Blarghagh

Some swingers and open marriages are going to have a good time.

I'm having trouble reconciling those arguments with Skyrim coming to the switch. Can you explain? What's your reasoning scope and size wise as to why Skyrim works but Tyranny doesn't? Maybe I'm overestimating Skyrim but I remember it being fairly huge and graphically intensive.

I agree, and it's that angle I found interesting. He was the protagonist, but he wasn't the hero. It was almost like an art-house character film, until they suddenly decided to add explosions and make him the hero after all. Like, why? @Hiro:

The in-game bestiary said Xuarips cannot speak iirc. Either way I don't actually care, I was just continuing the politically tinged ridicule of Xaurip romance that came before me.

Well it was established that Xaurips can't talk. They can't consent.

Passengers? Really? I'm surprised because I thought that was half a good movie that suddenly gets afraid the audience has ADHD and drops its story entirely to get cliche and start blowing **** up. I was halfway expecting a giant mechanical spider by the end.

Honestly, I normally like Chris' writing a lot but I didn't like Durance and GM at all. They felt very gamey, like conversation puzzles to win with time limits and such, and Durance specifically felt like he was more of a exposition dump with characterization than an NPC. Not saying that's his fault, considering his claim they were extremely toned down and altered.

Ain't that the truth. If you kickstarted it, and a promised feature turned out to be **** and ruins the game, what do you do? People already paid for that feature.

The guy wasn't lying when he gave it to and said "it doesn't look like much, but it's great quality"

I don't mean to be a nag, but judging from the description I think the term you're looking for is ceiling. You can stack enchantments until it hits the ceiling, not until it's "sealed". Don't have a problem with your arguments though, although I guess it's kind of boring if you keep the same stuff all the time. Is that a big enough problem to implement such a ceiling?

Snark aside, I know this guy's a troll but personal attacks are against the forum guidelines. Let's be the better people here.

Can you please, please, stop misrepresenting what was said regarding UI. At no point has Obsidian said "the reason we've decided to run with five character parties is because the UI won't allow it", what they actually said (in response to a question about modding the game to allow six character parties) was "it should be possible to do, but it will be tricky because of the UI". This is not the same, and I've pointed out to you before that it's not the same. Will we be able to mod the party size from 5 to 6 characters if we don't care about balance issues? JS: No. The UI is really designed around that. Well, I mean—I can't say for sure, who knows what you can do with modding. I wouldn't say that it's impossible to do almost anything. Will it work well? I couldn't tell you. AD: It wasn't easy to mod the first game at all other than changing portraits and sound files. JS: Modding a lot of stuff will be easier in Pillars 2. Modding the party size from 5 to 6...certainly possible, if you want to do that that's cool. I don't know how the UI is going to react to that and everything because things are spaced out for increased legibility for 5 characters, but there you go. Now can stop, stop trying to find faults of others so that you feel that you are intimidating people or silencing people to stop preferring 6 party characters? i don't see any point in continue any argument because i don't give a damn about your reasoning or whatsoever. if 5 party characters or less doesn't matter to you, as i said stop replying if it doesn't concern you. the reason i'm posting because 6 party characters is a big deal for me and so i'm only requesting Obsidian to perhaps allow an option to unlock 6 party characters in the options. no need modding whatsoever. No offense, but I think you're misreading what Josh is saying. The question he's answering is about the possibility modding a 6th member back in, not about why they moved from 5 to 6.

C- for effort.

The reasoning given is that the waking God nom-nommed your soul leaving you permanently level drained.

As someone who studied at a game school, I can agree with Tig that going to a game school isn't a great idea.

Didn't Josh say in a QA that the power of Eothas restored the statue?

That may have been a factor. Multiclassing gives your party access to EVEN more abilities and your encounters need to account for everything a party can throw at while still working with all the problems I mentioned before. Less characters means less abilities on the field. I don't think it's THE reason but it definitely affects it. Sorry if I get ninja'd or repeat stuff or make lots if typos, I type extremely slowly on my phone.

When they don't enjoy their work yes. People who are genuinely enthusiastic about what they do don't have this, in fact they often suffer from the opposite problem. No, he's absolutely right. No conspiracy about it. This simplifies the amount of work hours and effort to make a good encounter. Since dev time and money are limited, the easier you make it to create a good encounter the more good encounters you can make. That is exactly the call someone passionate about making games would make. Like I explained to Lanyon, there's a host of problems (readability, pacing, screen real-estate, ability pool and micromanagement) which made it hard to balance a good encounter with 6 in PoE leading to more trash, visual bloat, lack of clarity etc. - after all, an interesting encounter needs to account for everything gour party can throw at it. Moving to 5 mitigates these problems, making it easier to design a good encounter in PoE 2. You have a budget for encounters (time and money): The less budget you use per single encounter means the more encounters you make. Also, what makes you think passionate people don't seek efficiency? Why would a painter seek to get better at painting if not to make better paintings more quickly? I'm a 3D artist by training, 90% of what I do is to accomplish a goal more easily.

Carrie Patel wrote my favourite bits and LLaney drew them, so I'm happy.

I don't think they're "copying" more from IWD and PS:T by choice so much as Obsidian just consists of more old Black Isle devs who worked on IWD and PS:T. The same design styles and philosophies come into the forefront more. I do agree, though. I think all IE games have strengths and flaws and BG2 is no exception, but I'm hoping to see more aspects of BG2 in PoE2. Specifically the amount of companion interaction and interjection, the massive scope, and variety of different and exotic locales, (side)quests, encounters and monsters. Firkraag, the Sahuagin city, the Unseeing Eye and the Planar Sphere may have had diddly to do with the plot but they were damn awesome.

Grow real hair?

My moderatorly appendages don't reach into this particular subforum but I've passed the request on.

Cartoon night last night had Moana and Storks. Moana was good but pretty by the numbers, with the only standout moment being a random encounter with a giant crab/lobster thing that sang a Bowie-esque song about bling. Storks was only funny in a "what the hell is wrong with these filmmakers" kind of way. A massive pack of wolves acting like a transformer and turning into suspension bridges and submarines was honestly not something I ever expected to see.

But Irenicus is such a pain in the ass if you don't have Keldorn + Carsomyr to one shot him for you.

I don't think you quite understand the definition of the word 'nostalgia'. According to OED, nostalgia is defined as "a sentinmental longing or wistful affection for a period of the past". So yes, actually, nostalgia does disappear if you touch something again later and it's still everything you liked about it originally. Nostalgia would be if someone were to harp on about the merits of BG2 compared to PoE without ever having played BG2 again since about 2005 or something. Nostalgia does not apply to anyone that has played the game nearly once a year, every year, since its release, because there has been no time lapse required to develop a longing or wistfulness for "a period of the past". As for 'convenient handwaving', you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of... except in the opposite direction. You say I'm conveniently handwaving everything you said regarding the difference between tabletop and game design, and yet you are conveniently handwaving what I said about their similarities. However, I'm going to 'conveniently handwave' most of the rest of your reply (i.e. "BG1 and 2 actually had way more boring trash than PoE") because I simply flat out disagree. And you may say that my arguments don't prove quality, but your arguments don't refute it, either. You say a bunch of my arguments 'pander to the lowest common denominator' and then list a bunch of things that only excel or are noteworthy about a single aspect of the many I listed with regard to BG2/IE, wherein the reality is that the quality is evident in the fact that it hit ALL those aspects on the head. And yes, I do know what opinions are, and everyone's entitled to them, including me. And IMHO, Obsidian is taking PoE2 down a path that diverges too far from the 'spiritual predecessor' that the franchise was supposed to honour. We could keep arguing forever. - About nostalgia: That sentimental and wishful longing isn't removed by playing because the game isn't what you're longing for, the period of your past (as per your definition) in which you played it is. The game is only the conduit and it strengthens nostalgia. It's the whole "it makes me feel like a kid again" thing. - Or handwaving: I handwaved NONE of your points about the similarities between tabletop and video games because you made none other than "you could make encounter design work" which I've adressed in detail. - Or why BG 2's popularity does or doesn't show quality. I specifically pointed out myself that I wasn't trying to prove BG 2 was bad, so you saying I didn't doesn't really change anything. Again, I like BG 2 just fine, just that popularity isn't the same as quality. Neither your or my arguments about BG 2's popularity say anything about BG 2's quality. But all of that is missing the point. Let's just assume you won those arguments if it makes you feel better, they're still of no consequence to what we're actually talking about. What interests me is that you even take the time to say you're handwaving my opinion about BG 2 having lots of filler, yet you continue to completely ignore and don't even mention the parts that are actually about party size! Again, you're totally free to argue why a party of 6 is better but as of yet, you STILL haven't done that. Your points have been that the devs of PoE could have made it work with 6 because it worked for BG 2. Again, because you seem to keep missing it, but I've conceded this already several times. But again, those arguments only claim that they could make it work, not why they should. Yes, again, it worked completely fine in BG 2. I've conceded this. But again, PoE 2 is not BG 2. The differences between BG 2 and PoE, especially the ability and character progression design, require a different approach. So again, as long as those things are different then what worked for BG 2 is not neccesarily going to work the same way for PoE 2. And AGAIN, yes, it totally could be possible for them to work hard on their encounter design and work hard on fixing all the other problems PoE currently has, which made them have to resort to workarounds such as padding several encounters with trash, to make a team of 6 work. Those other problems such as pacing, visual bloat, readability, screen-real estate, engine limitations and pathing that currently make 6 not the ideal party size for PoE 2. But again, as of right now, because of time and budget, it's more beneficial and economical for PoE 2 not to do so because moving to a team of 5 and adding subclasses already mitigates or removes those problems while still allowing for the same or more strategic depth and player choices in PoE 2 as they had in PoE 1. There's no downside, This allows them to use their time and budget to make a bigger game with more content instead of wasting time hammering away at everything to MAKE 6 work. You seem to interpret this as an attack upon BG 2, but it's not. A party of 6 not being the right design decision for PoE 2 doesn't mean it wasn't the right party size for BG 2. 5 being the right decision for PoE 2 doesn't mean BG 2 was bad for having 6. Okay, you think it moves too far away from being a spiritual successor. That's perfectly fine. I'm not sure why team size is that important to the IE games, but if you think so, that's fine. But I'm going to heavily disagree with you that "it worked for those games so it's how it's supposed to work, it doesn't feel like the IE games with 5" is a good enough reason to not make a simple design decision that looks like it will ultimately be beneficial for this game.