Dermi

I'm missing mine as well.

Whew, I finally managed to manage my plegde For some reason on Firefox I was getting errors about processing order, but Elerond's post got me thinking and when I switched to IE the processing came through flawlessly.

And how does it work right now? I mean is this a menu toggle, that sets whole game either to slow-mo or pause, or is it binded to two different buttons? Because I just thought it could be nice to have both modes available binded to different keys, so, for example, I set pause to space and use it as primary function, and yet I have slow-mo binded under different key and use it for less challenging fights, where micromanagement isn't essential. That way player could use both modes on "encounter-basis", instead of deciding it arbitrary for the whole game.

Well not really... It didn't teach you how to pick locks, find traps or the basics of combat. I guess the tutors were sort of a tutorial now that I think about it... Fine I'll semi concede this point That said I'd still much rather have the tutorial follow the BG2 format than BG1 Don't remember about picking locks, but there certainly was a teacher who was giving the basics of combat in some basement, where he had some illusions of enemies and party members. BIS even made fun out of it in IWD2, where were those adventurers telling stories about their beginnings, like one of them had to fight some illusions in the basement and solved the problem going directly after illusionist And I agree, BG2 tutorial was better being completely optional AND separated module from the main game. @NerdBoner No arguing there, I was just pointing the fact that BG had actually built-in tutorial parts at the beginning of the game.

They didn't have one (...) Of course they did, at least BG1. Whole Candlekep area was one big tutorial.

Sorry, I don't understand the answer. Are you telling me that every single encounter in this game has an objective? What's the "degenerate" bit all about? Srsly, this is a big deal to me and possibly others. The XP mechanic genuinely makes me wonder. I think what he's alluding to is un-fun "grinding" in a lot of games. For example in some games with encounter locations where monsters respawn and you get XP for killing each monster you could keep grinding that area and boost your levels quickly which could then lead you to be overpowered for the point in the story you're in. By keeping most XP quest based you remove the grinding aspect and keep the story moving. Adding to what shibby said, it may be something along Witcher games: in there you get XP for killing creatures, but it's so low compared to XP rewards for accomplished quests, that killing alone won't make you level up a bit. Pretty funny in game about professional monster hunter

Ever heard of "variables"?

Judging by the number of romance threads in first few days it seem very much so

Feargus have said in Kickstarter's comments that PayPal pledges are around 20k$ now, so I wouldn't be overly optimistic when it comes to money gathered with it. Right now it's below 1% of Kickstarer amount, but, on the other hand, it means that 2.4 mil stretch goal has been achieved.

Back in a days, when I used to read computer games magazines, one had section aimed at tabletop RPG players, called "DM guide" and there said (among other things) something like this: "Never let players feel like they're most powerful being in the world. Approach like 'So now we'll storm that castle, take care of necromancer and loot his gold' is reprehensible and should be avoided. Players always should know there is something more powerful than the party, so they never know what will happen next and game will remain challenging for them." I think it fits perfectly what you said and in this topic. Being most powerful being removes the challenge, and with that, all the fun.

Because it worked so well in Arcanum. Oh, wait... Going with both systems will end up with gimping one or another (or both), because of different paradigms of design for both systems. They already decided on RTwP (not that I'm ecstatic about it, but I can live with it), so let them focus on making it as best as they can.

Not exactly. SoZ-style conversation would allow you to pick "the talker", but nobody said his skill would be high enough to pass the check, so it's more matter of proper balance. On the other hand, if it's only PC who is a spokesman for the party, then rest of the companions would serve mostly as battle drones, maybe with exception of thief with his lockpicking and disarming traps It could be just pointless to increase their non-combat stats, if they wouldn't be actually used.

Nobody said it will be easy I hope that, given the context, you're not referring to me here. I'm all for good game with deep, compelling story. But it's the game that is key word here. I play games because of their gameplay and plot, so it sounds a bit weird to see people asking "I want to play your game but please, make it as non-gamey as possible, so I can only enjoy story'. It's just not that kind of medium, so redirecting such people to read books or watch movies seems a good move

I like both gameplay and story, but the POV of people who don't like the former is pretty obvious to me. Books are linear storylines, while cRPG games offer branching storylines, thus being completely different in terms of "enjoying a story". How is that so difficult to understand? There is something for them as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamebook All branching story, no tedious gameplay. EDIT: Shoot, Pidesco beat me to it.

Also voted for hidden checks. That way it makes it hard to metagame companions into having them highly influenced. It gets more difficult to do that when I don't see numerical effect my response or action had on given companion.