Nonek

The parodies of other games, like the psuedo-16 bit sidescrolling brawler are what makes the game great. I still feel The Third was the best of the series. Like Streets of Rage? If so i'm very much looking forward to it. Think i'll have to acquire the third game, appreciate the recommendation.

Ashamed to say that i'm thoroughly enjoying Saints Row 4, for a man of restrained sensibilities and serious disposition this seems an extremely unlikely pick, however i'm chuckling away at every not so gentle ribbing and broad display of humour. I feel a little guilty, and am left idly wondering if some of the targets skewered by the games satirisation are going to sue.

I stopped watching after the gentleman talking announced that the game will be combat intensive, yay just what I was missing in DA2, more cooldown popping.

No the first rule of crap combat systems is WE DO NOT TALK ABOUT CRAP COMBAT SYSTEMS! Sorry.

Prince Ludwig the Indestructible.

You overheard the King asking who would rid him of this troublesome priest, nicely ambiguous.

Sounds 2000ad-ish.

A white haired genetically modified super soldier with a girlfriend called Priss, where do I know that from?

Personally I would prefer that there are no answers anywhere, only a multitude of differing questions and beliefs. Such that there is no end to the road travelled, only a thousand different paths to choose. Then again I admit that i'm somewhat of a big wet flannel.

I was always delightfully surprised at what the game would allow me to do (and acknowledge) in New Vegas, so I have no fears in this department. No doubt however there will be players who refuse to read the journal, listen to conversations or read anything, and wonder why they rapidly become lost.

I quite like that part of the description, it leaves a definite ambiguity in the role that the deities are playing. They seem to definitely exist, and by the example we are shown in Saint Waidwen, are capable of granting immense power, but is that the whole story? Perhaps they are simply old souls, potent and wise who have ascended beyond the flesh, and their believers are fooling themselves. Perhaps the spark of the divine lies in every soul, and worship of these gods is as good as any other method? Or perhaps they are fallen angels, one step away from a higher purpose? It's pleasingly ambiguous to my sensibilities. It also solves the earlier debate where Micamo argued that a player should never be punished for their lack of faith, and I argued that their was no real point in having faith then, that we should suffer consequences and adapt rather than be never anything less than empowered. I assume ones inherent faith can be redirected in the event of a crisis of faith, into some form of aseticism perhap? After an initial period of loss and powerlessness, which would only be logical after a lifetimes beliefs and dogma are shattered.

Please post an appropriate warning when a link leads to the castrati warblings of landwhales sir, they're hardly palatable at the best of times. Edit: Looks very interesting, will buy the full game once released I think, thoroughly enjoyed Drakensang.

You could give the chap a little hope if that way inclined, a little good deed in the midst of the larceny and laissez faire of that ward. Or not your decision, and all the better for being so.

Personally I thought Mourns for Trees, just north of the Smouldering Corpse, was a very good method of reinforcing the central theme of ones beliefs affectings ones reality in Torment. That and involving the companions in the conversation, so that a new angle is shone on their personality. It was a nice little moment of character and detail building, which I personally thought served to enrich the Hive, and break from its prevailing grim tone. Most of the Mebbeth quest arc was nicely written I thought, a touch blatant but an interesting spin on the usual formula nontheless.

Me Tarzan 7/9.

That's fairly much all multicellular lifeforms. Edit: I'm all for massive reams of text, packed with exposition, absolutely adore them.

I think the delightful thing is that one can be an arsehole on any one of these tides, charting actions and not motivations is a very clever method of implementation. I am quite intrigued by it, and I think a naturalistic playthrough as oneself may be quite interesting. Edit: It's very strange that the language filter will block out the equine animal as used in American, but not the latin derived English word for buttock.

Essentially the very problem I had with the game and protagonist, once again we're forced into the role of a dumb killer. For me unless they have a fine line in witty one liners and self deprecating humour like say Ash Williams, or some other redeeming quality, then i'm not that sure of where my empathies lie.

I've been wondering about this myself, could heroes, legends and religion be considered the Pillars of Eternity? The way that they echo down through the ages and endure when the original participants are long gone, the way that in our world we say that a wealthy man is as "rich as Croesus" the foolish last king of Lydia, or strong as Hercules etcetera. Are these cultural points of commonality what bind us together, or what drive us apart, and do qualify as Pillars of civilisation. In the world of Eternity however it might well be that strong souls are regarded as the Pillars of Eternity, those that by their deeds shape races, countries and cultures. And that either ascend to divinity (if they do) or are born over and over again.

Had the dog trying to crawl into my lap this afternoon and evening, poor beggar's still anxious about fireworks, unfortunately a fifteen stone Mastiff is quite a cumbersome adornment.

I believe the gentleman is Basso the Boxman from the three previous games, ironically though his voice has a sight more character and nuance than what i've heard of the new Garret, who sounds as dull and generic as it is possible to be. Edit: Dishonoured should be flattered.

I think there's a certain amount of fun to be had in standing against massive odds, replaying a little Thermopylae if you will, and certainly a massively scarred and experienced veteran might be quite imposing and distinctive. Obviously if this is the protagonist and he has no hand in slaying any of his nemeses, well that creates a little bit of a dissonance, sometimes a matter is personal and one can see why the player would want to have a hand in the final blow rather than tackle minions or just be hit. Still this is the burden of a class system, which the Kickstarter pitch fairly much mandates. Edit: I won't bring up the matter of gameplay outside of combat, and the fun factor of it, as this seems beyond the ambit of the thread.

Through no fault of their own Obsidian have inherited these names from D&D, thus my thread on alternate names so that a player does not stumble into a class whose playstyle he finds unlikable. However this can surely be avoided with an informative tutorial or set of tooltips/manual. I do believe there needs to be some clarity when identifying the classes, for instance identifying the poor weapon skills of the Fighter, the superior martial skills of the Rogue, the Paladins mainly inspirational role and the Dervish like spinning (I assume) of the Barbarian. For someone like myself who left AD&D a long time ago and still holds an 18(--) strength fighter to be a veritable juggernaut of destruction on the battlefield, this obviously is rather a strange stuation and explains why my playthroughs of later edition TSR CRPG's (IWD 2 and NWN 2) were so poorly optimised, as I knew nothing about these new roles. Still not a problem for somebody following the development closely as I am.

I can't quite recall but did Mr Sawyer state that these bonuses persist until one rests again? If so this would be quite a nice method of incentivising a player to not rest spam, very nice design in my own humble opinion.

I played Ultima Underworld 1&2 in 3d twenty years ago, and that game shames most modern 3d games in terms of features, reactivity and scale. Indeed most modern 3d games are either linear corridors or puddle deep in comparison, so factually I don't believe that we were restricted to isometric at that time. Rather I prefer this perspective, certainly the ten million plus sales of Diablo 3 would argue that many others do as well. However I don't believe that every game must be restricted to first or third person view to be successful, it should cater to whatever its audience wants, and implying such meaningless restrictions to a medium is rather narrow minded. No insult intended of course, but i'm rather against stifling creativity for the sake of what is fashionable.