C2B

That should be the standard in any conversation system, imo. @harhar As I said (like, right at the beginning and repeated in the middle), I don't think P:E should have it (except if a certain situation would be in, where it fit). I just don't see it as the devil.

Yeah, sure. Ignore the rest of the post why dont'ya. Just, depending on how I played on that part of his personality, different things happened. Including him reconsidering and finally leaving Halbech. Our conversation is over.

It's both. I agree though, that a charachter's abilities should stand above all else. If he cannot do it, neither can I (Locked out dialog options and so on). However at the point where he can do it, player skill comes still into play. For example, how you choose to do battle, what dialog option you employ and so on. In AP we play a super spy. Conversanal ability is a given. Also tip: *What is a CRPG* is a difficult question.

How is having endless time to think up an answer challenging at all? How does it benefit the interaction? If I have limited time (though AP's were quite short, I agree) finding out the personality of your opponent and reacting according to it gets fun (for me). Especially where there are no real *wrong* answers, just consequences like in AP. I don't want a challenging mini-game that's completely bull****. The short one-word or phrase doesn't reflect forming a response in a conversation. If you don't know what your choices are they're not choices, I might as well just pick randomly. It benefits the interaction because you can have more options, where you can choose full responses that you know before you choose them. I want to play games, not be played by games, and that's what these stupid dialogue systems feel like, they feel like quick time events and stupid mini-games. And that's what I vehemently disagree with. They are still choices. The consequences are something you or your player charachter don't know at any given point in time. It's something you figure out. For example Marburg, and the famous *he duels you because you got to him*. During my playthrough I noticed (in conversation and dossier) , that he seems to see in you himself as a younger man. Something he failed to come out of at the time. Now, I got to him, by way of smugness, showing him that all the things he handled so poorly in his past are *easy* for me (Even if it is just played). Causing him to go into a rage and attack me. Sorry, that moment hold more power to me than the majority of conversations in rpgs provided. It's awesome for me, because I actually interacted with a personality. Not just drivel and skill *win* marked conversation options. That's my stance on it. Take it as you will. If you only see the bad things, your choice.

Also, I'm not saying they should do that in P:E. No, it benefits certain kinds of games more, others less.

How is having endless time to think up an answer challenging at all? How does it benefit the interaction? If I have limited time (though AP's were quite short, I agree) finding out the personality of your opponent and reacting according to it gets fun (for me). Especially where there are no real *wrong* answers, just consequences like in AP.

Yeah, no. I usually don't conversate and wait around for two minutes before I say something. I don't think my player charachter would either. (Or any sane human being) @DocDoomII Never had that problem, though I read very, very fast so I'm probably not the best sample.

Probably not for Eternity, except *special* ones. Alpha Protocol's timed conversations are awesome though. It gave an impact, and had me make a decision depending on how I figured the opponent to be (and there's nothing more gratifing manipulating the opponent, not just click on the *win* skill dialog). It gave Avellone-Style conversation battles quite the meaning

Answers are here http://kotaku.com/5935737/the-guy-who-made-planescape-torment-tells-us-what-a-spiritual-successor-would-look-like

I have an adamant confidence in the abilities of Obsidian writers. In fact, it's this confidence that makes me want to see more characters from them. Yes, huge dungeons and big cities are cool, but frankly I would gladly trade them off for 2-3 additional companions wrtitten by Avellone and Ziets. Yes, I want the impossible, character depth of PS:T and MotB combined with the variety of BG2 The problem with that is, that even Avellone and Ziets are not magicans. More companions mean less writing, interactivity and reactivity for any individual and certain combinations between them. As I said before, Avellone now said he'd rather done a smaller main cast for KOTOR2. And I'm sure he would say the same for NWN2. NWN2 (companions and game) is a perfect example by the way when things get half done instead of right. Quantity over Quality.

(If I take this question seriously) Depends on the state of society in the game, really.

Also @chisled2bone Just an observation. I don't want to sound like an ass.

I'm fully aware of that and I'm not. I didn't even adress the OP in that sentece (I don't know him well enough to make such a specific claim), but society and people that *think* they are mature and wise. Someone who is actually *mature* doesn't need to express it. That was my point to him. At most I confused his sentence with a simple observation. Though, then it was still largely unneeded and can be easily interepreted negativly which isn't really displaying great conversation. (I suck at it too by the way. Again, meant in relation to OP's point)

Though, *well made* isn't a definitie point. It can always get better. In the same amount of time you can make 4 companions much more reactive than 8. Though, 8 have probably more variety.

Chances are very slim it's AP2.

Imagine taking companion A with companion B and have one experience, then on the next do not pick up B and have a different experience. There's lots of potential still left in companion reactivity. Quantity is overrated.

Yeah, you think they should, but they really more than often don't. And they are coupled with arrogance and shortsightendness. If you were really mature of age, you wouldn't even have to mention it in a discussion. The only actual reason to do it is to say *Hey guys, we're totally better than those guys*. Which is superiority. Sorry. Edit: I don't mean to imply chris doesn't have a point, he does. But things, such as this hurt his point more than it helps.

Less companions means more reactivity in the same timeframe. Avellone himself said, that he, looking back, would rather have done less companions in KOTOR2.

They did alter the pitch video towards the end and included the new concept arts even.

You know, I agree and disagree with you on some points. But, that post is hypocritical, sorry. You imply that the way you think makes you somewhat *older*. Said in another way *superior*. That's the kind of attidude that's part of the problem.

There's still the paypal. You know you want to. Give in to the Obsidian Side. Anyway, being a grumpy old ancient twentier I can't love you all :/. Sorry. But, you are a bro already Hassat Hunter?

@sensuki What in the world does *corporate* mean? Because I don't get the connection at all. Because I kinda get the feeling sometimes it's just used for *competent*. As for the campagin, first off one of the best (if not *the*) kickstarter campagins, which is very visible as donations NEVER dropped off significantly (after the surges) during the entire run. Secondly, there are some things to nitpick, but the ones I would are already mentioned.

Switzerland Brofist Solothurner

I would be all for it. As with a lot of other series based rpg's. Hopefully Obsidian will get another telephone call like the one that kicked off South Park.

Use paypal.