Monte Carlo

Magic could provide optics and laser-painting analogues for ranged weapons. An enchanted wheel-lock fitted with a telescope and a wand-of-light style pointer would be too cool for school. Just add a one-charge fireball launcher under the receiver and we're good to go.

Having been there and done that, 99.9% of authors need an editor. I need, on average, four or five re-writes.

I want a piece of DLC called "TeH FeeLdS oF GrinDINg" for people who want to level up and farm. I'm not joking.

"Quantity has a quality all of it's own." Josef Stalin.

The off-cuts can always be re-packaged as DLC, right?

Entitlement - a commonly misunderstood internet concept, right up there with ad hominem.

* shakes head * Do people really not see why beating a RPG with a gimped build is fun? Maybe I'm last of a lost tribe, like a Japanese soldier on a lonely Pacific atoll circa 1980, refusing to accept it's all over. That people want to do One Awesome Playthrough with their Super Hero good-at-everything character.

You are right, it's not very polite. Having reflected on it, however, I've decided I'm still not Captain Internet Entitlement. I'm fair. I back Obsidian on the stuff I think they call right (look at my position on the fulfilment issue, for example) and am relaxed about a load of other stuff.

Boil it down: do you really invoke the Infinity Engine games then announce no hit points, death, potions, class-builds and so on? Not for me you don't. That's why I feel a bit cheated. I'm also disappointed by the level of backer engagement. The updates are often too brief, material about the game is diffused all over the place (for example, why aren't we told about new interviews on this website or the backer's portal?) and so on. I'm hardly Captain Internet Entitlement but this isn't what I thought it would be.

If immovable expectation = reasonable expectation of the game meeting the KS pitch, then mea culpa.

^ Agreed, Indira, but I guess a game that (eventually) wants ladders and PvP has to have that stuff factored in.

No, sorry PJ I never played Shadowrun. The bit I don't get is that Sawyer's idea seems to avoid builds. If I want a mob-slaying fighter in PoE can I make one? It would appear not. OTOH if I want to make a fighter who specialises in one-on-one can I? Or do I play a Rogue, who in this brave new world are, er, fighters too. Or can I make a fighter that does a bit of both, a sort of Jack-of-all-trades? Can I make a mage who specialises in fire magic or summoning stuff or manipulating people's minds? Can I make a cleric who buffs others more than himself or vice versa. I want builds within classes, not a template class dedicated to this specious 'crowd-control' 'heavy-hitter' schtick. Consistent with Bryy's original post, I'm not expecting D&D but when they pitched this game on KS I expected an analogue of the type of games that inspired the originals, not some half-arsed 4th Edition / MMO clone. This is what boils my piss about PoE, to be honest, and the rather condescending attitude towards those of us who won't / can't get with the program. Edit : Just thought about it - I really wanted a 3E / Pathfinder-esque PoE. Not a 4th Ed / MMO one.

I seldom quote myself but I wanted to add a point and couldn't edit. I play a lot of RTS games. Excuse the apples-and-oranges comparison, but let me give you an example. In Medieval Total War 2 you can choose a faction. When you choose that faction you get two difficulty choices. The first is the games overall difficulty. The second is the difficulty of that faction in comparison to the rest. So, for example, playing Denmark is hard: it's a tiny country with the big old Germans sitting to one side and the Russkis to the other. Germany is hard: it's got lots and lots of borders, the French are eyeing their rebellious western provinces and the Holy Roman Empire is crumbling in the middle of Milan's territory. England, OTOH is a medium challenge: it's an island that can quickly decapitate it's Celtic fringes and build trade. Egypt? Easy mode. More precious resources than you could shake a stick at, it sits comfortably south of the most rapacious crusading routes and the Turks take the brunt of the Mongol invasion. Swap out faction for class with an up-front explanation about pros and cons and you have an old-skool philosophy. Wanna play a monk or paladin. Wow, that's going to be tough in 1E AD&D: paladins are alignment-trapped and are only allowed a tiny number of magical items. Monks are the most rear-loaded class ever. Thieves? Man, that's tough with mediocre combat skills and a long progression curve with skills. You pays your money and takes your pick. What are you in the mood for? This is what I genuinely don't understand about the current meta as we see it in this game. I probably never will, I just think balance in a single-player game is almost insanely overrated. If you want to be a twinky content tourist then good luck to you - you payed for it. Instead you get designers sneering about 'degenerative' game play. * shrugs *

Ha ha ha look at dem Paragon Levels. I think I'm nails and I'm 59.

Most people buying this game will play it more than once. If there are two or three classes that are perceived to be 'weaker' and need a good knowledge of the gaming meta to solo the game with, then so what? The sky won't fall in. The current design philosophy isn't very old skool. Old skool is flawed, sure, but new systems feel generic, dessicated, bland. I'd rather have a flawed gem than a plastic one.

Simple: stay true to what you said you were going to do when you made the KS pitch. Don't use deliberately lawyerly language afterwards to ferret your way out of doing those things. Obsidian have done this to a certain extent. It certainly looks like an old I.E. game with cherries on top. Will it feel like one, or will Sawyer kill it with his Staff of Balance +5? I don't know is the honest answer. But the MMO / 4E / all-must-have-prizes / altar of balance design philosophy doesn't sound very old-skool to me.

Slow-cooked Iberian beef with chorizo, chilli, olives and a splash of orange juice.

HEy, Relic are shouting out for Alpha Testers for Western Fronts. I've applied... http://blogs.companyofheroes.com/2014/05/01/help-us-test-company-of-heroes-2-the-western-front-armies/

OK, I've got my characters (Monk / Bbn / Crusader) to 70/56 or thereabouts. With my barb I'm able to Torment 1 most rifts and bounties. Who's up for some Torment 2+ so I can see how I get on?

All very pretty an' all, but the update is meh. The level and quality of these increasingly spartan updates is what I'd expect from a usual developer / publisher title not a Kickstarter. In fact, what the hell do we really know about the plot, for example? In any project you get milestone updates with substantial detail. Not necessarily spoilers but something more substantial than this. Don't get me wrong, occasionally a decent update drops onto the mat, and fair play to Sawyer his are usually very good. But I'm disappointed, overall.

Enoch, marry me.

Agreed. I couldn't get over the idea that the big lunk in front of the party was essentially exercising a limited type of mind control over every enemy we faced, regardless of their intelligence and training, their leadership and discipline, or their ability to comprehend human speech. I couldn't help but imagine how much more interesting and fun the game would be if tactical positioning were a more realistically effective way to manage which party members faced the brunt of enemy attacks. Of course, such an approach would've forced everybody to play the game the way I played it-- zoomed all the way out in the overhead tactical view and pausing every 4 seconds on average. You play like a Man, and I approve of this post.

The reason for this is that I asked the people at the Codex, gamers like yourself, for the questions. I asked one or two questions from Ms. Patel myself, but I personally think that interviews should be more crowd-sourced and the interviewer should just act as a filter/editor to pick the good ones and ignore the ones already answered. Those questions came from those same people that are "rawdy, raucous, and the scum of the earth" that everyone here likes to poo-poo on. Dude, it's a good interview but that doesn't mean the Codex isn't a fairly gonzo place that might not be to everyone's taste. The we're-too-cool-for-school cynicism, cruelty and general trash-talk on the Codex is all part of it's charm. Except I don't find it charming but hey, it's the internet.

Places like the Codex ask the questions I'd like to ask if I could. Game's 'journalists' don't. Folks like RPS are about the writer's trying to look cool while others, as said above, are PR shills.

'Games Journalism.' LOL.