FlintlockJazz

Um, I just do? I find reading to be as easy as breathing, I'm starting to realise this is apparently not normal...

I think the pollaxe and estoc deserved getting portrayed in games for once, and I think those of us who like realistic weapons deserve one game where realistic weapons are used for once since most other games go the fantasy route so leave us with one!!!! And to counteract the gun-hater post earlier, we want MOAR GUNS!!!!!

Wizards have to be really careful about which spells to use... and that's bad ? If you want a fairly mindless adrenaline rush, I recommend Nuclear Throne. Just curious, what's the camping supplies limit on Easy ? On Normal it's 4. I'm playing on Hard now, limit is 2, and I haven't run out of supplies ever yet. By the time I spend some, I find some more. I've ran out, but that's because I forget to stock up like all the time. The only reason I manage to have any is because they can be found so easily, I rarely have to buy them.

as gkathellar said, naw. The box anyway. Alignment is a personal thing and none of you goddam business!

I'd think an appreciation thread would be the perfect place to troll, because opinion would tend to be so combustible. Combustible, and then you add Wizards! Big badda boom!

Wizards rule, monks drool!

I'm so proud of the guys in this thread and how they managed to turn it this way, and that's not sarcasm. In one night they managed to completely derail the thread and re-rail it into something actually fun to talk about.

I do think the game needs a "Trademeet", for some reason having that extra hub that wasn't a full city but was large enough to be a densely packed town with it's own questlines and random stuff just seemed to add so much to BG2 for me. Not sure why, just did. Possibly be because it was a hub for several different quests like Athkatla was but was also small enough that you felt like you were making a difference without being too small that it felt important itself.

I have noticed my loading times getting rather ridiculous, I also noticed that when I start the game up it takes a while before "Continue" and "Load Game" become available, instead having the message "Loading save games" on them both. I do save an abnormally large amount (I like to 'catalogue' my journey), so will also try moving saves around to see if that makes a difference too.

Er, yes it is. The Kickstarter 'making of' doc explicitly features employees discussing the prospect of closing the company if something didn't turn up. They made the commercial realities behind the project part of the story. Not us. Um, well yeah. Budget, finances are a part of any development story. Individual pay, though? Oh, yeah, I'm with you on that. Did anyone ask for individual pay though? I closest I found was someone asking for the staff size but I took that to mean how many people worked at Obsidian.

Regarding that last bit about sales: one thing to remember is that many of the long-term PC gamers in other countries may use other distribution channels, such as GOG (myself included there) so it depends on national preferences like that. And of course there is the issue you noted of it depends on the region, so while 90% of Germany (grabbing numbers out of the air here) might be PC gamers their total population is only a fraction of the US and the country next door might be 95% console gamers, whereas you're counting the whole of the US in that there stat. I know the UK (where I'm from) is mostly console gamer, maybe even more than the US.

Remember, BG2 was a 'high-level' campaign, you started at medium level and could end just short of 20th level if you didn't have ToB installed due to the level cap, past level 20 if you did and did the sidequests, so of course the weapons would be more epic. It would be fairer to compare the weapons in BG1 to Pillars since they more closely cover the same level and power ranges.

Wizards rock. They may feel a bit limited at first but once you get a few levels under your belt I actually have been finding mine to be essential. Then again, I love the mechanics of Grimoire and spell selection so I may be biased.

I'm playing a Wizard and they rock, not sure what the issue is people are having with them. Okay, so their spells are per rest, but they get a lot of them especially as you level up and you get other abilities that are per encounter such as Arcane Assault and Grimoire Slam. And this may mark me as sad but I really enjoy being able to sit there mulling over which spells to put into my Grimoire and taking down another Wizard and being able to steal his Grimoire is a moment of glee for me...

Personally I would prefer that they expand on what they already got. Add more gods in for priests, more paladin orders, animal companions for rangers, more spells for Wizards, etc.

Sorry, but I really like the Engagement system. I think it works really well, is better than the feared aggro system I was worried they would go with in order to enable Fighters and the like to tank, and makes positioning important.

Not sure even that would free me of the curse of BSN that seems to follow me around!!!

I have not set foot in that foul place for many a year now, but doesn't it detonate continuously already? Not sure a further detonation would really be noticed, even from a A-class, not unless we sent him in there with some serious hardware.

Yet you still managed to comment on this thread despite your annoyance ...weird one that. It obviously can't bother you that much Annoyance?

This actually sorta gets to me. There's a lot more VO:s in PoE than there were in the IE games, which I don't necessarily consider bad, but none of it feels memorable. Even the voices the player has to choose from feels sorta meh. The storyteller's voice in the first slide before you even make your character was pretty good, but past that, I haven't come across anything that compares to even the CNPC:s of BG1, save perhaps Edér, but that's possibly because he just feels appropriate, rather than awesome. I often harp on quantity being a quality all in it's own when it comes to CNPC:s, but when it comes to VO:s, the price tag is so high that I really feel that less is more. I'd rather have it very rarely, but when I have it, it's Irenicus, it's Xan, it's Annah, it's Dak'kon, it's Vhailor, and it's Sarevok. I won't mention Gaelan Bayle because that's a sad chapter. I have to agree, and I think the lack of "quotable" sayings is one of the main differences I have noticed between Obsidian and Bioware I have to say. Bioware's stories tend to be rather flimsy when you look at them filled with cliches and stereotypes with wooden characters but they cover them up with flashy set-pieces and cheesy one-liners like with Minsc and Boo that really don't mean anything and even break the fourth wall but everyone loves to repeat, whereas Obsidian writes deep plots that actually makes sense and do subtlety and low-key but are less 'quotable' (and therefore harder to market) with even their crazy characters like Stephen Heck having very few lines I can easily quote in day to day life. I prefer Obsidian's focus since I find it hard now to be distracted by the Hollywood style distractions Bioware uses to cover up their rather dire (in my eyes) characters and because I find their writing doesn't treat me like an idiot, but I did pick up on the lack of memorable sayings when you click on someone....

Those are cool, loving the Orlan!

Exactly! I think we are in full agreement tbh, I just think we need to remind ourselves and others every now and again that just because we find something offensive (whether it be limericks or censureship) doesn't mean something is wrong. It's something I need to remind myself of every now and again when emotions start running high.

****, how the hell did I end up on BSN?? Damn, need to find the way out of this hellhole and back to civilised company.

Ah, but then we come to two points: 1. Monte Carlo was summing up what his argument in this thread has been, and there have been people making the argument that it should be removed because it offends, not why it offends but simply that it does, and so his point has merit. 2. If someone is justified in being offended does that automatically mean that it was wrong? Comedians often take the mock out of religion and creed, and quite often those groups they mock are offended, does that mean Comedians should not mock them? Calling someone's religion stupid and moronic is going to justifiable offend that person but does mean they get the right to censure you saying that? Just because someone IS justifiable offended doesn't mean they have the right to censure you. And who gets to decide that something is justifiably offensive or not? To whose standards? Where is the line between taking the piss and being nasty? And which groups get protection and which don't? I ain't gonna answer these questions, personally I'm thinking I need to step away from this thread very very carefully and think everyone else should too because no good can come from it, but damnit I do love playing with fire...

Damn it, I left that ****hole years ago once I realised Bioware was more interested in set pieces and ego stroking, don't tell me it's expanding over here? The games are still decently written right? They've not turned into sex-simulators yet have they? Sorry to butcher your quote like this, but I just wanted to highlight and discuss this notion which has been thrown around on this site a lot lately. However, it just seem counterintuitive to me, depending on what is actually meant here. So, do you (and/or others) mean: 1) the fact that someone is offended, doens't automatically mean that someone has done something wrong in offending them. 2) it is never wrong to offend other people. 3) something else If 1), then that's not really all that relevant, because you'd have a hard time finding anyone who disagrees with it. And 2), simply can't be true. The reason 1) doesn't apply, is that those who are offended, aren't (in their mind) offended just because. They are offended because of something, namely that they consider the rhyme wrong, presumably because they consider it damaging to a cause they consider morally worthy (sexual equality, or something in that regard). Now we can argue whether it is in fact a worthy cause, or whether the rhyme is indeed damaging to this cause. And even if we accept both, we can still argue wether the fact that it is harmful is enough to justify removing the limerick. But to invoke something like the quoted text, just seems like a belittling strawman*. *depending on what 3) could mean Time to nuke this site from orbit... So, let me ask you a question! Should cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed be censored because it causes offence? Many people of the Muslim faith find this offensive, they aren't offended just because right? Do they, as a religious group, have a right to not be offended by other people? What about Christians who are offended by homosexuality? Do they have a right not to be offended by gay people? While you answer that, let me just go grab something... *Legs it to his nuclear bomb shelter, where he sits peeking out*