Hassat Hunter

I'm not sure what you expect... cops with batons and wearing yellow shirts with "police" without body armor? Obviously if you send people in a warzone, you don't send them 'naked'... Also, are the agent provacateurs making molotov coctails, and howing stones to throw. And according to CNN (heavily pro-US, anti-Russia) the protesters starting it by attacking the retreating riot police... if such an biased source says that... well...

JOIN HIM!

Oops... yeah, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense like that... *edited*

I know the meaning of RPG is discussionable, but some here suggested entire building sims or RTS here... while they might like that (heck I might even if executed right), I personally don't think it's a good idea to go that far into details. Adding minigames for an AAA+ game, okaaayish (depends on the game), but with such a budget and trying to get a BG-type RPG out amist the modern games, I rather they focus on the main package rather than said diversatories...

I am so anti-romance, I'm not even anti-romance. In the great spiel however I prefer if there's a choice to be made between romance and other fleshing out content, that should be prefered. It's a simply alotment of assets thing, as I said before... Yes, I prefer that, yeah. Maybe not philosphy. But would the mass-murderer trying to convince you he's right and society is wrong not be more interesting than the mass-murderer just telling stories of his kills...? Instead of your team that's completely trustworthy, you don't exactly know who's really your ally, and perhaps none of them are. I think you just like BW-chars more. I wouldn't be able to tell you anything about those chars though, since I haven't really played Fallout: New Vegas yet. Ask me about Alpha Protocol though or KOTOR2, and I can answer you . Heck, they even made a tincan like T3-M4 or Remote interesting. Unlike in KOTOR1 where T3 was... 1m screentime and no content at all.

That's going out you only reach max level doing everything ingame. Instead of allowing some wiggle room and maximum without doing everything (which your system would not allow). So no, objective XP would not completely obsolete the concept of a level cap.

I like my RPG to be an RPG. Not a date similator, not a bad RTS, not a magement sim, not a civilisation sim, not an MMO, not a shooter, not a movie. I know it's much to ask for in this time and age, but please?

Yet, the US and many European nations think that Democracy would be the best way for all those countries to be ruled, and democracy by itself is the best political system ever. Completely glossing over all that you mention, and with horrible failures as a result. I don't disagree it's overly simplified. That was my entire point I was trying to make anyway. That mentality of "democracy is the only way for a country to be ruled, there's nothing better, and there's nothing wrong with it." They do these things called "polls". I think you know what those are right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_European_Constitution_referendum,_2005 Feel free to read up. Also, "constitution." One binding ruleset for all European countries, even if there's a wide difference between them like Germany or Spain. And as shown upholding certain rules already set (max. of spending 3% more than the income of a country) has already wreaked havoc on some, and has been excluded in a wide number of cases. Way to go there. "People voted no due to populism, they had no idea what they were doing" They put it through regardless of their populance, *because these simpletons didn't understand* What are democracy and dictatorship again? "People want the EU trade rather than Russia interference" The government of Ukraine decided not to, despite their populance, *because these simpletons didn't understand* And even though Tagaziel just said that's perfectly fine for an EU to do, those damn Ukrainians are just under dictorship. Point of view and all... That's why Germany is the most powerful and sets most of the rules and pressure, right? Oh yeah, they say that here too, economy is on the rise again, 1% increase in economy. What do you say, in the meanwhile unemployement will rise 5% too, and the inflation will rise more than than the pays, reducing the actual money people can spend? Well, as long as there's some progress, who cares about people, right? It's not like the unemployed cost the state money, which will cause more drastic savings by the government, which will again impact the economy. No, I don't think we're out there despite that "the economy grew!" Cause no-one can hate the EU (of which I am a citizen of btw) but Stalinists, Commies and North-Koreans. That's some Cold War mentiality there man. EDIT: I guess I am just wondering why you're against the Ukrainien government, and then go and say that an EU-decision, which was made in the exact same manner (let's ignore the people) is a good thing. Wouldn't you support the Ukranien government then too? I'm against both obviously... but I'm not the one saying "The EU just did what the hell they wanted anyway, but is not a dictatorship, if you hate the EU you're North-Korean"...

@ Tagaziel; I was merely talking about all countries where the magical tool of democracy fail horribly. In that light, yes, all those countries relate. Do tell me how it voids my call to say democracy ain't everything by giving several examples where it fails... quite horribly. Well? As for the "3rd party is small"; Not here in the Netherlands. As said, the anti-muslim/anti-europe party does pretty well... since most people really start to hate both parties. EDIT: Looked at the most recent polls, and it's predicting they will be the biggest if there were current elections. Such a minority! Also, let's give a demonstration of "EU democracy" for you; * There was a vote for an European constitution, giving away many rights away to the EU. * Citizens voted NO. * Politicans interpretated that as "we have no clue what we're talking about" and decided to hand over the things we voted no for to the EU anyway. * So if I can't call that 'dictatorship', how exactly *am* I supposed to address it? And here I was thinking the biggest economy in the world (US) had almost defaulted recently. And the EU isn't doing that great either. A big economy wont help much if it can't keep itself surviable, let stand other economies...

What? Democracy isn't the best thing ever? SHOCKING. And here all would be better in Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere in the world, if only there was democracy. And then democratic elected officials are forced to resign like Egypt, Ukraine. Afghanistan and Iraq are worse off ever. Democracy really is a holy grail, eh? Anti-Europe/anti-moslim party is #3 largest party in local politics here, currently ranked highest in the polls for a next election. That's a pretty big minority there. And European dictatorship will? It's like fighting one evil to join another. No-one wins. Nor am I really sure the EU would even want Ukraine in it's current state. The economy is fragile as is without adding more and more economically defunct countries to the mix. Oh heck, what am I saying actually they do that just fine. We didn't recently have to bail Italy, Spain, Ireland, Greece. We can do more... :/

I think Flint covered it pretty well in this second-to-last post, but I don't like romances, true. But if the creators can make romances AND good character interaction and storyline, fine. In an OR situation, like this though, were there are not such large funds to do that, and options need to be picked, I definitely prefer them to put their time into fleshing out characters and interruptions during game-world conversations than a completely optional away-from-the-game romance. Though what I have found is in most games with romances (think Mass Effect 2) having romances is *still* an OR situation, and it's inclusion harms the actual main portion of the game, like a missing main plot in ME2. It's acceptable in BG2 since it doesn't feel like the main game is sacrificed for it. Something recent BioWare titles certainly don't mirror. Which is why the "hate" against it. We don't want the main portion of the game sacrificed just to include romances. Because even if the "promancers" (horrible term) are all saying 'it's so easy, it only takes 3 weeks writing, it costs less than creating a small blacksmith'... it DOESN'T. And as soon as the people realise, like with the added stretch goals, there's NOTHING "free" about it, and that it's not something we reject because "we hate free content" but it would actually have a cost to it, one in quality of other content (unless a huge dose of cash is thrown at it. And I mean huge) I hope the point made becomes clearer, and there are no more terms thrown at me like 'you hate romance' while I just want the assets spend in an IMO more productive, and gameimproving way.

Personally don't mind a cap. Look at KOTOR1. Lvl 20 cap, you usually reached it the final planet. All good, right? KOTOR2. No level cap... balance completely gone once you reach higher levels, which was easy with all the bonus XP given around compared to KOTOR1. Actually having the cap would make it much easier to balance the game and mechanics around it, instead of putting it much higher and say 'screw it.'

If the tools were integrated into a professional license of another piece of software (be it UNITY, Maya or what-not) that wont be possible though. They might have the license, the modders probably wont. And I somehow doubt modders would really want "here's the tool, now buy AudioCAD for 2500 euro".

That is it for me... not doing romances allows them to use the time to write them to flesh out characters with other conversations, adding interruptions by them in regular conversations, etc. It's somewhat surprising to me people automatically assume with no romances that interaction is weakened or non-existant, even if OE explicitely stated they put the effort instead in improving those. And that can only get more applause from me...

In conversations; Probably not (party size limitation). "Camp" conversations; Yes. The difference being it's contents changing based on the player, rather than being completely absent for it's potential choice not to romance. So, like I said, I would prefer 13 conversations with great variety in it based on your actions, that all players will be able to initate, than 10 of those and 5 romance conversations which are locked out if not. Would you not?

I got it for 2.50 euro shortly after it got released. During the last winter sale it only got down to 5 euro though. Still, not a lot of money, considering I happily shelled 50 euro for it back in 2005 and don't regret that at all.

Yes, there is. "My name is Colonel Shephard, and I want to bone you": +5 conversations. "My name is Colonel Shephard, and I don't want to bone you": +0 conversations. vs. "My name is Pillars of Eternity, and whatever your preferences are, you get +5 conversations. YOU WIN" BUT, we're not done yet. Since non-romance conversations by OE are horrible, as we all know from playing their previous game. Which is why we all backed PoE (including the person I quote who is convinced OE will give terrible quality conversations.) But, we don't need to bone a character just to see them. And thus, by there very definition, will be better. They might have variations for gender, like a good RPG should. They will vary based on your actions, like a good RPG should. They will be based on your choices you made before and during this conversation, like a good RPG should. But you don't need to go "I LOVE YOU" just to unlock them in their entirety. And then have no variation in them, like a good RPG should. But it will be open for the player. For all their members. No more char X saying nothing since all the lines are for females since he's a romance. You can now talk with him like a bro. And sure, he wont make a sexist comment how he's surprised your boobed character can fight since he's super-macho, but instead give you the "awesome, bro" line, but the rest of his backstory wont be locked unless you take his pants off. I'm all for content that excludes each other (like group A and B who really hate each other and you need to pick sides), so you have different things to do next game. But I rather not have that skim on character interaction, and there's enough variety to make in it by, as stated, use the PC's actions or previous responses, rather than the arbitrary "love-dovy option"... That actually sounds like a BioWare romance or "loyalty" plotline. I have faith Obsidian can make a team without all having daddy issues. If you're not then why make posts going all "if there's no romance, the ONLY alternative is horrible horrible dialogue." I am confused. Why back Obsidian, have no faith in them, and think automatically all the additional free character arch to play with will be of a horribly degenerate quality. Rather than be happy with the rest of us; "Yay, they got more time now to flesh out the characters, write in-conversation teammate responses (rather than all talk in camp and never a reaction in the real gameworld) and all that which make a character get... character! If you cannot follow the logic that "more character interaction in an Obsidian game" is good, and makes sense... I do have to wonder. Why exactly DID you back Project Eternity?

Can't help but see the irony of people fighting and dying to join the EU... while most Europeans in the EU would love to get OUT of the little corrupt ****hole Brussel became. Of course the politicans don't quite view the viewpoint of the voters, which is why every election the current rulers get massive drops in votes... but with all parties pretty much the same, no change will come anyway. Having said that, it's still horrible.

I'm going on a limb here and say you have no idea who you're talking to. "As you remember"... LOL. Simply said; No. I admit hating DA2, so it's chars are not known to me that well. Mordin was pretty funny. So was HK-47. So was Heck. Hell, looks like I remember the funny chars more than the romancable ones. I wonder why... Thank got BioWare didn't decide to make HK-51 (yay for ignoring OE again) romancable. But also a lot less funny or memorable . And butchered their own HK-47 too. Thane, Legion and the DA:O crew is pretty, how do I say it, forgettable? Only Garrus was awesome, in ME1 that is. Once they made him romancable in ME2 (just like Tali) his awesome factor took a deep hit. Need more reasons to hate romance and how it can cheapen a character and it's design/story? While Canderous and Jolee (like the rest of the KOTOR1 crew) had some pretty nice stories, their own personality was kinda, flat, and not really well expended upon. Stories were cool and all, but they didn't really deepen the characters that much, not even Jolee's stories about his wife. No, I am much more interested in characters who DO try to influence you, turn them to their side, view their point of view, rather than just tell story upon story which basically do nothing but be there. KOTOR1's characters, DA:O 's characters, ME characters, they never made me think, they never really questioned me, or tried to influence me. They just tell their stories. To me, I can't think there's anything more interesting to a character than them actively trying to interact with the PC in a meaningful way, put their point up and hold strong to it, rather than simply tell their story and otherwise be the PC's little puppet.

And that day was hopefully yesterday. There's also today... or well, the rest of the week. If you miss *all 7 days* well, I have no hope for you

Finished Arkham Asylum again recently... forgot just *how* much better it was than Arkham City. Will probably play City again too in the not-too-distant future, but this close after AA it can only be more dissapointing than my original run, which was a year or 2 after AA.

I'm gonna say it again... The monetary point.

Get back to me once BioWare makes a character with depth like Kreia. They can't?

You've read no arguments how it can be good. Let's see if you remember reading this; Without *optional* romances, they can use the time and lines to make more conversations for those cutscenes for EVERYONE, allowing them more additional time to flesh out characters in a meaningful way. So instead of NPC X having 10 conversations regular, and 5 romance, (s)he now has 15 conversations to flesh out the character. Then looking at a full party, cross-gender, that means around... 30 *optional* conversations that now can be put to meaningful fleshing out conversations for everyone. What's there not like about THAT?

Oh yeah, that works fine. I would prefer it to have a seperate convo HUD that's just the convo log at the bottom like the IE games, with the exception that all the HUD dissapears this time (in the IE games it was HUD and convo log... IIRC anyway). I was just really liking the idea of the fullscreen with the artwork next to it as displayed in one of the updates, though it's probably too much to ask that for each conversation .