Stun

It's a resting mechanic because....you have to map-travel? Bonus? what bonus? You mean, you like it better than... Resting.

I'd also rank D:OS's character building/customization up there with any game. And while people usually just lump D:OS's amazing environment interaction mechanics with "combat", I Don't. They're their own category, and deserve separate praise for what they are, since they're often used to solve NON-combat situations/puzzles/challenges. D:OS's Co-op play is also quite good. I don't recall another game that did it better, or even tried. And the Music....oh god...the music.... It's so good that it doesn't fit a game of D:OS's caliber. Edit: of course, D:OS's flaws are also numerous. Stealing is too easy. Party members are IWDish, The story is so excessively light and non-captivating that it almost seems deliberate....as if the developers were encouraging you to ignore it and just enjoy the combat and environment. The Humor is Beavis and Butthead-like and can become grating after a while. Crafting is a bit too convoluted to be fun, and loot itemization could use a bit more soul.

Why? Is there price? But you can go in global camp and rest to remove your injuries if you want. That means that DA:O has a "home base" mechanic. Like any home base mechanic in any game. You don't rest there however, because there's no resting. There's no NEED for a resting mechanic. Injuries are instantly healed upon area transition to home base.

No it doesn't. It does Prove it.

No it doesn't.

Yep. That's what I would have liked to see. And I can think of a few games that did that, not just Alpha Protocol. Divinity Original Sin did it, and sometimes the perks were significant. Like if you continued to be "bold" or whatever in conversations you eventually got a perk that made you immune to Fear.... stuff like that. Stuff that made your Role play style become *tangible*, and relevant to gameplay beyond just getting a few extra lines of NPC dialogue during quests like: "Hey, I heard you were Diplomatic. I need your diplomatic help!". I'm not going to overly criticize PoE's reputation system, because its existence is at least net positive. But I will say that they'd do well to....turbo charge it. Make it matter in the game more than it currently does.

I'd have to rank Baldur's Gate 1 as the better game all around than PoE. What PoE does better than BG1 is 1)Writing and 2)Art. These two include plot, subquests, companions and dungeon design. But that is all. BG1 does everything else better. Miles better. Its Exploration is better; Its loot itemization is better; Its combat is a lot better; It does its city/villages better. Its pacing is better; Its encounter design is better; Its magic system is better; And its game mechanics on the whole are more polished. It's just a better game.

As Nonek pointed out a few posts ago, this might be a red flag.... a warning for the PC platform players. The last time a developer placed a controller-only restriction for previews was Bioware, for DA:I. And we know how that game turned out for people using Keyboards and mice. <sigh> And this is a conversation that shouldn't even be happening. Some of us remember back when you couldn't even play a Witcher game on consoles. Now we have to deal with the reality that we might not be able to reasonably play the game without a friggin Console-emulating USB controller.

Yennifer.

And what is that disconnect, exactly? That there's no such thing as "optimal builds" in a game with an Attribute system that's been deliberately designed to have minimal impact on Builds in the first place? Sure, Ok. I see the paradoxical viewpoint here. I admit it. My turn now. Do YOU? Do you see the contradiction in claiming that there's no dump stats in a game where attributes are designed to be completely dumpable in order to allow for that vaunted "total build freedom", that will no doubt result from being able to dump any stat you wish without crippling any build?

Why be content with an epic story, when you can have an epic story with realistic t*ts and ass jiggle?

Very easy on hard. But then I do have over 100 hours in the beta working out optimal builds. So I probably have an advantage over other people who don't have experience with the game. Yeah, there's nothing unusually difficult about the temple of Eothas. It seems designed for a first time player with a level 2 party of about three characters. On the other hand, Bullrushing the front door of Raedric's hold (which can also be done with a party of three level 2 characters,) IS that unusual challenge we're looking for. But that is probably why Obsidian designed Raedric's Hold with not one but *two* peaceful ways through it.

You act as if it hasn't been done. Excuse me, you act as if that's not a friggin optimal way to play a rogue and well within the spirit of the game, according to Josh Sawyer.

Oh no, no no. Nothing out DPS's a melee rogue. They're the best strikers in the game. But they die when they're forced into prolonged melee engagement without adequate party assistance. And maxing out their Con will not change this. If you want to say that maxing out their con will at least help a little, I won't argue. But at that point we're not talking about Fundamental Viability alterations, or whatever. We're simply quibbling over basic mathematics, or "fine tuning". Because the classes are already designed to be totally viable even if ALL stats are dumped to 3. Even Gromnir will tell you that the Attribute system in PoE was not designed to make or break builds.

What's so special about the temple of Eothas? Rogues are squishy. That is an unavoidable weakness baked into their class design from the start. They belong to one of the lowest health pool tiers. Pumping their Con to 18 will NOT CHANGE THIS (unlike, say, in IWD2, where a Wizard with 18 Con will actually have more health than a Fighter with 3 con) If you find your rogue frequently dying, it is NOT because you didn't put more points into con, it's because either you used sh*tty combat tactics, or you're under-leveled, or you're inexperienced and are trying to play your rogue like he was a fighter.

In fact, none of them are. Contrary to what you may think, Gromnir, your opinions and thought processes are very easy to disagree with and shoot down on principle alone. It's not Stupid to do so. It's the opposite of Stupid to do so. Although to be fair (see what I did there?), It IS pointless, and I suppose if doing pointless things = Stupid, then we are, in fact, ALL stupid.

Gromnir, really, what is the point of coming here... Making hilariously false claims, then then ruthlessly defending those claims for a dozen pages by posting Starwars clips and calling ALL your opponents stupid, and then just bowing out of the debate with a totally anti-climactic little nugget of Nostalgia? Did you get hit on the head in recess or something?

So...For example, An MBA recipient who criticizes PoE's Lock and Trap XP rewards without first explaining why they're in the game....is being UNFAIR. lol

Because it doesn't. The slight loss in endurance is neither painful, nor does it equate to falling after 1 hit instead of 5. (your argument). Feel free to statistically prove me wrong.

How so? I'll ask again. Exactly Why is it unfair for a reviewer to not give a **** about the reasons why the developers did what they did? Is a Mass Effect 3 review UNFAIR simply because it bashes the game's ending without first taking into consideration Casey Hudson's explanation for it?

What part are you Uh...no-ing? That cleary signifies a tradeoff. That's great. We weren't discussing tradeoffs, because no one claimed their absense. We were discussing PAINFUL tradeoffs. Reducing a Ranged Rogue's Endurance by what amounts to less than 20% of the total pool in exchange for a +30% increase in the duration of his special attacks, or a +40% bonus to ALL his damage dealt (or BOTH) is not Painful. It's a No brainer. Especially since the slightest of party strategy tweaks will quickly render that endurance penalty irrelevant.

Nope sorry. I don't see the point in dwelling on "intentions" when giving a gameplay review. Again, one does not need to explain to the reader all the the reasons why DA2 has reused maps and parachuting mobs. Just that it does, and maybe the resulting implications to gameplay because it does. Nor do I see how it's more "fair" for a reviewer to ignore or not criticize game feature that he feels hurt the game simply because Developer X had a really really good reason for putting it in the game

Uh...No. The difference between 18 Con and 3 Con for a rogue is less than 10 points of endurance per level. And even that can be mitigated further with damage reduction gear, which will reduce the damage they take from every hit.

First, it is not a reviewer's job to painstakingly observe and report whether or not a feature is working as the developers intended. Second, a criticism of a crap mechanic does not need to take developer reasoning in mind. For example, When Bioware decided to implement parachuting mob waves in DA2, we didn't NEED to discover the reasoning behind such crap design before concluding that it was a f*cking Crap design. Third, as anyone who took part in PoE's 6-month-long public Beta process will tell you, the Attribute system has gone though countless iterations (even some totally fundamental changes). In their first incarnation, the attributes flat out didn't carry any penalties at all (Dumping Might to 3 resulted in a +3% damage BONUS. And that was the intention). Another version of the Beta saw Accuracy tied to perception. etc. So citing developer intentions here is kinda pointless anyway. They've been constantly changing their intentions.

I didn't say define useful, I said define Very useful. Rogues are squishy with 20 constitution. So when the build choice boils down to Squishy vs. a little less squishy, the choice to DUMP constitution and use those 15 points towards something like Intelligence or Might becomes a no-brainer. Just like Min-maxing was in the IE games.