xzar_monty

wih: Those are all plausible explanations, but without conducting really extensive surveys, there's no way you can say any of them are true. For instance, I would personally respond that: 1) None of that's true, except for the combat log scrolling too fast. 2) Not true. How was it abstract? 3) Not true. Incidentally, the story was rather well written, and in good English (this is my area of expertise, so I won't hesitate to make claims). 4) This is true in the sense that if you didn't like PoE, you probably won't even try Deadfire.

Well, what are your solutions? It's even easier to criticize someone else without offering your own solutions. Let's hear em and I hope they are specific enough. Your argument does not work at all. It is entirely reasonable to point out that someone's suggested solution to a problem is clearly too vague (like in this case) or even wrong. Whether you yourself can solve the problem is not relevant. (Someone says: "Let's fly to the moon on a hot-air balloon." Someone else says: "You can't do that, mate." This is a fair point to make, even if the second person cannot say how to fly to the moon.) As for my solutions: there aren't any. I don't even think there is a problem.

nouser: Your suggestions are far too vague to have any meaning. "Better marketing." Sure, but what do you mean by that? Along your line of thinking, here's how we're going to achieve world peace: get all the world leaders together and have them agree on all important questions. Wasn't that easy? Incidentally, if you want to learn to play the flute, here's how to do it: you blow into the hole at the far end and then move your fingers along the holes along its length. Dang, that's easy! I'm not trying to be cruel, but being as vague as that doesn't really help anyone. As for "explaining" the success of one game versus another, you cannot do that. There's just no way. Too many people buying or not buying a game for too many different reasons.

I haven't noticed any out-and-out bugs/errors in references to my imported save, but every once in a while I get a somewhat fishy feeling that perhaps everything isn't quite accurate. Your case seems more obviously erroneous than that, from what you're saying. So yes, it's probably a bug. I must say that for me, Pallegina worked just fine: I never even spoke to her in PoE, and we were total strangers in Deadfire.

Yes, if rumors are to be believed, we may never see the end of the Eothas/Gods Pantheon story (honestly, no major loss there). But it seems like such a waste for the CRPG genre to die again after coming this far. Personally, I'm hoping they'll use the systems they've developed for a fresh CRPG game/story*. Rumors are not to be believed. So that's that. I'm not saying I know what's going to happen, obviously, but given what's been going on recently in terms of sales, I can't see PoE3 happening.

The only reason I've found for swapping grimoires is if you get a really good spell that only exists in that particular grimoire and nowhere else. And there are maybe... two of these?

Anyone realistically believe there's going to be a PoE3? In my view, no chance, given the sales of Deadfire.

You can throw random ideas around as much as you like, but -- like -- what's the point? I'm sure everybody would prefer there to be more of everything, but have you heard of realism in terms of developer resources, deadlines and so on?

Wormerine: You're onto something quite relevant there. I am prepared to submit the thesis that it is essentially impossible to create a character or choose options that make your life in the game significantly harder than some other choices would have made. And that's a definite drawback. And yes, you can always pick all the extra challenges etc., and while I agree with that, that's not a good way to explain away the fact that there's something fundamentally a bit awry with the game, in terms of what it requires of you.

DiabloStorm: Personally, I like the fact that you can make "bad" choices, i.e. get duplicate spells from both learning a spell and then getting a grimoire with that in it, too. I believe that's called less than ideal luck. It happens, in life, quite often, and in table-top RPG it's a given, too. It adds spice to the game. Yes, you can check everything on the net, find out where the grimoires are and plan your way in such a manner that you'll never make unfortunate choices. But where's the fun, then? Also, as pointed out, respeccing is not particularly expensive.

Wow, I'm just reading in utter amazement at some of the ways this game is being played. ***NO*** criticism in this, just sheer amazement.

I don't know, but why would you want to do that? I mean, if you're playing in a way that makes her want to leave, why would you want to force her to stay? There are other options, in terms of NPCs. You're likely to create a fairly strong sense of contradiction in your game if you force her in.

Ah, right -- you were talking about solo boarding fights in particular. Thanks for that, and you're probably quite right, although I have never tried soloing anything.

You should generally avoid boarding fights because they make no sense - unless you like fights with no special outcome (items or achievements for example) - just for the sake of fighting. Why do you say they make no sense? I'm not questioning you, I am simply curious to know where you're coming from, i.e. I'd like to understand your thinking. Is there a difference, for instance, between a boarding fight and let's say a fight against five skeletons in the undercity? As for achievements: if they could be permanently disabled (who knows, maybe they can), I would do that straight away. Of the recent developments in computer gaming, achievements are the most superfluous: they add nothing to the game, they only serve as a (fortunately minor) distraction, in the sense that every once in a while I receive a message concerning an achievement I honestly couldn't care less about.

Well, that is play-style dependent, obviously. One could arm a wizard with a bow and ignore his casting completely. On PoTD. Solo. I guess... Yet, if one does the buffing routine, – the script is a godsend. The same goes for the priest (and if there is no need for the priest buffs, there simply is no need for a priest in the party). Concerning the second half of your post: I don't doubt that, and given that I no longer have anything to contribute to this thread (given my playing style), I should probably shut up. But concerning the first half of your post: Very much so, yes. I find it quite interesting that it's entirely possible to play a spell-casting-dependent wizard without actually ever having to cast any buffs, i.e. simply focusing on the offensive, either in the damaging or in the incapacitating sense. Whilst not wanting to start a fight, games like BG2 would hardly give you that option, at least on higher difficulties. (Again: not complaining. I just find it curious.)

Given the success of the word "ameliorate" in this thread, may I point out that better wall placement would allow us to have a nicely "murated" defense? The latter word has apparently been used in print maybe once since the 18th century.

Franknstein: Here's an interesting fact. I've never once self-buffed a wizard in this game, nor in the previous one. Despite playing on a high difficulty, there is simply no need.

I would have to agree that both in PoE and Deadfire, the DLCs appear to be written better than the main campaign. Which is a bit strange.

It's possible, but I doubt it. I checked the AI for a little bit very early on in the game (like, before going to Port Maje), decided it doesn't seem to work well enough and ditched it completely after that.

Stop using AI altogether and give the commands yourself. This is likely to be the only solution, and even if there's an AI solution, this is still a lot better.

You have just described why pledging on a project of this scale -- with this amount of variables and possible pledgers, and in a wildly fluctuating industry -- is not a good idea. I understand the willingness to do so and the desire to be able to play more games in this genre, but still, it just isn't a good idea. (Please do not mistake this for an opinion against generosity. Generosity is not the question here, this is strictly business.)

Repetition is a very difficult problem and a blemish on many a book. In David Lodge's hilarious and highly recommended Small World, an author is informed that two nouns he uses particularly often are "hand" and "breast", "usually one upon the other". It's pure gold, the book, despite its technological obsolescence (i.e. faxes etc.)

Torkar at lvl 5? Yeah, right. That's one tough fight, I wouldn't dream of even trying at lvl 5. I wonder if someone's actually managed it then.

I wouldn't describe the Deadfire companion quests that bluntly, but I would agree that the sidekicks seem to be an almost complete waste of time. Difficult to see why they're there. There's the promise of something, which is very good, but then there's actually very little, which kind of makes the disappointment bigger.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Not necessarily, although it has to be said that I haven't been able to get into Lovecraft. As for the rest of your argument, it's quite well-phrased and I tend to agree. As I said, I don't find this particular example bad, but it is approaching dangerous territory. I suppose we'd all agree that the fantastical nature of games like these rather calls for some evocative verbosity. I mean, an Ernesty "I went to the Deadfire. The Deadfire was there" wouldn't really create a proper atmosphere.