Ink Blot

All of the above, especially the explanation of game mechanics.

But other people could beat the Adra on PotD. So what's the issue here? Reduce the party members seems rather questionable. If you don't want more than four, then... don't take more than four? Natural regeneration: while I don't have a big beef against it, why would one class have better regen than another? Wouldn't it make more sense to tie that to an attribute like Constitution? Ugh. Epic levels? No thanks.

I'll just say this: if you like the game, you'll probably love it. This seems to be the trend, anyway. I found it... okay. I like the story and the companions, but don't care a whole lot for the attribute system and I absolutely hate the engagement mechanic and found combat nothing short of tedious. So much so, in fact, that even though I got the expansions via Kickstarter rewards, I've yet to play through them. The thought of slogging through the combat makes me shudder. Although, since I've not played since patch 1.06(?), I believe, I'll just wait until the patch cycle is completely finished (I think there's one more in the works) and try to give it a go again.

We sneaked this fix in as well. (Forum Link) Slap hands! Sking Ooooh, a crisp high-five for you, sir!

Doubtful, as the working title on KS was 'Project Eternity', so Eternity was there from the beginning. They changed it to Pillars once they started working the story. So likely a coincidence. But one never knows. Hopefully a dev can chime in for an official word on it.

Immersion is a term that's been bandied about so much and has such a different meaning to everyone that it practically has no meaning at all. Basically it's become a buzzword for "I don't like this game mechanic and want it changed to suit me". You note that PoE is like an interactive book and this contributes to your inability to be 'immersed'. For myself, I find it so easy to be 'immersed' in books/text that I get to the point that I don't even hear anything around me. I'm totally involved in that world about which I'm reading. And like Nonek, I find any game with FP view doesn't do it for me at all (in fact, I loathe that perspective so much that I actively avoid games that don't offer an alternative). Skyrim? Great game. I love it. But I'm far less 'immersed' in something like that than I am in a game like BG, PoE, or even IWD. And make no mistake that you're dealing with numbers and math in Skyrim as well. Anyway, no one can tell you what you're missing or how your perspective is flawed, because it isn't. This just isn't the type of game that 'immerses' you.

I don't think there's any logical way to explain it. All they did was put it on Resolve in order to try to eliminate some uber builds, from what I understand.

Seems we're running in circles here for whatever reason. So I'll bow out. *edit* Actually, I'll make one more attempt. You're cherry picking what you take out of my statement. I said "to me he's not saying a 60+ hour game automatically means a lot of time wasting content". Note the bolded part. The emphasis here means I'm not contradicting this: "he's observing that many games with a lot of 'content' are actually just mediocre time wasters". Again note the bolded part. The single quotes I put there were to indicate content that is less than quality. What I think he's saying is a game can be long, yes. And it can be a game with quality content. But many long games tend to end up with 'filler', 'time wasters', 'low quality content'... choose your descriptor. This is what I feel he's pointing out. If you want to nitpick my use of the word 'observe' as opposed to reiterating 'saying' and attach some kind of significance to that, then I don't think we can further the discussion.

I think you're reading far more into his statement here than he meant. Granted, I'm interpreting as much as you are, but to me he's not saying a 60+ hour game automatically means a lot of time wasting content. Or that the industry should change. I think he's observing that many games with a lot of 'content' are actually just mediocre time wasters. And he'd rather put out and play something short of high quality than something long and mediocre.

But it is a zero sum situation, whether you want to believe it or not. There are only finite resources and only a finite amount of time in which to utilize those resources. Dedicating time/resources to one area necessarily means you can't dedicate them to another. What it seems you're overlooking (forgive me if I'm wrong; this is just what your posts seem to convey) in the Stick of Truth example is that the cut content meant that time and resources that would have been spent to make it better (note: not great, but likely only mediocre, is the feeling I get from Fenstermaker's comments on it) would mean this time and those resources could not be spent improving the quality of what was kept to make it the best they could. And I doubt it's as easy as it seems to know what will and will not work when the project is in the conception stage.

I don't think there's any assumption that 30+ hours automatically means a garbage game. I think what he's saying is that lengthier games tend to have a lot of time wasters and filler. As to your latter comments, I hardly think it equates to 'laziness'. You said it yourself in the last line: 'It just takes a ton of time'. And Fenstermaker noted several times in the interview that game-making is a zero sum game. You just don't have that extra time or resources.

I completely agree with Fentermaker on this. Here's the full paragraph, btw: Personally, I would like to see us make shorter games (e.g. 30-40 hours instead of 60-80) where we cut the worst of our content and spend time iterating on the best. But there is pressure from the market itself (or at least perceived pressure) to make longer games so as to justify the game's sticker price with its "value" as measured in dollars spent per hour of gameplay. And I'm not sure if people understand that when you're on a budget, there's a zero-sum tradeoff between gameplay length and gameplay polish. There was some backlash for Stick of Truth, for example, for being "too short" at 12-20 hours. But that was a game where we cut the bad stuff and spent extra time on the good stuff, and I prefer that model. As a gamer, I'm getting old. I'm short on time. I'd rather spend $60 on a 12-hour experience that makes me laugh my ass off than on a 100-hour experience that routinely wastes my time. If any of you are in agreement, be vocal about it, because I think the dollars/hour guys are usually louder. Come to our forums and ask for a shorter, more polished game. If you don't feel that way, shhh, you, shhh. Shorter games where the crap and filler (my words) is cut out, but the quality of the remainder is much improved? Yes, please. Shorter doesn't mean you can't build and roleplay your character effectively. I completely disagree with you on that. A well crafted and edited short story can have just as much meat as an average and relatively poorly edited novel.

Okay, I'll be the vote of dissension. While I thought Obs did a good job on PoE and it shows a lot of potential for future installments, I wouldn't give it GOTY. It didn't 'wow' me like I was hoping it would. In fact, I haven't played through either WM1 or WM2 yet (even though I got them as backer rewards) and I have a bit of an issue finding enough motivation to fire up the game to go through it again even with new content and all the changes that have come since I finished it (I believe it was patch 1.06 that I finished on).

Apparently many people don't.

I believe it's been pointed out where the bug report forum is. Please report it there in proper fashion. Then maybe it will actually get looked at and fixed.

This, IMO, is even worse than the lack of autosave. I absolutely hate the fact that you get your characters positioned defensively, as one would when there's the likelihood of violence, but the game takes control and dumps your party right in front of the bad guy - and sometimes positioning your squishies right in front. Ye gods, that ticks me off.

This is something that's always bothered me when games get updated (sometimes they're actually just released this way) where tool tips or information about classes/skills/abilities/etc is either vague or has changed due to patching and it's not updated in-game. Is the reason always because there's too much work for too little benefit? I find it extremely annoying to look in-game at the description/explanation of some aspect of the game and it's either totally wrong or too vague to interpret properly.

Similar here. I tend to wait until after a game has all its DLC and patches released before playing it (even though I may purchase it sooner than that). And yeah, it bothers me a lot when changes to the game systems/classes/etc. 'break' my characters. And that's why I wait. As for PoE, I can understand the need for tweaking and balancing since release (I played through the whole thing soon after release, planning on another go once both expansion parts were out), but I kind of get the feeling it may have gone beyond necessity. But then again, I didn't particularly like the game, so I may be biased in my assessment. Hopefully the changes will make it a more enjoyable experience for my next try.

There's generally a rather loud vocal minority that complains (on the GOG forums) about things like this when they occur on GOG. Whether enough would buy upgrades to make it worthwhile or not is another matter, but I'd seriously suggest trying to get Paradox to greenlight it. As a GOG user myself, I'd like to see GOG be able to compete with Steam and they'll certainly never have a chance if their customers are shut out of benefits and options that Steam users get.

I think you misunderstand me. At least, your comment doesn't seem to address what I wrote. My point was nothing to do with whether or not the personal snippets you get from doing your Watcher mojo on the backer characters have anything to do with the plot, story, or your character. What I meant is I seem to recall many of those stories are just... poorly written. Which is why it would surprise me to learn that Obs' writers did them. Of course, I'll fully admit that my memory may be faulty and I'm mixing up those stories with some of the gravestone comments. But I don't think so.

Don't make the mistaken assumption that the backers who pledged enough to have their NPCs in the game knew the game was going to be funded to that degree. I, for one, pledged on day one, not having any idea they'd hit the 4M mark. No one knew for sure the game was even going to be funded right away. (It was pretty obvious a short way into the campaign, but I'll wager many of the higher tier backers backed right away) Anyway, as noted, they're easy to avoid and have no impact on immersion (IMO) and they do serve to populate what may otherwise have been a rather empty game world. Really, this shouldn't bother you at all now that you know exactly what to avoid.

Are you sure? I seem to recall many of them being poorly written and cringe-worthy. Not at all something I'd expect from the actual Obs writers.

You should probably post your found bugs in the Patch Beta Bugs and Support Forum

Actually, this is pretty much exactly what most of the complaints I've seen about the Stronghold were about. So, it is what many of us think.

Funnier is soloing PotD and complaining that there's a specific battle that's too hard for the solo character. Call me crazy.