Merin

I think a lot of "no" votes are confused. Not all, maybe not even most, but enough. Those who want to be able to create their own party are NOT asking that companions be removed, or that the game's story be redesigned to have less story / companion interactions. Like being able to play solo, this would be like playing solo (no companion story hooks, banter...) but having help in fights.

I want this option.... but I'm not holding my breath at this point.

Don't get me wrong, I love Alpha Protocol... but I wouldn't call the endings "great" just because they are so reactive. The ending was good - not as good, IMO, as the multiple endings to Bloodlines, mind you.... I'm currently (trying (hard)) to play MotB. I'll update on how I think the end of that game rates. I really don't believe I'll ever get through PS:T, however. I'm sorry - I love story, text and dialog... but that game is too tedious for me. *ducks tomatoes* Tedious like BG1 was, at least.

Yeah, the confusion from backers over what "Wasteland" meant... too many heard "grandfather of Fallout" and through Fallout 3. Boy, the headaches those conversations caused....

I was so excited for that game, and the look of the graphics and the 3D view and bad cameras were the first (of MANY) things that turned me off to NWN. Not even when it was released... had that look come out five years earlier I'd have been as equally "Blech" on it.

To each his own... I thought IWD's ending was completely unremarkable and uninteresting. PS:T on the other hand had some of the most satisfying endings I've ever seen in a video game. ... Yeah, to each their own. I know IWD is remembered as a dungeon crawl, but the difference between IWD and BG were really two-fold: 1 - player made party vs. recruited companions (the latter could, arguably, lead to a deeper or more compelling story - I'd vehemently disagree it means a BETTER story) 2 - more linear story and where you go from where vs. much more free-form exploration (arguably, the former leads to a better story) Because of 2, BG was "longer" as you could wander around more. But there's nothing inherently different between the two games that means one should have a better story. I, personally, feel IWD is one of the better, if not the best, realized stories (with a beginning, middle, end, clear plot points and protagonist, etc) that Black Isle / Obsidian has done. And, for me, IWD indeed has the best story ending of any of their games (with the acknowledgment that I've never finished, nor gotten far, in PS:T so I can't fairly judge it) I hadn't thought about endings before in regards to IWD but, yeah, I'm on the "better if not best ending to a story B.I./Obs has done" train. EDIT - yes, above, mentioned PS:T - and yes, BG wasn't mentioned and the BG series was BioWare... it's just that BG and IWD are often compared, and I mostly see it as BG was the story heavy series and IWD was the dungeon crawl, and I feel that's a false dichotomy... IWD was a dungeon crawl, mostly, yes, but BG was more open world exploration. Story wasn't the difference. Anywho, yes, when I say "best of B.I./Obs", I know BG wasn't theirs, and I include in the actual list Fallout's, KotOR 2, Alpha Protocol, NWN2 (not finished MotB or SoZ yet, so those COULD be better), ToEE...

If I had more money, I'd donate more. But there's little they could say that would make me add or subtract money - without majorly changing things they have already established, at least.

- everything is grey: I'm so tired of moral ambivalence.... make the world where good, bad and indifference all unhappily co-exist - skill imbalance: if a skill cannot be used often in the game, don't have it as a skill in the game - overabundance of loot: more money and sell-able items from defeated opponents, less iron daggers; let us buy (or build) our good items, with a very few rare exceptions of named item drops on important opponents - magic-user OP: please balance it so that the wizard doesn't rule the game - voice-over: there will be some, understood... but hopefully very little to none for the MC, and most of the dialog will be text only to add for more depth and options - random encounters: the absolutely random ones, where you travel the world map (or are just walking through an area) and completely randomized monsters groups can hit you, repeatedly... just no - affliction storyline / mechanic: I think it may be too late to say this at this point, but I don't want my main character to be saddled with some plot device sickness or curse that slowly eats at him over the game or drives him forward in very specific ways... this also feels tired right now - excessive tragedy in the story: some downers are expected, and heartache makes for compelling storytelling... however, make sure there's enough humor to balance it out - Dragon Age 2, for example, was a depression fest of constantly killing off family members, friends, half of cities, those people you save the previous chapter... just, let the protagonist do some lasting good sometimes, and have the occasional bit of humor that isn't dark humor - all companions being dark, tragic, or of questionable character: I'm sure a pattern is showing here... but I am so sick of "dark fantasy" and "grim and gritty" storytelling; how about a couple happy companions, or at least stoic without horrible pasts they are running from... - multi-classing: just no - excessively complicated combat mechanics: stuff like attacks of opportunity, facing, shields only protecting one side, weapon types (like slashing or piercing or bludgeoning) and the need to paper-rock-scissors the basic combat implements against foes who are resistant to types, too many levels of buffing, spell combos.... combat should be fun, tactical, and open to multiple ways to approach any given fight...but when you get to the ridiculous level of, say, ToEE and five-foot stepping.... gah, no... - everyone's friend: in one playthrough the player should not be able to befriend all factions ... at least a few should be "either/or" situtations; players also shouldn't be able to join every available group in one playthrough, either - completionist: the player shouldn't be able to see the entire map, finish every quest, and see every part of the story in just one playthrough... there should be stuff that is dependent, in many different ways, on player choices (at character creation AND during the game) so that the weight and meaning of said choices last welly outside of the choice itself ... and that's enough from me for now.

Only correction I'd make here is that a good portion of the "multi-player" that happened in the 90's into the early 00's was done by LAN. People had LAN parties. Internet speed wasn't an issue.

You'll get the "answer to life, the universe and everything" birthday twice... save that 42! Happy birthday!

Given my druthers, I want more control over my character and more options... but too many options, especially if they are completely a la carte, is a balancing nightmare and a pain in the butt for a player like me who doesn't want to whip out a spreadsheet, calculator and spend hours figuring out DPS. So sub-classes are nice. You pick your class, that limits you on some stuff, then eventually you pick a sub-class that specializes your character in a specific way. To be clear - I'm vehemently against multi-classing, though. That can burn in a fire until it's no longer even a bad memory.

I went with FO/BG, number 3, random stuff... just because I know there'll be combat animations and, since there will be, some random things happening at different times keeps down the monotony. I'd rather the combat WASN'T animated, at all, maybe a sword swing like in the old Gold Box games... but I fully accept this as a losing battle, so option 3 was my choice.

I bought Baldur's Gate right when it was released - but I've never finished it. I pre-ordered the Collector's Edition to BG2 from Electronics Boutique (R.I.P.) and played it to completion, including Throne of Bhaal, twice. I've played Icewind Dale more times than I can count. I also played Icewind Dale 2 a couple times, and... well, I own Planescape: Torment, so I guess it counts, but I didn't buy it until years after it came out and I've never gotten very far into it.

I don't want gold to have weight, but I'm all for it being a toggle (and part of that Expert mode or whichever it fits into.)

I could use a new ballcap. Setting up something at a site like Cafepress isn't too hard, too.

Okay, everyone, calm down. He's not serious. To give him the benefit of the doubt, he's gently mocking everyone. Just ignore it. If it really bothers you, you aren't bad to /ignore someone who posts like that. Eventually the mods will catch up with those who post about raping dragons.

I'd be fine with it. I've played games where I was forced to work with a terrorist organization, forced to have to choose between letting one or hundreds die, forced to leave the vault that I had saved only to wander the wilderness no matter how much good I did for them, forced to have to listen to the elven emo whining of David Warner pining endlessly for his lost pointy ears... If you want good story, and you choose to play a game... some things WILL be forced on you. Gonna happen. Romance doens't bother me anymore than being stuck as a Jedi (far less, actually - I really dislike Star Wars and especially Jedi.)

Well, that's exactly how a "goal driven" exp system is supposed to work. No one said it needs to be necessarily a wordy quest written on your journal. I realize this. But too many people act as if it's "XP only for doing something for the guy with the ! over his head."

I still think a more elegant solution is broadening your definition of "goal" or "encounter." If you run into a random encounter of monster, for example, your only goal may be survival - which requires that you kill / drive off the monsters. XP rewarded. It wasn't a quest given to you or a goal in your journal... but when the encounter is generated, the reward condition is generated as well. For the "sneak past or kill all in your way", it's obvious - the XP is for getting in the door... once you get in the door, plot flag drops. You can't get it for going through the door again, and fighting the guards after you sneak in gives you nothing but (if you're into that sort of thing) a fun combat. Quite simply, you can arrange for the game to award XP for players who run characters that are only combat-oriented and kill their way through goals without resorting to XP per kill. On some occasions it will look similar or identical, but the subtle difference really de-emphasizes killing everything in sight "for the extra XP" strategy guide advice.

I wouldn't stop you... you'll probably be on your way to rescue Chris Avellone from whomever had staged a military-style coup at Obsidian.

Yeah, in the end I just hope Obsidian does their thing. Investors? Since when was spending money required to make people feel like their opinion is the only one that matters? People really don't understand Kickstarer.

That's an interpretation I hadn't considered. I don't think you're right, but I don't know that you're wrong. Hmmm.

Like - 52.22% / Dislike - 24.04% Want - 55% / Don't want - 21.83% Soft support isn't quite the same as hard support. My take away is that there's a whole lot of people who could go either way or just don't care. "I'd rather it is part of the game, but if Obsidian decides to not include it I'll adapt." That's not exactly soft support - that a vote for it but a clear acknowledgment of being able to enjoy the game without what they want. I can't speak for everyone choosing that option, sure, but when I wrote it to mean support but not necessity. Kind of like "Hardcore, really want, want but can live without." I'm that way with making my own party. I want it... I'll always vote for it... but I can still enjoy the game with recruited companions. --- And even accepting your "take away the middles" - 34.79 currently "hard" want and 14.11 "hard" don't want. Still more than double. Still a 20 point spread. Still a landslide in any election. And before you come back and say 34.79 isn't enough, you can't lump the other 65 some percent together - you have to look deeper... hence the so-called "soft" answers. Here's the difference between you and I - if the "soft" don't want was larger and the "soft" do want smaller, I'd concede freely that more don't want than do. Whereas you'll say - when it's actually 52/24. There's more than a little attempting to manipulate the numbers on your part there. Look - this is a silly poll, excessively unscientific, and Obsidian certainly isn't going to grab ANY poll from any thread (especially with a sample size of 300 out of nearly 50,000 without some kind of sample controlling) so... why not just say: 1 - You don't want romance, don't like it, oppose it in PE 2 - The numbers, while showing what they show, don't really matter. Those would be accurate statements. "50/50" is factually false.

Like - 52.22% / Dislike - 24.04% Want - 55% / Don't want - 21.83% Only if you ignore one simple thing -

While not the player, per se, in Dragon Age 2 Aveline lost a loved one and then moved on to a new love. As much as I was disappointed in that game, Aveline wasn't disappointing to me nor her story. In Dragon Age: Origins you could be romancing two people and have to come to a decision, usually forced, but that didn't have to be until after you had slept with one of them. Unlike Mass Effect 1, where you are forced to a decision before it even gets too serious with either. But Mass Effect, the series, does try to deal with being with one person, that person having moved on and you choosing to either stay true or move on yourself, then in 3 you can reconcile with your old love or stay with your new (I don't think you can pick a third... I only played the game once as that ending all but entirely ruined the series for me, sadly.) Now Alpha Protocol... Alpha Protocol you can sleep with every love interest save Sis (if you consider her a love interest - underage, your call on what that was to you)... and you could sleep with all three (Mina, Scarlet and SIE) in one play through and get an achievement for it. But these relationships weren't what you'd traditionally consider romance - in a nod to the genre of the game story, they were "Bond" romances. Still, I can't think of another game quite like this (maybe The Witcher, but I only played a little of that.)