Kevin Lynch

Additional content can go into an expansion, so there's no need to delay the original release. I'm confident that they have the tools in place to manage the release and the funding to get there. I don't expect a game that's hundreds of hours in size; KS projects aren't of that scope.

I'd usually say I want none whatsoever, but with the way this project is being funded (by the fans), there will need to be some feedback provided on a few general story elements on a broad scale. For example, it may be that they want to get feedback on a way to present the ending: as combat-only or with the possibility for a peaceful resolution, or as a battle with a single Big Baddie or as a battle with a crew of varied opponents with a leader. It doesn't give away spoilers, but it does provide a means of sharing info.

I don't think it matters to me which style of mapping is used. The map is there to give me a broad overview of the way the world appears, to orientate myself, and remind me of unexplored areas. Whether it's one big area that I can move around on freely or if it's sectioned off into smaller areas doesn't matter for that. Too, "hotspot" based maps don't limit random or quest-based encounters; you can still have events happen during your travels (DA:O used this, for instance) or have areas become accessible after certain goals are met.

As others have said, soloing should be rewarded with an achievement, at most. Soloing a party-based game is all about accomplishing it and there shouldn't be any help along the way or anything special that sets it apart, aside from increased difficulty (and extra xp, if xp is divided among the party).

I'd love to have each of those in the game, if they can be managed without slowing down the gameplay or being so unwieldy (as in managing a huge number of different ingredients/components) that you don't want to bother.

A specific game hook isn't what interested me, but that there was going to be an effort to create the gaming atmosphere I remember from years ago in a modern way. Name-dropping is all well and good, but we understand that past success is no guarantee of future success.

I prefer the middle ground of resistances to immunities. I'd hate to be forced to go off and find a selection of weapons for every occasion. However, a party-based game does lend itself to having the player balance the party and hence the combat abilities of its members well enough to manage most situations where resistances are heavily weighted.

I personally don't care for achievements in the sense that I don't actively pursue them. However, I can see how they are able to generate additional interest in playing the game, encourage exploring things that aren't normally on the player's path through the game, and generally enhance the experience for a subset of players. I don't believe a game should rely on them to direct gameplay nor should they be offered for anything that 100% must be accomplished through the normal course of completing the game.

I wouldn't mind if it fit the story and setting. A steampunk fantasy world, for instance, would be an obvious place to have firearms. However, I'm not interested in having them in the game just for the sake of giving players the option; I have no particular feeling for or against them on their own merits.

If true (and it would appear that it is), AP just goes back on the watch list for games coming down the pipe. Now everything has cleared the way for DA:O as the ONLY PC game of 2009 that I'll be buying as a new release. Crazy.

I thought I had read here that the difficulty adjustment also adjusted the time you have to make these choices in the dialogue, so an easier difficulty would give you more time. Is that not true? I was counting on it, because I too do not like the timer idea. Arg! I hatehatehate "checkpoint" saves. It's one of the reasons I avoid a lot of games and I had no idea that AP was going to use that sort of system. Considering that I'm often interrupted, I really don't like the idea of having to redo areas because I'm going off to do something else in real life and won't be getting back to the game that day (so pause is out as a solution). Gah.

It's all a matter of where you are standing. There were those that criticized Planescape:Torment's cover art as being something that turned off people from buying the game when browsing in store. Personally, I figured people shouldn't judge it by its cover, but marketing folks will tell you that it matters. You might think it silly but there are those that know different. Imagination may have something to do with it but acting as a character and believing you are a character are two different things. Some people want an experience where they are more connected with a character on a personal level. There are those that read books, watch tv shows, or view movies/plays that enjoy them more because they can see a part of themselves or something from their own experience in the characters, settings, or story. Some want something entirely different that doesn't link with anything remotely like their world. It's perfectly legitimate to want one thing or the other, sometimes both at different times. Wanting to play as your own sex in a game is just part of that. I can play games with any sort of character; I don't have a problem getting into the idea of playing a role that the devs set for me. That doesn't stop me from preferring to have as many options to customize a character as possible in a game. Would everyone be feeling the same way if they only offered a single character with no customization with AP? Perhaps it'd go over for some (it wouldn't have been a show-stopper for me), but I bet there'd be a lot more uproar over it. And people always want games that fit their mold of the "perfect experience". And everyone has a different idea of what that "perfect experience" should be. I've made the point in the past that I think BioWare's Jade Empire would have been a better game if it had been molded as an Adventure genre game (i.e. no combat, just puzzles to go with the story, like a Syberia). Someone else could come along and say "well, they didn't want to make that game so it's silly to suggest it; devs don't have to do what you say" but that would not be an appropriate response. One could say "I prefer a more action-oriented combat system and I think the plot of JE sucked" and that would be fine. It's the dismissal of an opinion as "silly" because it doesn't fit with what one thinks a game should offer that is unreasonable. Some things have a greater impact than others. I've not bought games by a particular publisher because of poor customer relations by their staff, no matter the quality of the games (this was pre-release of a game; I feel bad for the developers, but I speak with my money, too). Others would probably think I overreacted in making such a blanket decision. Oh well. My decision doesn't require anyone else to agree with it. I told the publisher my decision (via email) and moved on. And even though the game was one that I had been tracking and it was on my must-buy list for years, I stuck with my decision. My point is only that the decisions people make whether to buy any product, or not, can be as simple or complex as you can imagine. I'm unsure why it is so unacceptable to some that a person would latch onto one aspect and decide not to support a game or company because of it. It's their choice, they are allowed to state it (I'd actually encourage people to do so more often). I think the OP's PS of "Nobody has to reply to my post, I am not coming back here." was an unfortunate way to end the post. It might have been better to be able to discuss it with the devs (if they hadn't already) to get their side of the decision. Hey, they are a business after all. Perhaps what they feel they are missing from those that won't buy the game is more than covered by what they gain in development time by leaving out a female choice.

I'm not sure why it's hard for some to understand the OP's opinion and reasoning behind not wanting to play AP. It's a legitimate reason for not playing for the OP. It doesn't have to mesh with anyone else's list of what a game must have to be playable. While I am of the mind that a "roleplaying" game can be accessible to anyone if they subscribe to the idea that they are an actor playing a role, a lot of people want to be able to imagine themselves in the gameworld. I like gameplay that draws you in, but I find I'm leaning more often to the former concept than the latter. If playing the opposite sex is a barrier to imagining yourself in the place of the main character and that's an important aspect of an RPG for you then a lot of games are going to leave you cold. Remember, this issue is not only one of sex. Racial, social, national divides can keep people from playing a game, too. Personally, I feel that games should be inclusive. However, I'm also of the mind that the gaming industry is full of businesses that are there to make money. They will put into a game what they think will make it sell and leave out what they think will add more cost but little benefit. They may be wrong, but it's their choice. Yep, I get the OP's anger (I didn't always "get it", though). And I'm glad they are going to talk with their money. That's all a consumer can do, and letting the devs know that's how they feel is a good step, too.

It's not the conversion rate, games are more expensive here and the prices on Steam for Australian users are set to something comparable to our retail. So, like Kevin Lynch said, while the price for him is $49.99USD, for Australians it's $69.99USD. Thanks. I hadn't expected such a difference in price in the same currency (USD). That's a 40% premium over the US standard price, which is huge then you have to do the conversion to AUD. Wow.

It's only $49.99 USD on Steam from what I see. Are you looking at something different? Different price in a different country perhaps (I'm in Canada)?

I agree. If this was a better pairing, I might have considered getting AP on Steam. As it is, Space Siege doesn't give me any incentive at all, so I'll stick with the boxed version. Unless I decide the release is too close to DA:O to bother in which case I won't get it until some time after I'm done with DA:O. Unfortunately, games like these don't have a short enough lifespan that would warrant me getting a couple within a week of each other (and if they were short I wouldn't get them at all).

Is there a fine detail control for the difficulty or is it all about setting it to one of the "levels" and having it affect a number of different settings at once? The only one that I'm interested in making "easier" is the dialogue timer (since I despise being rushed in dialogue), while I'd like the rest of the game to remain as is, if possible.

I wouldn't be surprised, but I'd not be happy. When DA:O got delayed again, I was pleased because it meant I'd have some extra time for AP, but if AP moved to the date you suggest, that means they are even closer together and means that I'm going to have to make a choice about which to play (I only play one game at a time to completion before starting another). Frankly, this year has been the worst in all my decades of gaming for games being delayed. I've not bought a single new game all year as a result.

It's a bonus for AP, if it ships on schedule, to have extra weeks before DA:O. As I intend on getting both, the extra spread is definitely a good thing. If there's a change for AP, though, it's going to be rough.

Now that I've added AP as a game to track, it's also nice to hear that summer of '09 is a release target. As long as it doesn't slip to end of September or into October, it's a great period as there's almost always a very poor selection of games available.

That fix is for KotOR, not KotOR2:TSL. Unless it's a misprint by ATI, but the fact that KotOR2 still has the problem, it's likely a KotOR issue (they got the other KotOR2 fixes listed correctly).

Astonishing how impatient people are. Well, not really astonishing, come to think of it. Just...sad. The game isn't going to rot and be unusable next week, or the week after. If the game is giving you trouble now, set it aside for a bit and do something else. If the patch is going to fix your issue, it's going to fix it just as well when you finally get it. Yes, it does seem to be taking a long time, but your lives shouldn't be so empty that a game causes you so much angst. Seriously, chill. <_<

Go ahead and click right here. The ones we are talking about (and have been discussed elsewhere as so politely mentioned above) are the 4.11 Catalyst drivers. Also, as noted, there are other things you can try, so if this doesn't work (or is too complicated a process) try some of those other things.

You don't see the atioglxx.dll file or you don't see any .dll files? It may be that you have the system files hidden. If you are in Windows Explorer, go to the Tools->Folder Options and click on the View tab. In there you will see something similar to 'Show hidden files and folders' which you want. Then you'll be able to see the .dll files.

I should add, in reply to this, that I use 4x AA, AF off, soft shadows on, V-sync on, grass on, etc and I don't use the Disable Vertex Buffers setting. I recommend people try what may give them the best results overall first (like using the 4.11 OGL driver) with settings as they like, then start using other fixes if that doesn't help. There are a lot of different problems and therefore there are a lot of different fixes. If one doesn't work, move on to the next until you find what works for you. If you do many 'fixes' at once, you won't know which is the one (or which combination) that gives you the best results.