Undecaf

Did a $250 pledge. I will regret this once the bill arrives...

Looks and sounds almost exactly like Dishonored.

I have no idea where you got "lack of conversation options", "no social skills" and "minimal amount of quests".

Wasteland 2 is striving to be an RPG, not a tactical combat sim.

Why do I have the feeling that, with this game, CDPR is just "showing off" and (with the sandbox element) trying to cash in with Skyrim design? I'll likely buy it anyway, but there just seems to be something that feels wrong about this one.

Very much looking forward to this.

I'd by that for a dollar, were it the case.

Is that a sign of PS3 sales being down and people need to be "bribed" or "hooked" to buy that version?

A game that genuinely tries to deliver similiar experience to PST made largely by people we "know", what's not to like (on a conceptual level)? I know I will support this.

It's a good thing EA doesn't produce any worthwhile games anymore, so there's no need to buy that **** and get smothered by microtransaction ads and prompts.

Sounds like a tired James Cameron movie. How wonderfully uninteresting. But it will likely sell like hell. Not my thing; forgetting in 3... 2... 1...

Good news for bros at Obsidian; and another game for us to look forward to revealing. What ever the new contract is, I do hope it does not involve fantasy.

Okay, I'm not sure? Found it: http://www.eurogamer...onsole-releases Never heard of those again since that article/interview. But meh, likely nothing too "exciting" anyway.

I don't mean the Cyberpunk game, that's not going to be a "small" title as far as I know.

Wasn't CDPR supposed to have a couple of quirky "smaller" titles in the making too (I seem to remember some talk from last fall about an "AA" and/or an "A" games being in the making)? What happened to those, or do I misrecall?

Sure, by all means. But what I was trying to say was that don't take it too far. I was merely trying to give an example of the mishap itself that would be easy to relate to (as opposed making up something like a wizard, in the heat of the action, stumbling to the hem of his robe and accidentally casting a fireball to his own feet and burning himself).

Don't relate these mechanisms to realism too much, they are meant to give the gameplay some flavor, not simulate absolute realism. It was just a demonstrative example.

Think about chopping firewood, and accidentally missing a swing and hitting your leg with the axe (not an uncommon occurence, and a pretty serious one too). Obviously some sense should be held onto when simulating accidents, but it's not really impossible for one to harm himself due to a clumsy attempt at whatever.

Of course it is (though it isn't nullifying, assuming your character knows what he is doing (via his/her skills)). But it also presents the natural flaw of the character fairly well. Nobody is ever perfect. Even the best do mistakes from time to time, and even the worst may succeed sometimes against all the odds (a fluke). I would say probabilities add a lot of flavor in combat situations precisely because of the unpredictability (relative to the characters' aptitude of course).

Does all this apply to ranged combatants too? That everyone is omniaccurate and if nothing else (if not having proper enough equipement or skill), slowly wearing the opponents down with fractional damage?

I really had no problem with the missing in X-Com, I actually liked it because it improved the game by forcing you to make wiser tactical and strategical decisions. If you could not miss in the game, then it would have made many of the mechanics absolutely redundant... in other words, it would have dumbed the game down and made it way too easy. Agreed. Uneventful would be the word I'd use rather than "too easy" (they could've overcome the easiness). I found it much more satisfying that when I missed, I had to adjust my gameplay accordingly and when my shots hit, they did their job and made me feel good about succeeding rather than slowly wearing the enemies down through "mitigation" when allways hitting. I don't really get this "no fail" mindset. Doesn't occasional failure enhance the eventual success?

I don't like this. Obviously I can't predict how it'll feel (mechanically) in the end, but I find the concept of my character (or an NPC) being unable to "fail" and "cause fail due to being better" an odd one in a game where the player has no direct clickety-click control of the situation and the result is based on "numbers" that are supposed to imply the characters aptitude. I like my RNG fine where it is appropriate, and surely there are ways to implement failure without it coming down to a missfest (unless the situation is appropriate for such - i.e. a clumsy enough character trying to pummel or shoot something really agile, or a bad archer shooting -- does this "mitigation" stuff mean that even archers/other ranged combatants can't miss). It just feels an odd a concept (to me) in an RPG.

I found those two to get old pretty fast. But then... the storyline and sidequests didn't provide any notable remedy either because they essentially offered pretty much the same content (with, imo, not too captivating writing, to say it nicely). Nice looking and sounding but also a boring game.

Is that where you have to slime/box jump onto a platform with rotating skulls/smiley spikey faces and then jump to the next platform with those? That gave me quite a headache. The rest of the level is a cake walk in comparison and so is the last level. The final boss on the other hand... completly different story. Stuck there for a week now. That exact level. It's pretty painful with a keyboard. I got the second ledge once, but the character took slide to break down and fell off... and died, died, died, died, died..... I'll take on it when my blood pressure stops rising when thinking abou it.

Had to take a break from Giana Sister because the second to last mission is just impossible... well not really impossible, but I bumbed a sort of a limit after dying about 60 or 70 times just on the first few steps. Having a semi-fun time with Sleeping Dogs, now. Not as heavyhanded or difficult as GTA, but not quite as "gripping" either. Doing the missions in turns (triads, then cops, then triads, then cops...) as they are presented and following how the storyline unfolds, I can't stop wondering how the game would've felt if it was made an RPG with playerdriven storyline, choices, consequences (and with a lot better skillsystem) the whole nine yards.