place? Is it a feature? Is it accessed like a store within a town? Where do you find it and how do you access it? I just want to make some companions.

I posted this in another thread months ago, but figured I could link it here. I resized the portraits from Apostrophe's PaintBG portraits for use in PoE. These are all original works based off the NPC's in the Baldur's Gate games, as well as many PC portraits as well. If anyone is looking for well done original portraits for use in PoE, this will make a great addition. Of course, Aumaua, Orlan, and Godlike portraits are not included. Link is also in my sig http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67198-baldurs-gate-portraits-for-pillars-of-eternity/?p=1525732

observations are not mocks or insults.. "ignorant" and "close-minded" are words with defintions, which fit with the comments in here. Also, notice my demeanor - how I stated "comes off as" instead of "is," unlike many did here when speaking of DA.

I can live without it. I remember the first time I fired up IWD, and discovered that you got to create an entire party, rather than just a player characer, and how thrilled I was. Creating characters in games, especially rpg's, is something I really enjoy, since I get to express my creativy in some way. In this regard, you can keep your banter and your pre-made characters, I'll gladly opt to make up a party of my own design.

Lot's of Dragon Age haters in here... just comes off as ignorant and close-minded. I grew up playing the IE games, and I have been looking forward to playing PoE since it was announced, but I also enjoy the Dragon Age games, but even if I didn't like them, I wouldn't reasult to mocks and insults.

No its not supposed to be anything. At the very least the devs decide what is it "supposed" to be not you. At the most, using the word supposed to makes your whole sentence invalid. It actually is "supposed" to be a certain way... there are features that the game must have in it, since it was promised in the Kickstarter. Details aside, the game is most definitely supposed to feel/play like an old IE game - the devs themselves have stated this numerous times.

Whether it "breaks immersion" or not, is just part of the argument. PoE is supposed to be modeled after the IE games - a successor of sorts, and all those games featured combat xp, and not only did it not kill immersion, it wasn't even detrimental to the gameplay.

it was an exploit of a feature.... Not the point. Someone also made it so you could go hostile and kill everyone in town for xp, but somehow I don't think that was the intent... Yeah, and as of yet, none of the proponents for keeping combat xp out, have been successfully able to demonstrate where grinding existed in the IE games - games that featured combat xp, and the games PoE is basing itself off of.

I resized all the portraits from artastrophe's custom BG portraits to the appropriate sizes for PoE, I don't have beta access so I can't test them, but as long as you put them in the right location, they should work fine. This file will add over 100 portraits, and they are top quality work. Not only do they look great, but the art matches the theme of the game. download link - https://app.box.com/s/hco6qdhvuw4b83hmncxp

It's not really semantics. You are arguing on a technicality at best. We know what the purpose of grinding is, the argument is does/did the IE games present this mechanic to the players, and from your above argument, it appears grinding was there, but only in certain situations and only if players were willing to exploit the game to achieve it.

And many would likely still say they don't. Your example above of "grinding" in BG, is really grasping at straws. Grinding is a mechanic that is present, and often times known, not a mechanic that can maybe possibly present itself if you "game" the game a certain way. Your Shrine cave example isn't an example where BG presents "grindy" mechanics, it's an example where the player exploits the mechanics to make it that way.

It's largely irrelevant, since of all the games you mention, exactly zero of them are IE games or even play like IE games. In addition, he never claimed grinding didn't exist prior to MMO's, he said it didn't enter people's vocabulary, so people like yourself may have been doing it, but it might not have had a name. For all intent and purposes, the term "grinding" didn't really become prevalent until the explosion of MMO's, which is what his point was.

The "realism" argument is dead. You can't use it as a basis as to why you should/shouldn't be ab;e to raise ability scores, since if realism is the argument here, then it could to apply to any element of the game, and we would just be going in circles. The simple answer to whether or not raising abilities score makes sense or not, is dependent on the mechanism of the game. In a game like Diablo 2, where there are a crazy amount of ability points, and items that give bonuses like +200 dex. it makes sense to buff the attributes, but in a DnD based game like the IE games, where aside from racial/gear traits, the max for any attributes is only 18, and something that grants like +3 of anything is remarkable, it makes sense to treat attributes, or the raising of them, like a rare commodity.

Wow, after all these posts, you still don't understand what grinding is... Just because something is "beneficial" in a game, does not make that aspect "grindy." Grinding tends to have certain characteristics (or a combination of) that make it a grind: The content tends to be repeatable. Either the mobs themselves will respwan or the instance, dungeon, whatever can be reset and done over and over. Grinding tends to exist in games where it's intended to exist, and it is a known mechanic whose existence isn't debatable. Grinding tends to not only be a beneficial mechanic, but often times a superior one, at least if your trying to progress in any timely fashion. You can grind out 10 lvl in a game where grinding is an actual thing, way faster than you would get them just progressing through the game normally. Can the same thing be said for IE games? The "benefit," as you say, that comes from grinding combat xp in IE games, is debatable, and that is basis of your entire argument. Grinding is all about efficiency - you don't want a lot of downtime. This helps explain why in games where grinding is known and practiced mechanic, the combat tends to fast-paced and/or frequent, and it also tends to be focused around getting your char a strong as they can possibly get. Killing a group of mobs in a area where they constantly respawn, is grinding. Exploring the entire map of the game and killing everything you see for xp - not so much... this concept applies to other aspects, such as quests and mats as well, where it ties into farming - this isn't the IE games.... Between the diceroll combat, the pace of the games themselves, and the constant resting, grinding only was not intended in the IE games, it isn't even encouraged. You could even argue whether or not it's actually beneficial, since just doing quests would likely net you way more xp. but then again as I already stated, you can grind quests as well. Sure, you could argue that if a player has an intent to kill for xp, that would make it a grind, thus IE games are "grindy," but that's being completely disingenuous. You're taking a term and stripping it of all it's meaning, and trying to shoehorn it into this grey area of argument where it doesn't really fit. The IE games may have had combat xp, but they were nowhere, in any accepted definition of the term, "grindy." What you talk about being grindy, just comes down to the players choice to do so, not an inherent trait/flaw of the game, thus a game can have combat xp, and not promote grinding at the same time, like the IE games did. Those in favor of combat xp, really just want it so combat feels satisfying, not so they can farm xp off of it. Ironically, by removing combat xp, it can actually make combat feel like a grind.

The thing is, when you're grinding them, those "5 million beetles" tend to be focused in a specific area and are respawning, not scattered throughout the entire map of the game... What you keep venting on is "grinding" only in technicality. For all intent and purposes, the usage of the term "grinding," isn't what you keep talking about.

But grind xp was never even the discussion, it was combat xp, so why even bring it up? And completely up to the player... no, it isn't... it may be the most beneficial to do so, but it isn't "balanced" around it. Besides, I already gave a potential solution to the "kill everything" fear you keep proclaiming. I also would like to meet a person that not only killed every single body in an IE game, but also did it with the intent to grind the xp. Just as it would be less efficient for you to not seek out every last quest in the game, so should we not get xp for quests, since quests like kills, can also be grinded? You can argue that the player actually had to do something to get xp from the quest, but that's really not the point. What if trash mobs were a lot more difficult - would xp for kills be adequate then? Maybe they should implement a mechanic that checks that the player has actually read and understood the text and objective(s) of the quest, and has a genuine interest in what unfolds, rather than just simply treating NPC's as a job board, clicking on them and checking "yes" or "no," to help eliminate the "grindyness" of quests... I'm really not..you are making this a bigger deal than it needs to be, largely using "what if's" and worst case scenarios for your argument. "The game grants xp for kills, thus it promotes players seeking out every last living soul and extinguishing them." But of course it does...

You are a lost cause... getting xp for combat is not grinding xp... grinding is a process the players partakes in, with a specific goal in mind. Getting xp for kills is just a mechanic. You can grind kills for xp, just as you can grind quests for xp. It ultimately comes down to the how the mechanics are implemented in the game, (whether or not it's encouraged or practical to grind in the first place) and the what the player decides to do with them. Yeah, by eliminating combat xp, you can effectively remove the ability to grind kills for xp, (however practical or not) but in a combat-centric game, it also works to make one of it's core aspects, utterly boring and pointless, with little to no incentive for players to even want to participate in the first place.

I really don't have the motivation to respond to every point you raised, but I will chime in on the issue of graphics. What you bring up in your post are 2 different elements - graphics and aesthetics. Extra Credits did a good episode on this. Basically, graphics are the technical side and aesthetics are the style. If you're talking about exotic cars, graphics are the engine and all the tech and tweaks under the hood, aesthetics are everything you see and hear, as well as how it "feels" to drive. (well, the "feeling" would also tie into gameplay) Baldur's Gate has an excellent aesthetic and mediocre graphics. PoE looks to have a great aesthetics with okay graphics. Everything you describe below in the quote... ...is virtually all aesthetics, or lack of.

Arcanum was such a cool concept - the setting, the magic meets technology theme, it would be awesome to see an updated game take on something like that.

By that logic, not searching out and completing every single quest available is "leaving money on the table," as well, so what exactly is your point? Are you implying that leaving NPC's and townsfolk alive is "wasted potential" if combat xp is allowed? First of all, so what if it was, and second, how many people play that way? Yep, it does sound like that's what you were implying...they could just assign xp values only to hostiles, or what the devs desiginate as enemies, so if you attack an innocent townsfolk and they turn hostile, they award nothing. If you attack a citizen that was already hostile or turned hostile due to a trigger in quest or something, then xp is awarded. Well first we would need to come to the conclusion that the mechanic is in need of balancing or fixing in the first place...as already stated, IE games have it, and I don't typically hear the arguemtn that combat xp is one of the flaws or mistakes of those games. I haven't played the beta, but from what I've read, they didn't decide against experience grinding, they decided against combat xp in general.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you. I've never grinded xp from combat in IE games, even when fully exploring areas. If I encountered enemies, I fought them, but I never actively went out with the purpose of killing enemies for xp, which is what grinding is, which is why I don't see the combat xp in IE games as "grinding," at least not in the popular usage of the term. That isn't what grinding is... Grinding involves purpose and intent. Simply getting xp for kills is not grinding. Killing with the intent of getting xp (or loot, or mats, etc.) is. Also, grinding tends to exist where other mechanics favor it, like games with lots of mobs, or respawning enemies. It's also typically done solo, which is why the term "grinding" is so synonymous with MMO's, because it works really well in that environment. Where does this happen in IE games? it's a subjective topic. You nor no one else can factually prove that it is an evolutionary step in rpg gaming, just as other's can't prove that it isn't. Mind you, I am using "evolution" as in "improvement" not as in "changing" or "adapting." Besides, I wasn't talking about "grindxp," I was talking about getting xp for combat in general, which is really what the poll was asking. The "grinding" moniker was added later by opponents of the mechanic. If your argument is that moving away from any sort of xp for combat is a game evolution, you better have one hell of a compelling argument, because that mechanic has been staple for rpg video games for so long, and for so many different games, it's practically a rule.

Perhaps, but since PoE is following in the footsteps of the IE games, and the IE games didn't present combat as a"grindy" experience, it's kind of a moot point... Again, a moot point since IE games didn't have it to begin with. Well then you'd have to argue that a non-xp combat system is actually evolving.

But couldn't it be argued that if the game offered only 6 classes, but allowed for a lot of flexibility within those classes, whether through kits or whatever, that it could be as good or better than having more classes in general to choose from? I haven't played the beta, but based on the forums, it appears there's a bunch of fuss going on about the Fighter and Rogue and how they are too inflexible. Apparently Fighter's are designed with a core purpose in mind - holding the line and taking on a more defensive roll. What if I wanted to make a Fighter that specializes in crossbows or dual-wields for a more dps approach? Are these viable or even possible choices in the current game, and if they're not, what if they were? I just built an xbow Fighter in BG2 last night, and so far, he's really fun to play. Will it be practical or even possible to do this in PoE?