Tigranes

Yes, but a lot of people do it for convenience. I know I do, even though I remember my credit card number by heart so it'd be so easy to retype it - and it's not really defensible behaviour.

That's why you find some neuroscientists and social psychologists suspect voting has a lot more to do with a particular 'look' that is 'presidenty' than anything else - a look that is quite clearly culturally accumulated. I mean, take a guy that looks like Mitt Romney in a suit. If you were casting him in a play, what roles does he 'look right' for in a very stereotypical sense? Corporate manager, politician, banker...that's about it. I still am very sympathetic to Obama in the sense that I see a lot of not-great things done by everybody involved, but some of the Republican whinging trying to basically shut down the government, kill the budget, saying go on you have to shoot us all if you want to get anything done, is the most offensive to me. Perhaps my memories are skewed because I was only in the US for the Obama years, but I don't remember quite such levels from Democrats during the Bush years.

Now, now, everyone. Contrary to popular wisdom, strangers on the Internet are not drooling monkey feces that have somehow developed the ability to type. Not all of them, anyway. Steam benefits from being the big player with the most resources to handle these kinds of issues - though the reputation of their customer service is a bit of 'take what we offer or we will take everything you have and leave you naked on the curb'.

Most likely it will turn out to be too powerful, or too gimmicky. I don't think it's a great idea to begin wtih, and even if it worked well, it's not different enough from normal summons (which, by the way, aren't very exciting) to be worthwhile.

Did... Chomsky basically say "Westerners condemn Charlie Hebdo, apparently don't realise all the terroristy things the West has done"? I... I mean, I can get that from this thread, or something. Saying that the West is just as guilty - and saying only that - is never, ever, going to do more than preach to the choir. For people like me, yeah, I know the West does bad things, I'm in the humanities and I drink lattes. So what exactly should we be doing differently? And if I don't believe the West does any terroristy things... well, you won't persuade me like this, will you?

Why would you play your own life in this game?

Huh, me, what? I love Gromnir like I do Volourn. They're a historic part of the landscape and deserve to be protected from extinction. Besides, it's usually the people who get obsessed with and rail at them who get shown up...

Arcanum had a broken combat, a broken plot / pacing structure, big crests and troughs in quality... but it had a setting nobody else has done in a proper CRPG in a quality way, and it had the most Fallouty writing and quest design other than FO1/2 and F:NV themselves. It's also filled with moments that have rarely been replicated in style or excitement - like the Caladon quest (negotiate with the King for a major economic treaty between two nations, get lobbied by people for various policies, at the same time, maybe assassinate the King for a different faction?), the Siamese twins mystery. It's a unique treasure in the history of CRPGs.

Yeah that's a good point, there are people who only play Bioware games and will judge others games because of their perceived lack of inclusivity So it goes both ways, you are right Yep. I'd also add: we're all speculating, right? None of us are going to do an in depth study or survey. So then it makes sense to go for the most reasonable and likely explanation for the various kinds of 'evidence' we have. Well, I see some people who talk about how sick and tired of Bioware's 'inclusivity'... but on the main, I see a lot more people who simply think things like Bioware gay romances are just badly done. I wouldn't have a problem playing a gay protagonist or whatnot, but I know I wouldn't want to be caught dead playing through DA2's sex scenes in the same way I wouldn't want to be caught listening to Miley Cyrus. And again, I think if a hypothetical racist-sexist-gay-hater really enjoyed a Bioware game, they'd probably play it, even have some good things to say about it, then talk crap about those bits. I mean, once again, which is more likely? That all these people who don't like Bioware games knot themselves into a weird doublethink where they convince themselves these games MUST be terrible and brainwash themselves not to have fun, just because they hate gay people, or they hate Bioware? Or, that most of them just genuinely fail to enjoy these games and think they are bad games - and then, on top, you have some silly people who get uptight about gay romances? Oh, and more generally? Inclusivity for the sake of inclusivity can only be an artificial simulation. I do think games could use less triple-F cups and that we could have more interesting stories that draw on more diverse backgrounds, but I don't think that is ultimately achieved by ticking boxes. I do think Bioware tries and it does some good, but I don't think they really go far enough to make them some kind of shining beacon on the matter. That's not necessarily their fault - that might take more time.

I look at a game like DA2, and I think it is a terrible game with very few redeeming qualities. I look at a game like Mass Effect 1, and I see a game that I could never enjoy but looks generally decent, with some things construable as strengths. Same with KOTOR. And if we want to talk about the Codex, or any other hypothetical group of 'Bio haters', I think you'd find that many of them individually have different opinions. Some of them even seem to write off BG series, while others clearly like Bio games enough to buy and play them. Now if you want to talk details about why I or anyone else might consider any of these games, we can! We can talk about the single player MMO grind combat of DA:I, the quest writing behind DA2, the screensaver combat of KOTOR, the Four MacGuffins of NWN1... obviously, I didn't feel the need to write a book about it in this thread. Doesn't mean you can say "hey, you clearly are a Biohater who has no evidence for his opinion." (There is another assumption running through your response, which is that games which millions of people buy and play could not possibly be terrible. Well, I can see why people would go with that. I don't subscribe to it. We're all capable of enjoying terrible things, whether in the realm of popular culture or in more serious realms of violence, racism, whatever.) Basically my point is simple. Why do some people say harsh things about a game, or a line of games, or a company that makes those games? The most likely answer: they really don't like those games. They really did not enjoy those games, and/or they think the games are objectively terrible. If we want to dispute those judgments, sure, that's why we come to these forums. If we want to sit there and say "oh those people don't count, they just hate Bioware because of what happened 10 years ago" or "oh those people just hate Bio games for no reason", well... I'm sure that's true for some people, but I find that a rather irrational and unreasonable stance.

You see, I think games that are fun are most important, on the whole, to gamers. So if you become biased against Bioware, odds are that's because you really didn't enjoy their games. Sure, after that you can get a lot of confirmation bias and all sorts of messy things, but that's true with everything. It's simply much more reasonable to say that people who rate DA:I low or criticise Bioware are grounded in their disappointment with Bioware games they did not enjoy. Instead of: Hardly, the game is graphically stunning. The waves on the Storm Coast are one of the most amazing visuals I've ever seen in a game. It's not rational to rate it that low. It is clearly guided by some misplaced emotional butthurt about Bioware. And really, that's fine, it's what I expect from RPGCodex, just like I expect the major publications to be way too flattering about it. In reality it's a decent RPG that lacks the imagination of games like Divinity, Shadowrun, and even NEO Scavenger. I'm sorry, but I find these kinds of suggestions more thoughtless than supposed 'bio-haters'. (1) People have different opinions about games. I meant that I think the game as a whole looks like a bad game, not graphics, but anyway, it's ludicrous to argue "this is clearly a good game, so people saying otherwise are just not rational". (2) Clearly, there is a lot of "emotional butthurt" about Bioware. The point is, it's most reasonable to expect that this butthurt came about because people put money and time into Bioware games and were disappointed by them. Otherwise, what's the reason? They kill your dog? What's really 'irrational' is the insistence on attributing crazy irrational reasons to other people's behaviour, when there are more reasonable alternatives. (3) Now, that's not to say there's no bias. Places like the Codex are obviously predisposed against games like DA:I (though funnily enough a lot of them probably played it for hours, as Zoraptor says). But that bias is, again, more likely to do with what kind of games people on the Codex enjoy. It would be valid to say, 'Codex hate of Bioware is silly, I think Bioware games are great'. It's kind of weird to say, 'Codex hate of Bioware is silly, they are crazy people', because then I could just call you a Biodrone. And then, you know, we insult each others' mommas. For example, I was very disappointed by NWN1, further disappointed by KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age 2 - and after numerous attempts to see whether I could enjoy what they come up with, deciding that no, I find their games terrible in many ways. And then checking some gameplay videos of DA:I and deciding that this one also looks terrible. I would love Bioware to make some games that I can enjoy. Actually, I would love anybody to do that, who cares if it's Bioware or John Romero's monkey? What I find ridiculous is sometimes you have an opinion about a game and people say OK, whatever, it's your opinion - but sometimes they say, oh, that's not even an opinion, you aren't even capable of judging this game, it's clearly not a crap game and you just have this weird hatred of Bioware. It just sounds very contrived.

Can't see it being too controversial, I thought D:OS was clearly the best game and then others like WL2 and Dragonfall were pretty good. A good year. Agreed, that is a little disappointing The game looks like crap, that's different from hating Bioware.

Personally I can't stand looking at or listening to them for more than three seconds. But even if you didn't find them offensive to multiple senses, it's not like they know games particularly well compared to anybody else, but you have to give them much more of your time, as well, being in video format. I get RPG news from the Codex (whatever you think about the forum, they do a good job putting the information together), but I've never really seen the need for 'news'. Here or elsewhere, if it's a game I'm going to like, I'll find out sooner or later, and then I'll make up my mind, I don't need 'reviews'.

I've been waiting for this ever since I've seen their "enhanced" editions. Now the entire IE-fan community will see what an inept company Beamdog is when they're not riding on the old glory of BioWare. Their own content is 4th rate fan fiction crap. I wrote that kind of stuff when I was a teen fledgling Dungeon Master, ~25 years ago. Oh wait! Their game will bridge the gap between BG1 and BG2, so they will still be riding on the old glory of BioWare, using characters, storylines, places, monsters, items, everything. Because without that kind of backup, their games would be so bad that the RPGCodex would write a three-act opera about its badness. These people shouldn't be allowed to even touch the sacred ancient content of BioWare. (My RPG content rating system is, narrative-wise: 4th rate fan fiction crap; 3rd rate tie-in novel crap; 2nd rate bestseller crap; 1st rate actual literature crap) Yeah, we will see I guess. I'm pretty much undecided regarding the quality of Beamdog's own additions, but that's because I don't have any experience with them this far. I'm more interested in the trend. Right now, we have Wasteland 2, PoE, Torment:TToN, the list goes on with more indie titles. New IE game being made in 2015. What's going to happen next? Baldur's Gate 3 is pretty much just waiting to happen. It is unclear how I will feel about it since I decided to boycott any and all future FR products when 4th ed FR was released. I heard they fixed a lot of the stupid stuff though. Who knows. Yes, it's wonderful that there seems the slimmest possibility of new D&D games, and that a new IE game of all things is being made. The only pity is that it's being done by a company with a track record of either (1) awful, awful, useless crap that is worse than the original; (2) eh, okay but not really worth paying for. The sad thing is that when you look at some of the modders they've hired since starting... the mods that community made was better than what Beamdog is making now.

TOB was meant to be BG3, but it couldn't happen, sadly. I like it as a nice denouement when one plays through BG1 and BG2. It's far too easy and could have used some more imaginative encounters, though.

Done. My first playthrough stalled when stuck in Europe with a laptop for two months, but turns out Hollywood wasn't so far from the ending. Freud, de Beauvoir, Heidegger and Arendt smash some robots and save the day, Ranger difficulty, no NPCs. In the end it's a decent game, not as fun as D:OS' combat system but enough to keep you going. It's nice that they've made some money from it and have produced a game that doesn't leave most of the backers seething.

There's also people like me that don't bother wasting time on Biogames anymore. There's only so many times you see terribly choreographed sex scenes, simplified combat, and so on before it's not worth your money or your attention.

I disagree that metacritic is a worthwhile guideline. Firstly, the video game journalism institution is a farce and we should not use it just because it is a convenient option and there are no good others. Secondly, metacritic's algorithms have well advertised problems. Thirdly, isn't the purpose of KS games opposed to publisher games to produce the kind of games that are appreciated by and caters to a niche audience, irrespective of whether everybody else considers it diamond or poop? Metacritic would be an absolutely irrelevant measure of this. What would be an interesting debriefing procedure is thoughts from backers themselves about how they thought the developer conducted the project, both in terms of end product and otherwise. KS developing a system where you can check the record of each project creator and user responses to projects would be a good start.

Jesus christ no, use of metacritic scores as a blanket 'Goodness' measure by publishers is one of the terrible things about the industry today where we make games for braindead IGN reviewers' first half hour. Why would you want to contaminate KS games with them? If KS games could get 90 on metacritic they wouldn't need KS. I agree with you in spirit on Elite without knowing the details. Generally speaking KS is neither a pre-order nor an investment, it is a transaction defined as much by good will and ongoing customer developer relationships as much as it is by any farcically minimal 'legal contract' that KS is beholden to. No, that's not romantic mumbo jumbo, that is a full reflection of the reality of KS at the present - arguing that it is just a pre-order, for example, ignores the whole dynamics of how both sides calculate and make decisions about backing, future projects, following up on this project, etc. The world doesn't run on the law alone, and neither does your business - otherwise the EULA would be the final word on everything. It stands to reason that when you make major changes to your game you don't want to be combative against your own backers about it. Basically, if you are right that your game will not change substantially for the worse due to the move, you shouldn't be afraid of giving out refunds, since there shouldn't be too many of them. (See: Torment on TB.) If you are afraid that many people will want refunds on their backing because of your change, maybe that means the change isn't such a good idea, huh? Either way, it is the developer that has to be smarter, not the customer.

Lisbon is a decent place. I love how the pedestrian pathways have been tiled. Today's plans are to sit in this ****ty conference a few more hours, then go find Pidesco's house armed with a giant horse head.

There are few games I can recommend, but it is slowly getting pretty decent. King of Dragon Pass is the classic sim / CYOA / strategy monstrosity that has no real comparison, and is a bloody cool game. Where else do you go on cattle raids, adjudicate blood feuds in the clan, go on heroquests into mystical realms which require you to navigate ritual knowledge, and eventually band clans together? Pixel Dungeon is a nice roguelike, free, with high usability unlike many other roguelikes out there. I'm waiting for Banner Saga and Shadowrun Dragonfall to hit Android, the former already has an iOS version. Emulators are of course fantastic, you can play Monkey Island, Full Throttle, Fire Emblem, etc...

Divinity: Original Sin and WL2 are very nice, fully worth the KS money. EU4 is very solid - Gorth I'm not sure, it's the most user-friendly EU ever? Risen 3 was ok but ultimately the final nail in Piranha Bytes' decline. What else? That might well be it..

I really like this game, even though I'm not able to play it while I'm in Europe. So I'd rather not close the thread, you know? Now let's pretend this page never happened. Generally speaking I like how the lockpick, etc. xp produces asymmetrical level ups, it makes you really long for that little bit extra to get your one character with lockpick into the next level, and also makes the player power progression a little more graduated, which helps ensure you're not 'stuck' underpowered against a given encounter for too long and keeps things rolling.

Chalk on board, bad pop music. The two exhibit pretty similar physical responses, actually.

I've never been the biggest fan of Civ but I enjoyed Call to Power, III and IV for what they were. My problem is that you can't really simulate history in any way (like with Paradox games or even Total War) - but once you treat it as a cute gamey blobber it shows its addictive side. Having gotten Civ 5 for free a while ago and never bothered with it I've been doing multiplayer with a friend, and it's definitely a much easier and much more simple game than its predecessors, and also losing a fair bit of charm. It works well as a casual game because 1 unit per turn and other changes means a lot less sloggy micromanagement, but the AI is fundamentally stupid beyond belief and you realise soon that you might as well be playing by yourself. (I coudl never go above Warlord/Prince in previous versions, now I can play almost the highest difficulty.) My friend got Beyond Earth and enjoys it but yes, it really does look in every way like a Civ V reskin. It has nothing to do with Alpha Centauri, and I'm not sure it's worth getting at all unless you really loved Civ V and want more.