trulez

And that's how the fight against DRM terrorists will be lost, one concession at a time.

Sounds to me a lot more like Fallout: The Animated Series, instead of Fallout 4: The Game.

It's fun trying out the different races. Meklars aren't too shabby. So far, I've found Silicoids and Elerians to be the most difficult to play well with. The 'Creative' trait (and by extension Psilons) is just way overpowered, making up for any shortcomings, as long as you survive the very beginning of the game. I read once that Creative is only useful for beginners and a non-issue for experienced/good players. Which is funny, whether true or not. I read once that anything less than Uncreative, -50% Growth, Poor Homeworld is for beginners and a non-issue for us experienced/good players. Which is funny, because it's true.

Still looks like pages of excel spreadsheets. Do not want. I'm just going to keep playing my Moo2 and actually enjoy the crown jewel of the series.

Was that he part where you get attacked by multiple armies from different directions at the same time ? Or maybe I should ask if it's the first or the second installment of the series, because the first one became ridiculously hard at some point (I may have rushed the main quest line too much), but the second one is quite manageable. Never actually finished the first King Arthur because I got frustrated by the fact that I got overwhelmed and my autosaves didn't help me rectify the situation because the mistakes I made were in the early parts of the game (namely trying to rush things forward instead of taking my time).

Nah. My opinion > Your opinion.

I prefer there to be no potions at all, of any kind.

Reasons, sure, people have opinions that's not new. But that doesn't change the fact that it does not ADD anything to the game, only takes away the choice of what companions to have at any point. If you want to keep all companions viable, ie. at equal levels at all times, then you must switch them between missions, and that is a metagame forced upon you by bad game mechanic. If you didn't find the need to switch party members it does not mean other people didn't either. So yes, it did exist, and it will if applied to PE. That's like the worst argument ever made, congrats, you won the internet. Let me scratch what I just said, you just went full retard.

Characters not gaining experience while not in the group does not add anything to the game, in fact it only takes away choices. Why would anyone want to even think about changing their group composition if the companions do not gain exp while they're not in the group. The scenario "let me drop this level 20 fighter in order to pick up this level 5 rogue that I didn't take when I first met him" just doesn't happen. And if you would like to keep your companions on par, by switching them around between missions, then it becomes sort of metagame and you're doing it because the mechanics force you to, not because you actually want to switch them around between every mission. So no thanks, bad bad idea.

Player response: "Choose, leave or die, which one is it ?"

I'm fine with the idea of killing off everyone. BUT, the major NPCs (Kings, Knights, Lords, Princesses, etc...) should have formidable retinues and/or bodyguards to make the deed almost impossible. Example: Game of Thrones, you absolutely hate Joffrey, but in order to kill him during your audience you'd need to defeat the Hound and the royal guard, which would be almost impossible task.

Begging for likes, lames thing ever.

I want to play co-op with my friends.

Equip knuckle dusters (same as having "iron fists") and you still wont do ANY damage to armored opponents, your fist simply lacks the power created by the swing of longer weapons. You can't split wood by hitting it with the axe blade alone, you need the shaft to create swing speed.

The game is still being fleshed out, if we voice our discontent loudly enough the monk class just might not be made at all.

Replace the word "chess" in the bolded part with a game of your choice and you'll notice it holds true to every cRPG ever made. You just described what strategy is, and it's not unique to chess. Thank you for making my original point, critical hit/miss is a remnant from PnP and should be forgotten in modern cRPGs. Those memorable moments when you slip and break your neck, or slay that ogre with a sling shot to the eye, they are only memorable because you were in the company of your friends who were enjoying the moment with you. That simply does not translate to single player cRPG where you sit in front of the PC alone, no one is going to enjoy the critical hit/miss with you, which makes it feel very empty and hollow, more of a nuisance really ("I failed AGAIN, how the fu....oh I guess I should reload"). No, it wont. There's nothing heart warming about failing critically when you are playing the game alone, it's just an annoyance. So what you want is a strategy game based on tip toeing around a critical mechanic, which means LESS options (you can't make bold moves if they have chance to fail) and ultimately less strategic gameplay in general. I agree with you that there is still strategy involved in solving the puzzles with critical hit/miss included, it's just not as deep as it could be because you are being forced in to more defensive approach in order to avoid those mishaps which happen not due to your skill, but sheer luck. So yes, playing around criticals is strategy, I'm not denying that. But it's just a very boring and defensive one, which only limits strategic options and doesn't add any.

No.

Yeah, I don't think you got it. Chess is de facto strategy game, and the person replying to my post was trying to imply that a good strategy game should have critical hit/miss incorporated while that is blatantly just not true. Critical hit/miss isn't improving any aspect of strategic gameplay, it's a cop out for poor players who need to get lucky once in a while (either by rolling critical hit, or their enemy rolling critical miss) to level out the playing field. A good strategy game is such where the superior player wins 10/10 times if all other conditions are constant.

I want to hire a band of beggar orphans to carry all my gear around, and if they don't behave I'll whip them.

Eh, knight and bishop, get it ? It's a CHESS reference for gods sake.

Ah, I remember now, my knight critically misses your bishop....oh wait, that never happens.

You can count me in on that.

It's not the same thing. Two classes meant to fill the same role, melee combat, can not be equal. One does the job better. A mace is not the same as sword, one does better against armored target, and the other does better against unarmored target. A pistol is not the same as rifle, one is used for medium range combat and the other for long range combat. And you can't balance a whole class in a way you would a weapon, you can't make monks bad against plates because that would mean your party sucks if it doesn't have fighter, and you can't make fighter bad against unarmored because your party would suck if you don't have monk. A person can carry multiple weapons and switch between them, you can't "carry" multiple extra classes just to cover all things, it makes for bad game play experience and totally limits your party choices. So no, it's not even close to same thing.

So are you arguing that PE would be better off without similar origin stories....or what is the point ?To me it seems like you just want to argue whether DA was a good game or not, and that surely is not what this topic is about. I believe we were meant to discuss whether some aspects of the game were worthy to incorporate into PE, to which I'd say the origin stories should definitely be included, just make them a bit better.