SonicMage117

I actually liked it as well. It was refreshing.

Heck yes! It was the first franchise that made me fall in love with gaming as a kid - even when I played a few games befoee that, but now the games are just okay at best in my opinion. I have hope it can be restored to its proper glory though.

Sonic The Hedgehog... there's been a couple isometric Sonic games before but they were terrible. I would love for Obsidian to have a try at it. The world of Sonic has intrigued me since I was a kid.

I have Mass Effect 2 and have yet to play it lol Never played a Mass Effect game before. Too many rpg's, too little time I guess.

Actually it's not a twin stick shooter at all. It's a fast-paced arcade game with strategic combat. I should tell you off the bat that it's not by any means an easy game and was developed with hardcore 90's gamers in mind. MOST IMPORTANTLY: The control set-up was made for keyboard and mouse, there is full controller set-up but the precision is not as mearly as good or comfortable. The controls for the mechs, power suits and tanks actually use tank controls and the floating vehichles actually use more of a twin stick shooter set-up. You can undershoot and overshoot, and this is why the control is much better with a keyboard and mouse than it is with a controller. To be fully comfortable on a controller, you'd need 3 analog sticks so there is a sacrifice and because of that, there is alot of options for game difficulty including an option to play the game in a slowed state. Each vehichle does indeed act differently but it would take a while to explain it in detail. What else sets it apart? Hmmm... well there is alot that has to do with ammunition management. If you just shoot everything, you're going to run out of ammo and become an easy target. You can collect ammo from fallen enemies but if you're not careful you accidentally blow it up. You can crouch to reduce incoming damage or even evade missiles or just hide behind buildings if you're in a bigger mech. Also, if you choose to be in a smaller vehicle like a Fallout style power suit, you're not going to be able to mash through things like concrete walls as if you were in a ginat mech. You'd need to find another way in - unless of course you want to blast your way in. There's alot of elements that separate Brigador from the crowd of fast-paced arcade games. There's nothing like it on Steam really but I can understand how people would assume that it's your generic twin-stick shooter, the game isn't properly explained on the store page or in the trailer. The goal of the relaunch will be to address alot of these misconceptions. Edit: I should add that every vehichle has it's own stats, speed, etc. This isn't a simple RNG game. I think of it more like Metal Gear Solid with vehichles. Every vehicle has a unique ability whether cloaking, emp blasts, etc and then there are orher actions on top of that: ramming, crouching, etc so there's alot of ways to play the game.

I don't see anyone with badges here, maybe it's because I'm on my phone though...

Look at this thread, this thread is amazing... Give it a lick. Mmmmmm! Tastes just like raisins :D

What is Brigador? Brigador is a fast-paced isometric game where you control a vehicle and virtually blast your way through enemies and towns in a futuristic post-apocalyptic/cyberpunk setting. Everything is destructable in Brigador, thanks to a unique custom engine. The game uses sprites and projects a never-before-seen lighting system that is sure to impress. There are currently over 80 vehicles to pilot. *Fallout type power suits *Akira style bikes *Gyros *Killdozers *Soccermom minivans because why not? *Old school and futuristic tanks *Hovercrafts to killdozers *Mini mechs with cloaking *Giant mech-warriors too! *Many more vehicles BRIGADOR IS SET TO RE-LAUNCH IN JUNE 2017! Why is it relaunching? It's not because it's a bad game, it's actually a phenomenal one but there was a lot of mistakes that were made in marketing and that hurt the game to be the success it should have. Ratings on Steam are at 97% if that says anything. What will the relaunch consist of? Of course you're going to see this game on the front store page of Steam (again) but also the game will be recieving a huge content update. New pilots, new missions, new lore, new pilots, new everything! For those who already own Brigador, you'll be getting this HUGE content update for free http://store.steampowered.com/app/274500

Brigador is scheduled re-launch in June. If you don't know what Brigador is, it's a bad@$$ single player fast-paced mech game with fully destructable environments all at an isometric angle! http://store.steampowered.com/app/274500 There are over 80 vehicles to pilot, from Fallout type power suits to tanks to hovercrafts to killdozers and mini mechs and giant mech-warriors too! Why is it relaunching? It's not because it's a bad game, it's actually a phenomenal one but there was a lot of mistakes that were made in marketing and that hurt the game to be the success it should have. What will the relaunch consist of? Of course you're going to see this game om the front store page of Steam (again) but also the game will be recieving a huge content update. New pilots, new missions, new lore, new pilots, new everything! For those who already own Brigador, you'll be getting this update for free

I always associate some amount of luck with the gamble that the industry has become. I can't help but think that if there wasn't a new console generation (PS4/XB1) to play The Witcher 3 on, it wouldn't have received the hype nor the attention that it deserved. Considering that most of its sales were on PS4. Regardless of having an amazing E3 demo, being great on pc, etc. They were set out to make a multiplatform game, they were even unlucky to be overestimating new consoles' power so the E3 2013 fiasco happened, maybe this also helped as in "no such thing as bad publicity". It sold on PS4 more cos there are a lot more PS4 owners than xbone. Overall they were very clever & bold. I don't trust them today as I did before tho. They are getting too big too quickly, still hiring "designers" for a game they announced back in 2012 which is very discomforting and investing in features like "seamless multiplayer" which I'm not at all excited about. Also Witcher 3 was good and all but I'm still disappointed about the save import stuff, Witcher 2 as a game rendered meaningless with how they handled continuity. Very true. I hope they turn out to continue to do well, I guess we'll see

I always associate some amount of luck with the gamble that the industry has become. I can't help but think that if there wasn't a new console generation (PS4/XB1) to play The Witcher 3 on, it wouldn't have received the hype nor the attention that it deserved. Considering that most of its sales were on PS4. Regardless of having an amazing E3 demo, being great on pc, etc.

An answer I'm used to hearing and one that contradicts itself. I mean, if that was the case, every developer who pours in hours of hard work would get rewarded, no? Every good/great game would be a success and no developer would be closing their doors, this obviously isn't so.I can't relate the gaming industry to all things in life, maybe musicians... Musicians would be a valid work hard and only out of luck do they become noticed. It's about as close to a real example I can get. Everyone works hard, or at least they say they do. As far as getting rewarded for it - well, that all depends on the person's definition of rewarded. Hard work can be coupled with luck, usually with alt of competitors, it's just that. Something I have learned over the years is that the games industry is a different kind of business, sure it's easy to say "The Witcher 3 is a phenomenal game" but what if it wasn't? It would still have those 1 million pre-sales... all because of hype and a great demo. This industry has alot to do with luck, whether people want to admit it or not. Let's also get to another fact that The Witcher 3 was bought mostly by people who had never even played a Witcher game before. Anyways back to the OP's question,an important thing to keep mind about PoE franchise is that they're crowd funded games and only on one platform. I agree with the contradiction but not on luck; making a good game is more hard work than luck and making the right game & great marketing is more like being clever than lucky. Investing into their own engine & best marketing in recent history(free DLCs!), being bold & trusting themselves that they can deliver even if they couldn't "redefine the RPG" etc etc. Pfft. yeah they got lucky... You're looking at it in the wrong way as most people here in the thread are. You can't say "CD Projekt Red earned the trust of consumers and that's how it got its fanbase when The Witcher 3 released" because it's not true, The Witcher 3's first million in sales was before the game even released, it wasn't off of CD Projekt Red's reputation before that but a hunch that the game would be good. Nothing more, nothing less. Great games can get poor marketing and still have great sales, crappy games can have good marketing and sell millions as well (we see this every year). The industry has alot to do with luck, sure there are other variables but if everything was really how people here are saying then the games industry would be in a much better place and every game with a big budget, hardworkers, custom engines and good marketing would sell well. Lucky I think is the perfect word. 6 million sales in the first 6 weeks rarely happens with a framchise in which the developer has only put out two other avergae/sub-par games. If you show a E3 demo and people are impressed enough to buy your game regardless of a mediocre history, then you are lucky. Everything else about the free dlc, good user reviews, trust, etc can only be spoken about after the game has released for a while, right? I think this is in interesting story that people should read... http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-06-seeing-red-the-story-of-cd-projekt I went into this expecting that most people would not agree with me on this and that's okay. Alot of people look at The Witcher 3 as if it's some kind of messiah to modern rpg games, I don't. I actually look at it and compare it more to Rise Of The Tomb Raider than any rpg. Still, I do love CD Projekt Red and The Witcher 3 franchise. I think when you do a thorough check on the history of the company, it really does prove my point. http://nichegamer.com/2017/03/22/cd-projekt-red-began-with-passionate-gamers-who-had-no-clue-how-to-make-games/ Anyways, that's about it. With 2 mediocre games before their $80 million budget game, I'd hope it would be good but nobody knew until they got their hands on it. After all, any game with a huge budget can still be a flop. As every project in the industry is a gamble anyway. Luck.

An answer I'm used to hearing and one that contradicts itself. I mean, if that was the case, every developer who pours in hours of hard work would get rewarded, no? Every good/great game would be a success and no developer would be closing their doors, this obviously isn't so. I can't relate the gaming industry to all things in life, maybe musicians... Musicians would be a valid work hard and only out of luck do they become noticed. It's about as close to a real example I can get. Everyone works hard, or at least they say they do. As far as getting rewarded for it - well, that all depends on the person's definition of rewarded. Hard work can be coupled with luck, usually with alt of competitors, it's just that. Something I have learned over the years is that the games industry is a different kind of business, sure it's easy to say "The Witcher 3 is a phenomenal game" but what if it wasn't? It would still have those 1 million pre-sales... all because of hype and a great demo. This industry has alot to do with luck, whether people want to admit it or not. Let's also get to another fact that The Witcher 3 was bought mostly by people who had never even played a Witcher game before. Anyways back to the OP's question,an important thing to keep mind about PoE franchise is that they're crowd funded games and only on one platform.

You're just repeating what I just said lol What I know is that sales were on Steam (by 2014 people were buying Witcher 1 for $0.99 or Witcher 2 for $2.49) Now how many people played it vs how many people have it in their backlog among hundreds of other games in their library? Is there any way to gauge it? Now, most importantly, look at that article and then look at when The Witcher 3 was revealed. Notice the boost of sales that happened both when The Witcher 3 ws revealed and when it released. This isn't being picky so much as it is realizing the small details that no one else follows up on. What's silly is that people are saying that The Witcher franchise had a huge fan base before The Witcher 3 debuted. It didn't. This must be the fourth time I say it. The Witcher fan base got a huge boost when The Witcher 3 was revealed, add to that the importance of a new comsole generation and you have a hit... not because of the games before it but because it impressed people with flashy graphics, a huge open world and 200 hours of gameplay. None of that which was in the other two games. Of course the franchise grew, nobody here said it didn't. The argument seems to be the way that it grew. There's an importance to understanding the difference though.

[stuff]Success can often be spontaneous and it spontaneously happens more than you think... all it takes is a good product with the right decisions. The Witcher and The Witcher 2 didn't have good decisions, neither did the series appeal to the wide-scale audience. Furthermore, I could give hundreds of examples of new succesful indie IP's that got lucky, as well as series that were not popular that became popular with one entry and vice-versa.I don't think Witcher 2 did as well as people think, especially looking at the longevity of sales. Like I said, The Witcher as a franchise wasn't widely received until the E3 demo was shown of Witcher 3 and wow'd everybody's socks off. Probably because it was so beautiful and open that it was seen as one of the first games to take full advantage of new console hardware - that's also a good valid point to remember. Before The Witcher 3 released, the fan base was very very small. I know there will always be that handful of loyal people who want to say otherwise but sales and the longevity of sales speak for what it is. I can however remember a lot of recent-ish failed ventures, with good products and decisions (Dredd 3D ring a bell with its failed marketing?). And i would like to see these many indie games with an AA / AAA budget or sales (with the exception of minecraft, duh). Edit: I mean we are talking about the level of success of TW series here right - thread title and all....I am also going to kindly refer you to page 4, where you should ppl (re-)read some stuff. TW1 had its flaws, but TW3 heavily built on it with the knowledge and understanding of TW2 (their own engine for example, ffs) as well tailoring their game to fit a very specific style inspired by a certain game. I also pointed out, that there are some other factors to consider, which make it so that TW3 can't really be considered [yes hyperbole, i know] 'dumb luck'. Not that i could also refer to the fact that sales of TW2 where apparently (8+ Million) very good for such a small studio and that there was quite some media coverage about a big number of pirated copies and a few other .. incidents. After all selfpublishing a game with a budget of ~70-80 Million USD is not something i would consider to be able if the game wasn't as widely recieved. Now i see you propably don't follow news coverage as much and are not as involved in modding as i am, and that is fine. Be that as it may, i *do* want to apologize for the condeceding tone. Hmmm..... Maybe read my comment again, sounds like either you didnt understand what I was trying to say. I never said that every game was guarenteed success if it was backed would good decsions. I said there are many indies that have become successful spontaneously because of good decisions alone. I never compared the revenue/sales of indies and The Witcher 3. That's two different things so I'm kinda confused. With games like Terrarria, Super Meat Boy, and many more, these are all games that became spontaneously successful - developers didn't plan for it. They just... were. Nor do they need a AAA budget to be successful as The Witcher series at this point. Claiming so wouldn't be very smart. Popularity can come from left field, even from something like selling a shirt at Hot Topic. I'll kindly reject your offer to go to page 4, as I'm not here to start an arguement or debate with people. Just wanted to state the fact that The Witcher series was on a string until The Witcher 3 came out. Then you saw massive sales spike for The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 2. Why? Most people didn't even know about The Witcher series until The Witcher 3 released. Getting lucky doesn't necessarily mean "dumb" luck. Obviously CD Projekt Red has *some* experience (now more than ever) but I think we both know that CD Projekt Red never thought The Witcher 3 would become as big as it did. When I say they got lucky, I meant the time of release, the hype that they got with E3 demo, coupled with the inexperienced messes that were The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 2. Nothing more, nothing less. I would never say that they are dumb in any way. They were smart to get WB to publish their game in America which helped tremendously as well. Forgive me for not being a Witcher fanboy on this thread, although I really do love The Witcher series. I can admit when it got noticed. How can you tell if I follow news or not? What makes you assume that I'm not up to par with modding. If you saw my Steam profile it would likely debunk that but what does that have to do with the legit examples I've written here? The Witcher 2 sold 1.7 million copies in its first year, most copies were due to sales with a large cut-price. The Witcher 3 sold over 6 million copies in the first 6 weeks alone, that's virtually a million a week. It literally outsold The Witcher 2 in its first week alone - according to news. Now with all that out of the way, hopefully you can see now exactly what I mean when I say that CD Projekt Red got lucky. The Witcher 3's success wasn't due because of fanbase that CD Projekt Red acquired with The Witcher 1 or The Witcher 3, it sold well due to good hype and a great reveal which wow'd people. Til this day, The Witcher 1 and Witcher 2 have average sales numbers but the other factor that people seem to leave out is how much revenue was made? Not very much since Witcher 1 and Witcher 2's main sales numbers come from Steam sales with massive discount, but yeah they were boosted only because people got curious after they played The Witcher 3. Like I said, this wasn't a natural success but an unnatural one. It happens, I'm not sure why people think that this is a bad thing though. Success is success and The Witcher 3 is a great game.

Some have said it's because the ship sports only 5 beds on-board, how do they know? I'm not too sure.

Did you play the game (D:OS) alone? It's really meant to play with someone else, that's where the fun begins. The game basically revolves around creating that authentic table-top court feel but limiting it to a smaller group of players. I loved the combat though, much better than X-Com's turnbased system imo. The story is kinda all over the place, it's goofy as heck, it doesn't take itself seriously compared to something like PoE.

1. I would absolutely love to see an island of misfits, consisting of a bearded fish woman, a muscle-less ogre, a sad mega octopus without tentacles etc, etc. 2. A pet Cthulhu that absords enemies and brings me gold and other items from the ocean, it would also bring items for you every once in a while. 3. A spell to calm the waters so my ship does not get damaged in a severe sea storm, since storms damage ship, cause loss of crew and damage morale of all on-board.

This is going to sound strange but originally I thought Tim's Cookbook was originally going to be somewhat of a preview consisting of new craftable items in the game and what items were needed to make them. I was greatly surprised when I found out that it's an ACTUAL cookbook. Love it and what's more is that the way it's presented feels special, like it's from another era. The little tid-bits of lore behind each recipe is also a nice touch!

I am the type of person that loves for each weapon you pick up/equip to look unique and set apart. If it were up to me, I'd have every weapon look exotic and almost other-worldly, yet still be able to be wielded by humans. Of course there is a balance to it but since you have godlikes, orlans, etc, there's alot of possibilities for more exotic weapons of appearance, even moreso this time around.

I don't see any "anime" appearance with Ydwin and we don't really know enough about her to make educated guesses on what she will be like in regard to representation, general character-revealing situations and interaction in dialogue. So it's hard to say.

I would love to see throwing stars, considering that Josh and Kaz said that some of the fashion for outfits was not only inspired by African wear but Asian styles as well. I would love to have a ninja-like character with throwing stars

I don't think Divinity II's armor sets were childish at all, more like stylish and dark. Armor with spikes, horns, webbings - even eyes and things like that are more creepy, mature and mysterious. I'd love to see these kinds of armors in Deadfire, Deadfire is already high-fantasy it wouldn't be too questionable to see it. Although, it probably would make more sense to feature more armors like this in Tyranny II.

Sigh - Yes I suppose they were really 'lucky' enough to 'barely' get the money together to selfpublish. Also - what a coincidence, that they modeled TW3 after a game that released around the same time as TW2 and was vastly more successful. Or that the Engine used could draw on a lot of lessons learned. Yes, i mean there is no progression at all. Success is rarely spontaneous. Success can often be spontaneous and it spontaneously happens more than you think... all it takes is a good product with the right decisions. The Witcher and The Witcher 2 didn't have good decisions, neither did the series appeal to the wide-scale audience. Furthermore, I could give hundreds of examples of new succesful indie IP's that got lucky, as well as series that were not popular that became popular with one entry and vice-versa. I don't think Witcher 2 did as well as people think, especially looking at the longevity of sales. Like I said, The Witcher as a franchise wasn't widely received until the E3 demo was shown of Witcher 3 and wow'd everybody's socks off. Probably because it was so beautiful and open that it was seen as one of the first games to take full advantage of new console hardware - that's also a good valid point to remember. Before The Witcher 3 released, the fan base was very very small. I know there will always be that handful of loyal people who want to say otherwise but sales and the longevity of sales speak for what it is.

That all depends on you, what have you learned from Dyrewood, what skills have you picked up, and what friends have you made?