Orogun01

Ah, the original Matrix. The remake with Jim Caviziel and Ian Mckellen wasn't too bad but fell short from the original.

I'm being a bit of a slowpoke here but...Twin Peaks is awesome. That is all.

Apparently now is an entire Kingdom that Comes. As for the game itself I think it's interesting but I will not get it as I vowed to myself that I wouldn't if the horse lifted a leg off the ground. It lifted both.

Doesn't work on an IPS screen, amusingly. Had to boot up my decrepit old laptop with a dodgy TN panel to see it. Ah, okay, good. I could only see a faint outline and thought I was just deficient in some way, again. An alien in a tie and dinner jacket? What? I don't remember seeing anything.

Ah yes, the 3 dot thread. Where we discuss our feelings about the 3 dots, I myself was never a fan. They tend to leave things unfinis...

Yes, and the guy who said that quote was a fifth grade expel who made most of his fortune by being a major **** and stealing about half of his patents. Intelligence is a measure of how well one can perform certain task; although it doesn't mean that they're physically capable of doing so. I think this discussion is too focused on which is better rather than seeing both as just different approaches to combat. The difference is that one has more in terms of strategy than the other, so they can end up turning the battle to their favor but a strong opponent has the advantage physically. Personally, I think that someone with a high intellect will try to stay out of fights with muscly giants.

There are different types of intelligence(kinetic in this case) and just like a dancer can pick up a choreography so can an experienced martial artist gain a new style faster.

For video games that's usually because the focus is more on the combat rather than on the role playing aspects. I tend to favor attribute interdependence because of that, if two attributes affect the same value then it gives player more leeway towards building their character. For example if damage was calculated on of both dex and str it would allow player to make rogues that are useful in battle.

One stat for all damage = invest heavily.

Why do I get the feeling that Wals is a Tex Avery fan?

Effort should be rewarded.

You're playing TLR wrong, you don't grind on that game otherwise it becomes broken.

You mean the last one he moved without using doubles?

I don't remember where I heard this but it was meant to illustrate this very thing, I'm paraphrasing. When children are little they believe in Santa Claus, when they are teens they don't and when they're parents they are Santa Claus.

I like her better as a brunette

In hopes that it may lift your spirits a bit, Nep: The other night, I was playing Mass Effect and sipping scotch from a cut crystal glass, and I thought of you. No, seriously, it wasn't a low spirits thing, it was me coughing really hard until I got a piercing pain in my left temple. Looks like I'm still here and both hands are working, so a ok, I guess. I approve of your passtimes, btw. Maybe you just popped a vessel and is nothing to be concerned, either way go to a doctor. Now!

I'd prefer magic and mundane physical attacks with weapons to be treated differently. Strength: weapon damage // offsets a % of the action speed penalty when wearing armor for spellcasting Constitution: stamina // health Dexterity: melee & ranged accuracy // accuracy for AoE spells like fireball Perception: affects critical hit damage with weapons // accuracy for non-AoE spells Intellect: affects spell damage and healing // increased DT penetration with weapons Resolve: duration and AoE size The differentiation is achieved and each stat is useful for every class. It would be slightly harder to balance, but that's something that goes together with complexity. In an ideal world I do think this would be a nice way to make a sensible system that straddles the line between the two extremes, I believe that Mr Sawyer is trying to simplify the systems for convenience however. In which case I suppose intelligence is as good a damage mitigater as any other attribute, though I suppose one could argue for almost any of the others as well. Pity that I won't be able to make a big dumb brute character however as I quite liked the Half Ogre playthroughs in Arcanum, but every system has its downsides. Maybe the weapons will have damage multipliers making strength and dex based characters more viable.

During his interview Josh mentioned that PE will allow for different ways of circumventing combat, but that begs the question of exp rewards and how they're distributed. Are exp points rewarded as quest completion, through repetitive use of skills or on kills? Because the latter has always been a bit of a game breaker when trying to balance classes. One could end up with an underleveled character because they've avoided too many conflicts and on the reverse what's the point of avoiding combat if there is less of a reward. Has anyone heard/seen anything about how they're planning exp distribution?

That actually sounds like a great idea. It buffs up Strength a bit (and you can tune the degree to which Strength mitigates encumbrance, so it can be easily balanced), which otherwise seems a bit lacking, and it makes Strength especially relevant to heavy-armour builds, which feels very natural. Not necessarily. Muscle fiber is divided into 2 types; the twitch response on both is different, type one is slow but more resistant to fatigue while type two is fast but don't have much endurance. Different body builds are often the result of different professions, a fencer tends to be faster than a bodybuilder as they have built the muscles that allow them to perform better. Whereas bodybuilders who tend to muscle in bulk can support higher weights but have less speed, ultimately it comes down to training but game systems tend to put strength as separate from dexterity when the latter is just the result of muscle memory and reflexes. That's... um... interesting, but I'm not clear on what you're actually disagreeing with. I guess it was more of an observation than a disagreement, just that strength as it has been defined in RPGs isn't tied to speed but rather to muscle bulk and lifting.

Cheating is my ultimate testing of a game's mechanics/experience. If a game improves because of cheating then I consider it a bad game. If a game doesn't change despite cheating then I consider it a bland game. If my enjoyment of a game is ruined by cheating, the that I think of as a good game. I'm hoping that PE will be a good game that won't require cheating.

That actually sounds like a great idea. It buffs up Strength a bit (and you can tune the degree to which Strength mitigates encumbrance, so it can be easily balanced), which otherwise seems a bit lacking, and it makes Strength especially relevant to heavy-armour builds, which feels very natural. Not necessarily. Muscle fiber is divided into 2 types; the twitch response on both is different, type one is slow but more resistant to fatigue while type two is fast but don't have much endurance. Different body builds are often the result of different professions, a fencer tends to be faster than a bodybuilder as they have built the muscles that allow them to perform better. Whereas bodybuilders who tend to muscle in bulk can support higher weights but have less speed, ultimately it comes down to training but game systems tend to put strength as separate from dexterity when the latter is just the result of muscle memory and reflexes.

Be easier to use a Reflection Cube to bake into the texture, they don't need skyboxes just the scene files. Also; love the name. DXHR, right?

Start writing letters to Disney then.

That's alright, you can just join us in pretending that TOR didn't happen.

Steamer and Steam for that matter