FlintlockJazz

Is it weird if I'd actually want to see this?No. My favorite thing about this post was that I was able to combine something I sincerely felt with bitter irony. Blasto confirmed for companion in PoE2? http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Blasto Romanceable companion at that! Tentacle porn!

This isn't such a bad idea thinking about it. While it's a tabletop game and maybe not fully comparable, GURPS uses an point based system where quite often an advantage that gives a bonus in one area either costs more than the equivalent disadvantage that gives a negative or doesn't give as big a bonus as the disadvantage. The idea as stated by one of the developers was that if a player takes a disadvantage that reduces their social skills for instance then they are probably not going to be playing a social character and will actively avoid it in favour of the methods that they have invested points in, reducing their need for it as they utilise other methods, while by taking an advantage in something they will want to seek out opportunities to use that advantage even more which means that they will get more use out of it.

I think you are referring to an earlier (beta) build that was, I believe, removed as it is no longer referenced anywhere in the game itself. Did you get this information from the wiki? I believe there are many things on there that were from the beta and has not been updated since.

With inflation Interview has made $167,712,375.01. It was released in 1994, and you have to take into account lower ticket prices, less overall money earned by people (even with inflation they earned less than people nowadays do, so less expendable cash), the film being old when Blu Ray came out, meaning only the more hardcore fans bought it as opposed to Twilight which came out when blu ray was already established, etc. With those considerations $25 million does not seem that big a difference.

I have played the 'classics' multiple times, do I get a badge? Seriously though, if you only count CRPGs in there then you are not a senior RPGer, a senior gamer maybe but if you don't think tabletop can be counted instead of playing CRPGs (and in fact many real RPGers look down on computer ones as they feel they are inadequate to the task, not me but I know them) then you counting out the actual real roleplayers, the ones who actually gave the name to the genre, and that's not even including the live action RPGers, so maybe you should clarify just what you mean by Senior RPG players? Since your clarification does not include vast swathes of RPGers at all, just CRPGers.

Yeah, cap isn't an issue for me, I realised that I would hit the cap before finishing and so decided to stop doing things like going through the Endless Paths (after already clearing nine floors of it) in order to save them for subsequent playthroughs. And to be honest it wasn't that much I left for subsequent playthroughs and I only just hit level 12 after the last battle it turned out.

I'm still waiting for 1.05 to come out on GOG!

Wizards rock you just need to play 'em right.

Excellent, just gotta wait for it to come out on GOG then, keep checking...

If you just follow the main plotline you pick up your first female quite rapidly, as fgalkin said you pick up Sagani before Defiance Bay. I personally did notice at one point that I had an all-male party at one point, made me want to have the ability to name the party like in Storm of Zehir and call it "The Bro-Force!"

Stacking weapons and armour would be good. Sorting unique and common items would also be good just for the ease of clicking 'sell all' on a stack of normal gear.

Do you want to get a whole week's worth in one go? Cause if you do I'll get started on this thread for ya.

I believe I have heard BG1 cost $5 million, but that was in 1998. Taking inflation into account that would be $7.2 million. I believe BG2 cost $20 million in 2000, not counting inflation.

Most of which is the same regardless of which choice you made, it just changes the first sentence you say in that particular part.

Rangers were dual-wielders because that's what Drzzt was and he popularised the style, before him rangers were more like Jack the Giant Slayer or Aragorn from Lord of the Rings (two-handed swords and bows). Making all rangers dual-wielders pisses me off as much as making them all ranged pisses you off, I always wanted to play ranger in NWN2 for instance but my choices were "dual wield like that **** Drzzt" or go archer, neither of which appealed (since there were no guns). You can go melee ranger in this, and you can do it without being restricted to dual wielding which is a huge step up for me. Does it lack options for it? Maybe, but it does not pidgeon hold you as much as D&D did. Ranger has historically always had issues defining itself, as it's basic concept is just 'wilderness warrior'. They tried to make them dual-wielders in D&D when that ****-face Marty Stu Drow came along in order to differentiate them somewhat (though ironically it just made ****-face clones), but it didn't help and in 2nd edition particularly it meant you either went two-weapon or you lost out on the only class advantage for weapon styles and going ranged got you nothing (you had to wait until they brought out the kits for that). What ranger needs is better defining for what it is in the world, it currently has better definition in this game than many others as to it's role as pet-guy, it just needs more fleshing out and a wider range of concepts covering. And the ritual sacrificing of ****-Face, but that goes without saying.

1) Quote my statement where I oh so blatantly declared how fantasy should work. 2) If you are trying to deconstruct me make a meaningful statement about: "I am trying to draw attention to pseudo-language vs. other forms of creativity and elements of immersion, where both uses resources from the same pool and stating that in my opinion other forms of creativity and elements of immersion adds more value to a product compared to utilizing a pseudo-language." 1. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/78741-an-honest-but-harsh-review-on-the-setting/?p=1684373 So here you have made the statement that we should not 'cross the barrier' between real and fantasy. Why not? What gives you the right to make such an assertation? And what exactly qualifies as 'fantasy' and not 'reality'? Lots of reality in fantasy I'm sorry to say, did you know swords are real? And then you finish off with the statement that there is no justification for such evolution in a fantasy world, based on what exactly? Last time I checked, a fantasy world is constructed according to the rules established by the author, not some authority such as yourself who dictates what can and cannot be in fantasy. 2. There is nothing meaningful to be said about that because there is nothing meaningful about it. No attention is needed to be brought to it because it is something you either like or don't, the only issue is that you seem to think that because you don't like it then it's obviously something wrong, when it's really just a matter of taste (and your lack of it ).

So how are Rangers meant to fight? What melee abilities do you feel they are missing that are required for a ranger?

I may have to look him up, sounds like he was very... eloquent...

You're all whiners and trolls, just like me, so shut the hell up and get me my tea bitches!

Yes. And ISIL (or whatever the **** the media are calling them now).

Then why did you declare how Fantasy worked hmmm? Because you did, you made a sweeping statement about how fantasy should work, and I called you out on it. I did not zealously defend the game, nice strawman, I called you out on a fallacious statement of yours. Feel free to apologise whenever Now, onto your false dichotomy, which was an obvious attempt at diverting away from above but I feel like having fun deconstructing you, about not criticising something leading to shallow games, no one stated that you can't criticise, but first of all your opinion on the use of language in the game is purely your preferences, I LIKE the use of language and naming in this game, so how does your criticism improve it? On the contrary, your criticism actually tries to make the game more like everything else and therefore more shallow. Nice job. Second, who the hell said not to criticise the game? Strawmanning again are we?

I would assume that without the right equipment they would also lack certain feelings. So if someone is incapable of having sex they can't have love? Have you ever heard of a eunuch being in love? Yes, I have known disabled people who were "in love" but there again we have a specific narrow usage of the world love. Were they straight up born without reproductive organs? I guess that's true. Romantic love and familial bonds should really use different words rather than share the word "love". Moving the goalposts... you asked if people had heard of eunuchs being in love and now add in "But they must be born it!" when people responded in the positive. Many eunuchs were made eunuchs before puberty, effectively preventing them from developing into men and yet they still could have sexual desires for others (which seems to be what you really mean when you say love, not love itself), close enough? People can also have romantic love without engaging in sex as well, some people just mistake sexual desire for love. Sexual desire seems to be the different word for the kind of love you are thinking off, so there's the different word for ya, desire. I can totally see a Godlike travelling the world for another like themselves who can love the way they do. Maybe they even feel emotions differently from the others?

I'll say that GM is the best written companion of the group. Eder has alot of heart in his character but the quality of writing in GM's dialog and interactions is a whole 'nother level. I hope -when- they put in romances Chris Avellone writes at least one. Considering Chris Avellone's stated opinions on romances I don't think they would turn out the way you would want... "So if I were to implement a romance subplot in Eternity - I wouldn’t. I’d examine interpersonal relationships from another angle and I wouldn’t confine it to love and romance. Maybe I’d explore it after a “loving” relationship crashed and burned, and one or both was killed in the aftermath enough for them to see if it had really been worth it spending the last few years of their physical existence chained to each other in a dance of human misery and/or a plateau of soul-killing compromise. Or maybe I’d explore a veteran’s love affair with his craft of murder and allowing souls to be freed to travel beyond their bleeding shell, or a Cipher’s obsession with plucking the emotions of deep-rooted souls to try and see what makes people attracted to each other beyond their baser instincts and discovers love... specifically, his love of manipulating others. You could build an entire dungeon and quest where he devotes himself to replicating facsimiles of love, reducer a Higher Love to a baser thing and using NPCs he encounters as puppets for his experimentations, turning something supposedly beautiful into something filthy, mechanical, but surrounded by blank-eyed soul-twisted drones echoing all the hollow Disney-like platitudes and fairy tale existence where everyone lives happily ever after." Those sound like pretty cool ideas to me :D And he did the Alpha Protocol romances so he's capable of it if ordered to do so. So there's hope for off the wall stuff and traditional romances from him! source -> http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/10388/article/an-interview-with-chris-avellone-on-project-eternity/ Ooops, missed this! Thanks to Rosveen for their last post where I noticed this. Well, an adventure involving having to escape from a Cipher's Love-Dungeon would be different, though it might wander a bit close to certain sequences in Saint's Row 4. Being chased by Aumaua wielding purple dildoes (is that the right spelling for plural ****?) on carriages being pulled by gagged orlans would change my perspective on the game... and there is the Salty Mast already set up to enable this sort of thing...

If that's the case then a Godlike pc coming to the Dyrwood, "Looking for love" would be pretty pointless don't you think?Are you saying that you believe that love is purely an excuse for sex and nothing more?Oh, come on. There's got to be a sexual element, I think. I'm no love expert.Asexuality exists. Besides, sexual needs and behaviors are highly varied, compromises can be worked out and the lacking gear (if it's even really lacking) can be replaced by... other things. When there's a will, there's a way, no? Indeed. In fact I would argue a Godlike lacking the gear would be more likely to be the sort to travel the world looking for love because of their specific situation.

If that's the case then a Godlike pc coming to the Dyrwood, "Looking for love" would be pretty pointless don't you think? Are you saying that you believe that love is purely an excuse for sex and nothing more? Oh, come on. There's got to be a sexual element, I think. I'm no love expert. So if someone is incapable of having sex they can't have love?