Luckmann

Christ, this game is still in shambles in terms of bugs even today. Just ran into this. Not getting the final key from Uariki.

This bug never got fixed either.

I must say, I'm amazed that this is still not fixed. This has to be some kind of record low in bug-fixing. Edit: I managed to work around it in ~1 hour whereas Obsidian hasn't fixed this in 3 ****ing years. Save before entering the cave. Change the Global "b_Rumbald_Ogre_Attacked" from 1 to 0. Enter the cave, but do not move, instead, teleport into the Ogre Den using the Ctrl+J cheat key. This will circumnavigate the trigger at the start of the cave (which will move the quest state two steps as if you've already talked to Korgrak), and trigger the conversation with Korgrak. Talk to him, then clear the dungeon backwards and proceed as normal. Seriously though, how can you leave a major quest like this for 3 ****ing years?

Almost certainly.

While the enthusiasm is cool, I feel it necessary to point out that PoE really isn't a crawler, but fair enough.

Why would you, though? From an optimization standpoint, you should stick to Clothes or Heavy Armour. A clothed Monk can make a devastating damage-dealer.

The point about the overworld is a good one, too - anyone that's been out late at night, away from the major cities or large green houses (seriously, those damn things), would know that night is really, really, really dark, unless there happens to be a full moon and clear skies. A torch or minor light source gives you considerably better vision, but in a very small radius, and as it blinds you, everything outside of it is likely to be pitch black. Meanwhile, you're made visible from miles away. I really hate how in many modern games, there's really no meaningful difference between night and day, and you've got perfect 20/20 vision either way. If Skyrim had proper lightning, you'd have to make camp overnight, and even a small town would stand out as a beacon against the clouds of the night sky. And I love the very thought of coming down a dungeon with my torch, and either it tips off the people down there, or I can see the flickering lights in the distance myself. But more than than, the fact that the enemy would need light sources too, there's the fact that a good many would not need any at all, whether they're spiders or slimes, and it'd just make them so much more horrifying. Makes it so much easier to appreciate the existential horror of living in a pre-industrialization society, where there's something evil just past the reach of your fire, and everything that can see your torch in the distance likely wants to eat you. Well, first of all, saying that torches don't get used up is a pretty big assumption. In a system employing this, I'd expect torches to get used up, unless they're enchanted. But more importantly, you'd only be able to see as far as the light reaches, and you'd actually need to have ways to carry that light, whether it's carrying a torch in your off-hand (which poses the interesting question as to whether you'll use it for fighting or not; it might get damaged, or snuffed out mid-combat) or having a magic sword or a dedicated spell. And obviously, encounters and dungeons would have to be designed with this in mind - but I absolutely think that entering a dungeon should be done knowing full well that you might be risking life and limb, fortune or not. Hell, we're already risking life and limb fighting monsters, in a narrative sense - I just wish we'd do it in a mechanical sense, too. Honestly, going up against a party our own size should always be a real danger, and I hate how we're slaughtering sometimes entire camps at once, when a stray bullet should be able to put us down. The full fog of war disappears after you've discovered that section of the map, and darkness would have to be accounted for and countered. Fog of war just is or isn't.

Not entirely true. You shot once with the pistol, and then you used it as an off-hand, wielding it like a small but heavy reinforced club. Reloading a blackpowder anything isn't really feasible in chaotic skirmish combat.

Honestly there could be 800 ways to trivialize that particular facet of gameplay, whether it be floating balls of light that you'd automagically recast after each rest, burning swords or glowing cloaks and I'd still love to see it.

Personally, I'd love it, but I'd love all kinds of survival aspects, such as limited resting, the need to carry torches, and to eat and keep hydrated.

Just to be clear here, in a legal sense, both of you are on extremely thin ice in regards to the highlighted sections. No, anything posted on a deviantart or drawcrowd account is not automatically up for use, not even if you credit the artist, and it has nothing to do with whether anyone is charging money or not - although doing so would most certainly make the whole thing way, way worse. Unless the artist explicitly gives permission through some disclaimer, or by marking it as licensed under Creative Commons, under most conditions in most areas, you have no legal right to use any part of their art in any way whatsoever, save - depending on region - as part of criticism or review, and then the thing still needs to be reproduced or copied into a format that does not constitute infringement, such as resizing it so that quality suffers, only showing part of it, or so on and so forth. That being said, the vast majority of artists, and certainly anyone that isn't a nutter, would be OK with you using their art for private use, or to show others, as long as they're being credited, as long as you're not profiting from their work in any way, and as long as you don't claim it as your own somehow. I just wanted to clarify that legally, your assumptions and guesses couldn't be further from the truth. And don't assume that if someone complains, that it would be hard or pointless; some artists pursue legal action relentlessly, and although it would be hard to prove who did what (since most herein do not use their real names, nor on sites as the Nexus and so on), it can potentially be quite profitable. That being said, once they have complained, if you comply to remove their artwork from whatever context they're whining over, and you have not made any money of it, and the act cannot be considered to have misrepresented the artist or their artwork, it becomes hard as hell to formulate a case. So, ask when possible, always credit the artist if at all possible, and if an artist complains to you, drop that thing like a hot potato covered in burning oil. Especially the last thing. I'm not sure about the U.S., but I know many countries have a "good faith"-clause, where you as the artist have to ask someone to not use this or that artwork, before pursuing legal action, unless money or misrepresentation is involved.

This is the first time ever I see an Achievement and go "I wish I had achievements".

While entirely true in theory, it's a pretty fine line, honestly, and it's very hard to separate propaganda from not-propaganda in media, in regards to this standpoint. But as for how could they otherwise? It's actually not that complicated. I routinely take stances which are not my own, for the sake of argument. Sometimes I even lose.

Which is still a damn stupid viewpoint, once you go beyond caveman-level issues. Eh? Stupid? It's just a true statement, not a judgement on it's merits compared to other options Stupid would be saying 'Violence is a good solution to all problems'. Or heck, even 'Violence is a good solution to a reasonable minority of problems'. Or maybe 'Violence can't solve all problems.' You're trying to argue against the possibility of something by pointing out it'd be a terrible idea, which isn't exactly how it works. Given that the original statement being objected to was: Which, again, is simply untrue. In any complex civilization, the number of problems literally unsolvable by violence (unless you broaden your definition of "violence" to the point where it ceases to have meaning) will always be greater than the opposite. Depends on your definition of a problem, really. There's a great many tasks that are not actual problems, unless you consciously make them such. Is it a problem going to Mars? No, not really. Is a math assignment a problem? Again, not really. And would two separate assignments count as two separate problems? Well then, yeah, there's a point in saying that the number of "problems" that cannot be solved with violence is greater than the opposite. But in reality, I can make that math problem not be a problem anymore, with enough violence.

I *could* be wrong. I'm not sure if I've actually tried to see if he's there if I haven't run him out of town. But if he's there no matter what, the dialogue is different.