Kal Adan

True. However, there is no reason not to do so if people want it. Pillars of Eternity were made against odds, because Kickstarter project showed there is a significant market (or demand) for that kind of game, while the others (mostly big publishers) were saying: "these games didn't die out for no reason" or "this won't sell". That's why I like the idea of a Kickstarter: it helps gauging the market and the idea for game/mechanic, etc.

I wouldn't mind a full voice acting (Vampire the Masquerade: Redemption or Legacy of Kain series gained a lot from it), but it HAS to be GOOD and requires superb dialogues to begin with. For a game like Pillars of Eternity? Too much people to voice them all, so I am willing to settle for partial VO. Not really. As long as DLCs add cosmetic content or add something that wasn't possible for the main game and is fully optional to the main experience there is nothing wrong with asking for a DLC.

I liked KotOR 2's story, but maybe so because I liked the idea of my character being important - a general, playing a major part in war/history - and I stood up for that legacy and choices my character did in the past, actively arguing it was the best course of action both as a character and a player. I suspect if someone didn't sympathize with player character's past actions there could be a disconnect ("I didn't want to do it. I didn't do it. It wasn't me. Don't blame me for that"). There were some personal elements adding to that: like why the Jedi Council stripped you off your powers, etc. I also found story to be fresh/original, when compared to what we usually get in Star Wars universe. I liked Baldur's Gate II for making it personal for the player right from the beginning. Just like you say. My favorite part in the whole game (or at least one of a few) was: The whole thing was very, very personal. And it showed in the dialogues I made throught the game (like the one when you emerge for the Underworld). In Pillars of Eternity I have a problem connecting my condition to someone specific. It all looks like an accident. Basically I am only following the plot line, because there is a risk to end up like the Old Watcher. I am not that much interested in finding out what the secret group is aiming at, while in Planescape: Torment it was interesting to learn about your past, what "you" did or what others hid from you because of "you", or for some other reasons. It won't stop me from winning the game (I am on the GoG version, by the way), but I do agree the main story is somewhat lacking. At least at the moment I am in, where it should draw me more into the game, the plot. Another thing making me less concerned about state of the world is I don't know how the borders go. There is a lot of talk about Readceras, but that's all dry talk, while in The Witchers' I at least read the books or played the previous title, so I got to know the geo-politics to care more about them later on. Same goes for the Mandalorian Wars or the Jedi Civil War in KotORs.

Good publicity, for one.

I am not questioning whether Iron Man is winnable or not (although I think it's winnable. Only it'll take a lot more time - or foreknowledge - to win). I am questioning what results it does produce due to mechanics that are in game. You could apply this to a normal game without Iron Man. You died to an encounter? Load a save and buff yourself (or pre-buff, since that's the name of the thread). All Iron Man does is amplifying the problem, because it's not just "load a save" but "make a new character and sacrifice X minutes/hours/days to reach the spot you died", etc.

You're missing the point. Problem ain't - from my perspective - that it'd be tiresome to pre-buff. Problem is the system does not convince the player (especially the one used to rest-spamming and spell-spamming) to play better in other way than discouraging him (in an annoying way, thus simply annoying him). Good system should either straight up punish the bad play (like Souls' series do: there is no room for mistakes, because punishment for failure is going back to square one) or encourage change. For example: I'd like to play without being able to save/load, but the way the engagements are made it's either them or us. And if it's us, then it's over. It encourages the foreknowledge (because otherwise your journey would end in a bear's pit: there is no way of gauging the difficulty gap between encounters) and using full arsenal of your spells per each encounter (thus, indirectly, rest-spamming; going back and forth between locations to take camping supplies). Just in case. Because otherwise you'll die and all progress will be lost. I find this a huge flaw from the design perspective, because this does opposite to what was expected: I will either do something the designers didn't want me to do or I will not use the mode entirely (beating the purpose of having such mode in the first place).

It's less about them needing to pre-buff and more about them being able to as a rule ("In any true RPG I can do this, so I should be able to do this in this one, or this isn't a true RPG" kind of argument). I am not against pre-buffing as such, but I think the game lacks good system to make it more meaningful than just being tiresome for those who use spells left and right.

It's not an assumption. This system has been made as a reaction to what people did in the past.

I play with them off - I don't want to pick choices by being suggested what kind of responses by stats unlocked for me.

I am talking about an argument pro-pre-buffer sympathist made to prove that no-pre-buffs in PoE are wrong: because in PnP (in DnD setting) the GM couldn't forbid players to pre-buff themselves. Truth is, you don't pre-buff yourself prior to each encounter - or prior opening every single door - because you can't predict or spot all encounters before they happen and if you do pre-buff youselves like that you're going to run out of pre-buffs and end up being in a worse situation overall, because the GM won't allow you to sleep that often. That's the point I am making.

I am not talking about "flawed assumptions". I am talking about combat being balanced under pre-buffing and about people who argument: "Does in PnP [in DnD setting] the GM forbids his players to buff?". To which my answer is: you can't know that combat is going to happen unless you know about it, so can just as well spend all your spells on nothing and fight without them, because a GM will not allow you to rest per each door. Or you'll cast your buffs in combat, like in PoE. In both cases having pre-buffs is flawed in itself. You'd have to come up with different system altogether. People will do it, even though it wouldn't be my problem (as a single-player player). That's exactly why designers decided against pre-buffs.

Balancing game around (pre-)buffing means it's mandatory for anticipated overall experience. It also means you need someone to buff you. I like PoE system over going back to DnD. It doesn't really restrict you (you still can put buffs on yourself, only in combat) and isn't a requirement if you run with different setup than one basing on buffs.

I am not seeing it. I mean, yes, NPCs interject in conversations, but there is no reaction from the other side (another NPC I talk with). It makes it feel fake for me. They "do interact with one another", but I didn't see anything bigger than how Dragon Age: Origins NPCs interacted with one another: just exchanging a couple of lines. I don't have a feeling like party is going to break up, because NPC1 hates NPC2. In fact, companions don't even pressure you to get their quests done, while In Baldur's Gate II they were reminding you of them and even taking action, by leaving your party. That gave them character. Maybe I need to play more? I am much less impressed with the stronghold, even though I liked the Endless Path for tactical challenge it gave me. Other than that I am going to agree game is a solid experience. Not without flaws, but done well enough to make me enjoy playing it while also reminding me of my time spent on other IE games.

I have the same problem. It's most likely a bug that needs to be fixed. That or perhaps I need to finish an expedition for Wenan first...

I am not going to try and convince you. The fact that you try - hard - indicates that you find it cheating. It should be enough of an answer to you. What you do with that is up to you.

Or creeps get in the way of exploration. That's why I kill stuff more often than not. If I avoid killing it's for story reasons.

There is a whole lot of reasons how Old Vailian can end up being a cipher: - Vailian Republics is "one of the two leading nations in animancy research", - Nation has strong mercantile/mercenary background, - Ciphers' abilities are closely related to animancy (study of the souls). I can easily see ciphers being seen as coming into the package with the animancy. Or being used as mercenaries (especially as spies or detectives, although I could imagine one being an assassin or scout too). After all "vailian culture is concerned with practical matter of the world". Mixed up Old Vailia with Vailian Republics. I am going to look into the lore of Old Vailia in game...

I agree with both of your gripes above. It *IS* tedious to have to enter Brighthollow and THEN have to go to the second floor to get to your bedroom to get some rest. I'm willing to not count entering the Stronghold map in the load screen "count", but it is a pain to have to climb to the 2nd floor. I'm wishing that Brighthollow was a ranch style house. As for the SH being about a day's travel from anywhere else in the game, I also agree with this. It's a pain. Like Yenka suggested, it might have been more useful or perhaps less tedious if the player's "stronghold" was a single house in a city or town, like perhaps somewhere in Defiance Bay or Dyrwood. I thought the ability to rest in stronghold is meant for taking on the Endless Path?

Sagani is the weakest link, both in terms of what she can do in combat and in terms of a character.

Ironically the developers presented the engagement system in an example of a doorway... Anyway, I have found that a good way of forcing me to be pro active is when enemies in the back have attacks that go through armor - like fire of drakes or magic - in these few cases where I had to strategically block the doorway to not get overwhelmed enemies. Teleporting foes can also mess up with my back line.

I am not using Cipher. I am using wizard and priest as an example (both practical and theoretical), classes that are highly related to rest mechanic. Firstly, if someone takes his time to resupply a lot then there is a problem somewhere. Secondly, you assume wizard and/or druid require more resting (thus leading to rest-spamming).

Nobody is wasting your time. You're wasting your own time by doing what you do, which is going against the design philosophy instead of rethinking what you're doing and trying to do something else. Only fools keep making same mistakes over and over again, wondering why that doesn't work out. As for lack of challenge. We could measure the challenge by checking how players progress in relation to usage of their camp supplies. Game can be challenging when you have to make choices and decide what to do with the limited supplies and spells you have. Game could be even more challenging if you would spend everything you have and be forced to fight enemies without said spells or abilities just because you didn't put as much thought in your battles as somebody else just to reach the point some other player did. It's a single-player game. Whatever floats your boat is fine, but don't come here saying game is broken only because you want to play against it.

I play on hard and I find it challenging. Maybe so because I had (and probably still have) to learn the system. I guess some areas could use some more exploring with less mobs all over the place though, because it's true you bump into mobs as soon as you go a few feet away from the path.

You are right - rest limit is there to make it tedious for people who use rest a lot without making resting impossible. It's supposed to make people either suffer or start thinking and adapting by using smarter strategy than "I rest a lot and quickly go back to an inn for more supplies ad infinitum". That's the cost you're paying: the cost of your own time by trying to play the game the way it wasn't designed to. It also invalidates your claim, because you're the one trying to do something you're not supposed to and complain about it. You might not like the design, which is fine, but saying it's wrong is wrong in itself, because it's working properly. I disagree for one simple reason: I don't have to see the loading screen as much as you do, because I manage my resources wisely. I think I had been forced to go back for supplies maybe once in all that time I spent in game so far. So imposing YOUR penalty on ME is not IDENTICAL as you claim it to be.

Actually that's what intelligence + some talents are exactly for: to tie more enemies to your fighter. Another way of stopping enemies from attacking party memebers is knockout abilities or abilities that increase deflection on disengagement. If anything I think non-fighters could be a bit more durable, but that's another issue. I find the current rest system to be fine. You don't have to rest after a single combat, because health and stamina are working differently (in a better way), so there is no need for rest-spamming. Maybe it's different on PotD and there you have to use all spells on each single encounter, but I guess that's what you get for playing on the difficulty level that's supposed to be the most punishing.