Tamerlane

For the love of all things merciful, please, please don't ever do another Cespenar voice-over. Just reading the words makes my eyes burn... So... that's a no to Adam Brennecke's goblin voice?

I'd like a moratorium on the the word "immersion" while we're at it. I prefer talking about PC-NPC relationships which is broader in scope and of which romance would be one "tool" in the "toolkit" for the developers to have when creating NPCs and doesn't imply that romances HAVE to be used only that they COULD be used if it fit the character, story, etc. Just like "realism" became "verisimilitude", you know those two would shamble on in the flesh of other words...

He had intended to go heavier on the romance angle with Gann. Make him bisexual, even, but the publishers balked. NWN2 was actually a far more... "romance-heavy" game in intent than in actuality. Infamous time and budgeting issues got in the way. I think it's a good deal more fair to say that MCA - and the rest of the Obsidian staff - don't like being pigeonholed. That means not being forced to hit romance checkbox A B and C and not making every meaningful bit of character interaction revolve around it. It also, I figure, means not being forced to ignore an important and basic part of human interaction because some people like GI Joes. Why did I enter this thread? Direct quote from gamasutra interview: http://www.gamasutra...lep__Part_2.php And yet, he wanted to make a male romance for another character of his. It's almost as though there's more nuance to the man than you can get from a single quote...

Funny you'd mention Gann. He was written by Chris Avellone. That's the guy mentioned in this quote: He had intended to go heavier on the romance angle with Gann. Make him bisexual, even, but the publishers balked. NWN2 was actually a far more... "romance-heavy" game in intent than in actuality. Infamous time and budgeting issues got in the way. I think it's a good deal more fair to say that MCA - and the rest of the Obsidian staff - don't like being pigeonholed. That means not being forced to hit romance checkbox A B and C and not making every meaningful bit of character interaction revolve around it. It also, I figure, means not being forced to ignore an important and basic part of human interaction because some people like GI Joes. Why did I enter this thread?

Hi guys I just walked in to this thread and- ... What in all of holy horse **** is this ****?

We'll have to inform Merlin and Gandalf that their magic does not meet your standards, tovarishch.

On the other hand, if I spend a whole bunch of time swinging an axe at mother****ers, I'm probably gonna be pretty damn good at swinging a hammer at mother****ers. Aside from that, it can feel awkward and... pigeonhole-y.

This... I... what? I mean, I can understand Volourn's objection from some terrible "RAGH MAGES!" angle, but the OP's complaint... that combination of assumption and obtuseness...

I get that stamina brings to mind Diablo 2's "how long can I run" bar or DAO's "mana for jocks", but the name itself seems pretty accurate to what it represents. I'm fine as is; won't get upset if it changes to something else.

OP really shouldn't have used 1d8 as the example for the poll, as that is technically the same as 1-8, yet different number sets (like my aforementioned 2d6) do yield actual differences.

Because arbitrary game mechanics demanded it.

To be fair, "PC and companions at zero stamina = game over" and "all enemies in a group have zero stamina = dead group" is a consistent application of the rules as we understand them... But if there's some mechanism for my party to revive their unconscious comrades, then the same should be true of my enemies. And if some of the enemies are unconscious, and then I retreat, the enemies should be able to revive their unconscious comrades while I'm gone (just as my unconscious party members are revived at the end of any battle I win). Yes, of course, provided they have the items/abilities to do it.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Josh said that the portion of the map shown thus far is about the size of the Iberian Peninsula...

Diablo-loving heathen!

So long as it's better than a damn Civilization 4 map, I'm cool. Doesn't Dragon Age take place in the southern hemisphere of its world?

Kinda... defeats the purpose of the stamina/health system...

Roll to have unchickenator succeed? It was funny, but you have to be really careful how you implement it. Baldur's Gate's bizarre transformation quest did not do it terribly well.

I always thought that Zevran should betray the party in DAO. Like, not "if his approval is low at the end of the game he rejoins the Crows" kind of betrayal. More like, "first time you go to camp he tries to stab you in your sleep" kind of betrayal. Maybe he kills your dog or something, since that's simultaneously not game-ruining (the dog was terrible) but still really sucks (the dog was cool). Because you brought your own ****ing assassin into the party, you idiot.

And you will be able to. One of the stretch goals from way-back-when included various difficulty-related toggles, one of which turns off tags like [intimidate] and what-not.

Scroll up a little bit until you see the first time my handsome-ass avatar shows up in this thread. I did my best to explain why those two things actually are different.

Huh. I thought this thread would be asking about the role and position of the merchant class in PE society would be. I don't even know if I'm disappointed or not.

I loved how KotOR 2 handled lock bashing, making it feasible but with the risk of destroying the contents of a container. Kinda trivialized door locks, though...

Aye, there's a wide range of how you do it, naturally. I love Blazing Saddles to death (shame about all the horrific animal cruelty and what-not that went into making it...), but it's probably not the tone Obsidian's angling for. Thing is, I can't really request the mocking/subverting/whateverthe****ing of a particular cliché because... well, it's not clever if I know it's coming.

The specific thing with dice is that they can give you a range of damage but will tend towards middling numbers. Compare a weapon that hits for 2d6 with a weapon that hits for 2-12. They are not the same. With the 2-12 weapon, the odds of doing 12 damage are the same as the odds of doing 11 damage or 7 damage or 2 damage. Not so with 2d6. Rolling two six-sided dice, there is only one way to do twelve damage: two sixes. However, there are two ways of getting an 11: 6 and 5 or 5 and 6. There are six ways to do 7 damage:1 and 6, 2 and 5, 3 and 4, 4 and 3, 5 and 2, and 6 and 1. And then there is only one way to do 2 damage: one and one. So instead of a random distribution from two to twelve, what you get is mostly 6-7-8 damage, but also a fair smattering of abnormally high and low damage attacks without relying on critical hits and what-not. Having said all that, I don't care that much what they go with. I'd prefer either the first or third poll choice, but it's not a huge deal to me.

Eh. Going too hard on that sort of thing just comes out as... kinda lame, and really kills the mood. Don't need Blazing Saddles, now.