Nonek

Exolon?

History abhors a paradox. Wrapping up Soul Reaver 2, a coalescing maelstrom of revelatory narrative brilliance, every thread, every hint and all the foretelling and manipulation over the three games are rewarded in this utterly brilliant climax. It is one of the most powerful and gripping experiences i've ever had the pleasure to play, and I remain impressed by just how coherent, nuanced and complex the plot is. Ms Hennig and her team really knocked it out of the park here, with nods back to all of the previous lore and such a change in focus from what we were expecting from the simple revenge tale told by the first Soul Reaver. The fact that this game can forge such a coherent narrative over millenia of lore, time travelling antagonists and protagonists and the fantastic circumstances of its nature is however to me a telling condemnation on the rest of the industry. Other companies can barely handle coherency, let alone consistency, feel free to rework past lore or abandon it entirely, and frequently leave such holes in the narrative as to render it a laughable mess. I'm left wondering why this is? Is it the nature of the design process, the management of the project or a lack of quality due to no real demand, after all whatever a large company does it will have manic defence of its decision by a fanatical minority, rather than the criticism it should be desiring and needing. When rampaging through the halls of the Sarafan Stronghold I heard Vorador roar at the cowering sheep of the Circle that they should: "Call your dogs! They can feast on your corpses!" Well I felt a shiver of expectation run through me. Here I was in the very scene upon which the Legacy of Kain began, and Raziel was a part of it, within earshot of the ancient Vampire and his rampage. Such a great respectful nod to its predecessor, and immensely satisfying. I really wish more developers would work to make their games so coherent, self referential and consistent.

I'm somewhat on the fence, though I enjoyed D:OS there were a lot of promised features that were not implemented in the end. I was fully expecting these to be added in a patch or the enhanced edition, but they weren't. I may simply pledge at the lowest amount and treat it as a pre-order.

Clinton vs Trump, independence not looking so sweet now is it? Of course I jest, i've really no knowledge of the USA's political machinations, and would not be so arrogant to judge the candidates or the system. Hope you folk live in uninteresting times under your next administration.

The gentleman ingested a Dark Bird of Ocanthus from a rune covered ale stein and awoke to a new perception and grasp on his situation, he then set forth to change his life, while the crone whom had given him the beverage cackled behind his back and whispered. "How strange, that was your first wish!"

Kroenen did add a certain horrific coolness to the experience I must admit.

Rewatched the first Hellboy, i've got to say that I still enjoy it wholeheartedly, and yet its sequel left me totally cold for some unknown reason. Strange.

I'm such a hypocrite! Usually I despise cinematics taking the place of gameplay, and deciding ones actions for the player, however playing Soul Reaver 2 I am quite happy to sit back and watch the cinematics unfold and the labyrinthine plot coalesce. In part it is because of the voice acting, superlative, distinct and so nuanced, but what else is there to this saga that elevates it beyond other games where I sit grinding my teeth waiting for the cinematic to end so I can interact with the game? I think this is quite worthy of discussion, what is the place of cinematics? I used to think that they should only ever serve as rewards for ones in game actions, dramatic reinforcement if you will for ones choices, to update the player via flashbacks or whatever, and never decide the outcome as I detest becoming an idiot in cutscene. Far too often a cutscene will break the games internal consistency, suddenly what you have been doing all game long is overthrown and your previous actions are for nought, they are like a slap in the face to interactivity and far too railroaded. So I wonder what is the optimal method of use?

Yes, watched the first two series I think, really didn't grab me. I never got the feeling of desperation or the alarm that the crew should be feeling, stranded with limited resources on the far side of the galaxy, especially not with the captain sat in that impeccably clean comfy chair. Once again the crew seemed to be largely non entities as an ensemble cast, I really didn't care for any of them. The Doctor seemed interesting though as a holograpjic construct, though a bit ripped off from old Smeghead Rimmer in Red Dwarf.

It's odd Data is more convincingly human than that child and his acting. As an ensemble piece I don't think it measures up to the original series so far, but i'll keep watching. Realised Q was the voice of Trias the Betrayer, though it took a while to figure out.

Watching this Star Trek: Next Generation HD series on your esteemed advice gentlemen, three observations so far: The quality dips and crests from nadir to zenith on almost every episode, it seems that either the writers, the producers or the directors had varying takes on the approaches one should take and this resulted in massive variance. Patrick Stewart holds the whole thing together with an ease and charisma that really shows how unconvincing some of the other cast are, perhaps a little harsh but i'm failing to warm to the auxillary members. Please tell me that Wesley Crusher is not in too many episodes, that child is unbearable.

Ah and since I did no such thing this was an obvious mix up, my apologies and thank you for the explanation.

Hardly? I mean, nor "blatant hatred and low opinion of everything and everyone", nor "choosing to champion criminality (what is this I can't even) and hatemongering", nor "demonising and dismissing so many people as untermensch without intrinsic worth and value" took place on the last page of discussion, unless those words now mean something completely different than they did yesterday. Well, either that, or the meaning of "point proven" has been radically redefined when I wasn't looking. Does not the above underlined and bolded seem a little incendiary for a general observation I was making about no specific person? If my observation caused upset that was most certainly not my intent, I was merely noting an oddity of behaviour where the loudest voices seem incapable of self reflection or practising the behaviour they preach. In regards to my original post my point would be proven by your choice of vocabulary, unfit for debating in a civilised manner, in the theoretical promised land of debate envisioned. The other points are behaviour and attitudes i've seen from various people holding the same opinion, at different times and places, such as Rock, Paper, Shotgun laughing about a bomb threat, Leigh Alexander demonising and insulting millions of innocent people whom happen to play games recreationally yet now ironically calls for non toxic environments, #killallmen and the unreasonable people whom supported the user of that sickening hashtag etcetera. Edit: My apologies for further derailing the thread Moderators.

A few veiled hints by Mr Avellone on the aforementioned RPG Codex: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/questions-for-chris-avellone-radio-interview-now-updated-with-additional-answers-from-mca.101510/page-5 Halfway down the page, using the Durance avatar.

Point proven it seems.

It's a little frightening in my opinion how much we still don't know about the physical condition, we have such expertise and knowledge and yet there are gaping holes there. What will be discovered in twenty years, that turns our accepted wisdom on its head, and at what point will the human mind be fully unravelled with all of its kinks and peculiarities mapped and highlighted? I'm not quite sure i'd want that to ever happen, we share a commonality but there is also an individuality that i'm not sure needs investigating too thoroughly.

What I find quite baffling is how often the people calling for censorship and safe spaces with codes of conduct to ensure everyone act as they wish are the nastiest and most toxic of individuals, and if those laws were implemented fairly (instead of encouraging groupthink and accepted ideology) they'd be the first casualties of that regime due to their blatant hatred and low opinion of everyone and everything. One can see this by their vocabulary, what they choose to champion such as criminality and hatemongering, and how they are so keen to demonise and dismiss so many people as untermensch, without intrinsic worth or value. It's quite funny that constructive discussion now means echoing an accepted opinion, you can see why Socrates fell foul of his peers in Athens. Edit: Any word on Mr Avellone's Poe novella yet? Thought there might be some news with the expansions announcement date.

I don't mind high level monsters for the rare types. It's just the "lesser" monsters that makes the enemy level system a bit odd. For instance, I have no issue with a high level Royal Wyvern. That should give the player a bit of trouble, and thus it makes sense you need to be at a certain level to take it on. But when drowners, random bandits, and ghouls are way above your level that they kill Geralt in one or two hits, that's where it gets a bit dodgy. You see what I would do is simply make a Royal Wyvern an extremely difficult foe, without a level requirement, much harder to take down than a normal Wyvern and able to brutalise low level Wicthers or even high level ones whom are inattentive or unprepared. Give the monster a deadly skill set, a good AI and a rewarding treasure to guard, and let it be an accomplishment to slay without the damage boost or penalty factor of level comparison making any difference. Then again it's easy for me to sit here and play backseat developer, there's no way I could produce anything of the scope, quality or depth of the Witcher 3.

I do not recall how it looked,, i guess I will take a look at some lets play vid if available. EDIT: found one: you have a very odd to me perception when it comes to comparing the two battles.... the SOTH one is a small skirmish, while the one in the TW:WH demo shows large armies with a lot of special units and some high level spells in a scripted sequence... The micromanagement needed in TW seemed inferior, the troops were not used efficiently, the enemy was hardly delayed or bogged down in any serious manner and the flanking maneuver was so blatant and poorly implemented as to hardly have an effect. I really don't see what Total Warhammer has on SotHR other than a larger scope, better UI and graphics. I'm afraid that i'm still not impressed.

Having recenttly smashed through an Orc band at Black Fire Pass in Shadow of the Horned Rat, i've got to say that I was not very impressed with that demonstration at all.

The scope is what worries me, Cyberpunk with all of its classes and their inividual approaches dwarf the fairly one dimensional approach of Deus Ex, now how can they implement that: A Solo may play in a similar fashion to Jensen, but a Netrunner, an Executive, a Rock Star all have so many approaches that mandate different content as to make an almost dizzying variety. I foresee that they are either going to have to artificially funnel the player in some manner or make content that lacks the detail they usually bestow on their settings. If they can make all of the classes feel genuinely as different in approach as the tabletop game however, and make a narrative as detailed and personal as is present in the Witcher, then I think the game will probably set a new benchmark. It seems like a Herculean task however.

I still maintain that the levels on monsters and items should be removed entirely, though of course that's an easy thing to say and in reality a large amount of work, and I doubt even an enhanced edition would stretch that far in terms of scope. What i'm surprised at is nobody flagging this issue during playtesting, this was one of the most stable launches CDPR has had so they obviously tested the game rigorously, I can't belive that someone didn't flag this as an issue. Somewhat worrying for Cyberpunk, where the mechanics will make or break the game I believe, with a multitude of classes, abilities, cyberware and states to implement.

I'm assuming that you'll still be able to gradually increase in power anyway, I don't think there's a level cap, you'll just start with points to spend how you wish reflecting your advanced level at the end of Assassins. They need to remove the twelve abilities limit however. To be honest i'd much rather this was implemented instead of NG+, then again that's just my own preference, and admittedly I have unusual tastes.

Allow the character to level up (probably best to do this in the prologue) to 35 immediately, give him equipment and formulae, and let him loose in the same environment that the NG+ characters are using. Sounds simple to me. I'm not asking for the same advancement system as Assassins, just advance using the Wild Hunts system.

I see no real difference, in NG+ you're presumably starting the game again on Yen's trail after the events of Assassins of Kings, fully equipped and levelled up to around forty or so. This is almost exactly how you should transfer from the Witcher 2, the differences in the character system can be alleviated by simply giving an import 35 character points to spend, on whatever he wishes, and a set of adequate equipment. After all there's simply no reason to strip all of the skills from Geralt for a second time, and reduce him to only learning one or two of them after advancing fifty levels in the first game and thirty five in the second. It would also make the import matter a little more, something sorely needed.