alanschu

I'm going to guess that there was some sort of "left-side of the brain misinterpreted what the right side of the brain was saying" because yeah... haha. I didn't even notice that myself at first pass.

Your suggestion seemed to be more "cater to the people that don't delve deeply into the character background and so forth, because it'll just be wasted on them and undermines the effort." Isabella doesn't want to be exploited, so I am not sure the comparison works. Then we have to agree to disagree here. Whether or not a story is awesome depends in large part on how it is executed. While I wouldn't say your second story is necessarily "awesome" it is certainly better than your first story. By your account, however, that a character enjoys having sex is fundamentally incapable of being interesting because the fact is, he/she enjoys having sex and the execution of how that is portrayed is irrelevant. It still sucks in your mind. I agree that this is a greater issue than Isabella's specifics.

The idea is more that there's less justification for endless waves of trash combat, and that encounters will (hopefully anyways) be smaller in scale rather than requiring large numbers of foes simply because that's the only way they cause a threat to the player character.

So it's another example of how there's no consensus over what exactly makes up an "infinity engine game." I still expect the gameplay to be similar. It'll just have differences in the actual rules adjudication. I also have certain expectations on the writing, the conversation system, levels of reactivity and choices, and so forth. You're getting upset now because this isn't what your imagination told you you were promised. Which is "welcome to crowd funding." You ARE conforming to a fanboy norm (just not one that is "yay Project Eternity"). You have your head completely in the sand and went into this with absolutely zero flexibility and frankly zero trust in the developer itself. You, in your own words, think that the game will not only have a poorer ruleset, but that it will be buggy and incomplete as well. At this point, I can only conclude that you made some suspect choices for not only contributing to a game that you figure will be buggy and incomplete, but without properly reading the actual kickstarter. I liked the IE games despite the AD&D ruleset. If it wasn't for a friend encouraging me to get past the first few levels of Baldur's Gate, I may have never bothered with picking it back up again. The game was immensely frustrating for me, despite prior experience with AD&D from games like Eye of the Beholder, Dungeon Hack, Pools of Radiance, and Forgotten Realms Unlimited Adventures. The first 3 games I never actually finished, and FRUA I played around with because it was fun to do my own stuff. While I learned the rule system, and understood it, I still preferred games like the Ultima series, and later games like Fallout. I dislike the much more deterministic "all or nothing" system of AD&D's AC rating. While Pathfinder and beyond may improve things (I think NWN2 may be the last d20 CRPG that I touched), something like Fallout was not only more interesting, but also more intuitive (and it was hardly crystal clear). The relationship between Armor Class, Damage Thresholds and Damage Resistances for particular weapon types was something I really liked. So when I had a chance to play BG, when I loaded it up and saw it was AD&D, my first reaction was "Hmmmmmmmmm." It worked better in dungeon crawlers like Eye of the Beholder and Dungeon Hack, and while functional for Baldur's Gate the only real advantage I saw of its presence was that I knew the ruleset. I've also become a greater fan of games that try new and different things. In this regard, while I acknowledge that Sawyer and Co. may come up with something that is poor, they may also come up with something I find equivalent (but different, which is a plus) or even better. d20 at it's core is still a system that is designed around rolling dice, and the convenience/limitations that that provides. I do feel I am still getting the game I was led to believe I would get. It sucks that you don't feel the same way, but as I started this post with, that's just reflective of the idea that what people like about the IE games is NOT consistent across people. PST is my favourite of all the IE games, and it's the one that did more to bend the AD&D rules (at least compared to my other AD&D experiences), while having things like superior writing (which is so good in my opinion it pretty much trumps all deficiencies on its own). As for "telling you to leave" it was more specifically the thumping of one's chest regarding this particular beat. You now know the reality of the situation. You are free to continue to participate in the forums as you wish, but I personally don't see it as productive for anyone if your choice is to continue lamenting the decision to not go with a d20 system. Unless you think you can change their minds (skeptical), or that you don't think the complaint has been received (acknowledged), I'd actually rather you accept the system, and try to be responsive to the system as it exists. You *could* choose to have an open mind about the system. But if your sole reason for contributing to this was because you wanted a CRPG with DnD/d20 rules, you're going to be disappointed and that's likely not going to change. How you choose to deal with your continued disappointment is up to you.

Actually I'm pretty sure you do say that. I don't think Sawyer is going to design Dungeons and Dragons: Ultimate Fixed Edition. I actually (gratefully) expect a deviation from strict adherence to D&D rules. They made a Kickstarter because they wanted the freedom to do their own thing. You obviously disagree and feel burned. What I am curious about, however, is whether or not you plan on continuing to linger around a game forum for a game you think will be a bust just so you can thump your chest regarding this point repeatedly.

Sorry Monte, but that request comes straight from good old ObsBoards! AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEE Purely speculative on my part, but BioWare was sold twice during DAO's development. I often wondered if more money went into it than was comfortable. I have no clue though as I joined the project right on the tail end. I prefer to not give the stuffy Orelsians a chance to taunt at all!

Anyways, my rants aside >.> Yes it regenerated. You could "die" when the entire party fell before. I don't anticipate that changing. I wouldn't expect the general party wipe mechanics to change a whole lot. I could see "injuries" staying at the forefront. Health regen leads to different types of combat encounters. With health regen, the idea of a purely "fluff" combat is effectively a complete waste of time. So more emphasis happens on combat encounters that will at least pose some level of threat to the party. Without health regen, smaller scale combats still become viable and a "simple" combat encounter can still incur some level of cost because a player that gets through it flawlessly is rewarded with better adventuring endurance (no need to spend resources on healing). I don't think one or the other is necessarily superior, but it just means a different type of mechanic and a different emphasis for the combat systems and encounters.

So? None of the characters are real, and if your suggestion is that we should cater MORE to the mostly men that will not pay attention to her backstory nor even finish the game.... You really seem to be giving this impression, however. I, as a gamer, disagree. At which point, who's responsibility is it for not looking deeper? If you want to go full on social justice warrior, how many people have judged us for our geeky hobbies without looking deeper. In high school I loved video games and basketball... I would suspect it's no surprise that the basketball player was the more visible character for my peers. Why is this different "because we're real people" and at what point is it a moment of self-reflection. Even if a character reads as "the one who likes sex," part of me just straight up reverts to: "So what?" As you find my defense "it's a part of her character" weak, I have to admit I find the "she isn't a real person" not particularly compelling either. What you have said to me is that "A woman that likes to, and wants to have sex, is still just the superficial character and accomplishes nothing. Since she's not a real person, " So, how does one add a character that likes to, and wants to have sex? I'm not even thinking for men or for women. Isabella didn't work for you, that's going to happen which . Should we not write her for the people that DO like her character, and did involve her backstory? Again, it comes back to: should we NOT add game content simply because some people may superficially gloss over it? If so, isn't that exactly why we hang out on Obsidian's message boards, because we want them to make games that are not glossed over and explore things that many people couldn't be arsed with?

Peter Moore's comments didn't say "We won this award because of homophobes." What he was addressing with that aspect, however, were the campaigns by anti-gay individuals that were feeding the poll simply because their games had gay characters as something they weren't going to change. So if your reason for voting for EA was because of that, well tough. For instance, you can find people directing traffic for an anti-gay agenda here. Peter's comments can be found here Quick snippet (emphasis mine) See, people see the list and go "you're just making excuses." It IS certainly PR damage control, but what his list is saying is, if this is why you think EA is the Worst Company in America, then we find your complaints invalid. So now ask yourself, do you feel that EA is the Worst Company in America because of anything on that list? Particularly the last one since it's such a heated topic in US Politics at the moment. Things like SimCity's launch are certainly much more valid reasons for a customer to be dissatisfied with EA. Or even policies such as Day One DLC (although I never understood why a gamer that wants a game wouldn't wait until the game + DLC was at a cost that they found acceptable and just paid for it then). If you're voting for EA as the Worst Company in America because you felt their service with a game like SimCity was subpar, THEN FINE. You're welcome to your opinion and are free to voice it however you may like. A lot of people do play free to play games. I can understand if people feel that a game with MTX is too nickle and dimey, or perhaps that the game feels compromised without the MTX. But the mere existence of them? As long as we're still getting games that we want, I couldn't give two hoots about a F2P game that I'm not playing. It's not different than a standard game I'm not playing. If you're voting for EA as the Worst Company in America because you don't like MTX in games? Meh. Don't play them, and don't buy them. Origin? Dislike that our PC games come with Origin? Well, unfortunately (as evidenced by Steam doing so with a not too popular game like Half-Life 2, as well as Counterstrike and the like), it's a good way to promote adoption. There are also huge advantages (as I'm sure Valve acknowledges too) in terms of margins by people adopting and eventually utilizing said platform. Although you can still buy boxed copies of games through Origin as well, if you prefer. It's a different delivery mechanism, and one that helps mitigate a lot of risk. Heck, maybe if the EA as a game publisher haters get lucky, EA will pull a Valve and realize that releasing games isn't actually the best thing for business anymore! Voting EA as Worst Company in America because of a Madden cover? While I haven't seen this, it honestly wouldn't surprise me. If people WERE voting for this reason, I certainly don't consider it meaningful feedback. And finally, voting for EA as Worst Company in America because they're making attempts at being more inclusive in their gaming? If this is what makes you vote for EA, then I (Allan Schumacher) don't care for your reason for voting either. Though on a personal level, I wouldn't have bothered addressing said poll in any capacity. I don't find it particularly scientific, and didn't feel it said anything more that wasn't already being said elsewhere. I do feel, however, that it undermined gaming as a hobby and passion. Though for some people, I think that they prefer it that way because any sort of "concession" for people that like different things is seen as a cost for some people, meaning getting less of what they want. But there are certainly swaths of geek culture that actually prefer their exclusive status. In some cases it almost seems like people feel "because I was picked on mercilessly for my geeky hobby, anyone that isn't also subjected to said treatment is not as pure as I am, and I will in fact pay it forward by often demonstrating the same demeaning behaviour that was perpetrated upon me." (General geek culture rant at this point).

If you're Norse, that's part of the challenges you will have. They have increased penalty for a short reign. Coupled with Gavelkind and it can be tricky for sure.

Agree it's an issue with execution. Though your solution is usually the one that I'm okay with (since it's relatively easy compared to alternatives). But then the cries of "false choice!" will come I actually support allowing gamers to choose defeat (even if they don't realize it) in places where many games end up railroading your character. Although some will still cry about fake choice (not much that can be done for them, however), I do think it makes railroading more palatable. Although I can understand why scenes like that may be cut.

I'd actually be inclined to agree, if my choices were "kill anyone" or "avoid all killing."

I agree with David's recent tumblr that put forth the notion that, for some people, having some of the stuff exist in any capacity is akin to "shoving it down your throat" and that for these people, it's often the case that the only acceptable solution is to not include it at all. Which is quite the dichotomy. There's plenty of people on the BSN that loathe BioWare's attempts to be inclusive for homosexuals (among other things). It's in large part why the forum is so divided and hostile as it is. Isabella is created as a juxtaposition, as requested and created by her very female writer. On the surface she is the stereotype, but that's the point. She is a sexual being *because she wants to be* as opposed to "she has sex with the player character because that's what her reason for existing in the game is." If you're referring to the inadequacy of her clothing offering protection, I always find it interesting that this criticism doesn't often apply to people like Varric (who has decided to leave his entire torso completely undefended), and also fits the caricature notion that the art style has. It's fine to NOT like the art style (you'd hardly be alone) of DA2, but be consistent. As for Aveline (whom I also liked Oerwinde)... if you're referring to the entire cast as "unmotivated slaves" then clearly this isn't simply a case of "insulting depiction of women."

The problem I have always had with "kill anyone" is that the games fail to really do anything meaningful with it or to respond accordingly. I find "you can kill anyone" games that don't respond to it appropriately more "Immersion breaking" (though I have grown to loathe that word...) than games that don't let me kill anyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y&feature=youtu.be

I have heard this position dozens of times. I understand this perspective, and I never said anything of the contrary. I merely brought up examples to point out that the "old school" RPGer argument is irrelevant. "BioWare doesn't care about old school RPGers as evidenced by their lack of race selection in DA2" and "DA2's lack or race option is bothersome because DAO had it" are two different arguments.

They do cost. It's about picking our battles for the type of game that we want to make. There's also degrees of how well work can be parallelized during development. DAO, for instance, established that races aren't just indifferent choices with minimal impact on the game (like Baldur's Gate). In other words, allowing Hawke to be a different race is more than having the character and tech artists make animations and art for different player races, it also adds more work to the writers as well, on top of the programming support to allow the player to choose a race, to allow the writers/level designers to acknowledge that choice. Female does add some of these same things, but not as much, and voice over work creates work for programmers creating a VO pipeline (which already existed from DAO) and the VO/Localization team (which gets extra work added upon it in all cases as well). Ultima is an old school RPG too, without much in the way of race selection for the main protagonist either. Ultima 7 is considered by many (including myself) to be one of the most engaging RPGs ever. Ultima 6 was excellent as well. If you want to be extra scrutinizing, when I was young there also wasn't a distinction between "JRPG" and "CRPG." We just called them "RPGs" and while I spent a good chunk of time playing Ultima, I also spent a good chunk of time playing Final Fantasy games.

The unfortunate thing is I bought CK2 off GamersGate, so I just ended up getting a permanent Steam copy now too.

Hoffstadtler's law means that next week is two months

Engine wise it should certainly be more possible. Eclipse was getting pretty long in the tooth.

I am expecting the game to be absurd. I found the RPS preview to be pretty grounded. A lot of good/promising stuff, while still some work that needs to be done. Although I find it's surprising how much work can get done by the end of the project. I remember thinking to myself "There's no way in hell we're shipping DAO on time..." one week before our certification date. A lot of stuff was broken and still coming together. I think the programmers screamed "More Dakka!" or something, because in 4 days I was like "Okay maybe we will...." hehe.

Yes. It's the law.

The problem is when using abstract references. What is 18 intellect? Why can every race but Orc possibly achieve it?

They just did!

I imagine you play on Nightmare? Because I find people tend to just assume this, while I have been able to make passes through the game with virtually any permutation of the party. Though I do not play on Nightmare.