Stun

You're right, Lephys. Getting XP from not engaging in combat is a far more accurate way to represent combat experience gain. lol

But since doing romances 'the right way' still does not guarantee their success (objectively or otherwise), you're not really saying anything here. I can walk down the street the "correct" way, but that doesn't mean I won't get run over by a truck

That's a good question. Sawyer has stated before how the more familiar with an engine the dev team is, the fancier they can be with the scripting. And we see that this was true with the IE games. Only time and experience made the scripting better. So I'd imagine, scripting wise, PoE won't begin where IWD2 left off. But it might build up to it. And the evolution might come about quicker. (The scripting in the IE games took years to evolve.) BG1 - was Very basic. Enemies didn't really do anything outside of their strict offensive combat roles. Then came IWD1 - Enemies now did things like Drink potions and cast healing spells on themselves. BG2 came next - enemies now call for help when they're hurt. They try to search for you when you turn invisible etc. And then, we got Icewind Dale 2. The last of the IE games. That got us the war drums, and enemies igniting barrels, and enemies casting the right protection spells in response to what they just got hit with (if you nail an enemy cleric with a fireball, they will cast protection from fire as a response.)

I wonder though, if the extended development time probably has more to do with the fact that they decided, midway through production, to offer more than 1 playable race. I also wonder if maybe the switch to a new engine has also taken up some extra time.

Yes? Or better yet, lets compare a single player, party-based Fantasy RPG that Obsidian is releasing later this year, with a single player, party-based fantasy RPG that Bioware is releasing later this year. And lets make it a comprehensive comparison. Lets compare and judge the depth and immersion level of the two game worlds being presented to us. Lets compare and judge the exploration, the tactical combat, the NPC personalities and development; The UIs, the uniqueness of the classes; the leveling mechanics; the creativity level of the magic system; the weapon variety choices; the games' art styles; the dungeon level designs; the quest content quality; the effect of the player's choices on the world; and how well written, presented, and fleshed out the main storylines are. Lets compare Chris Avellone's writing with David Gaider's. What's the matter, Bryy? Are you worried that the low budget, kickstarted title is going to completely out-perform the giant, Corporate backed Bioware 'blockbuster' in every single criteria that matters to an RPG fan? I'm Not. There's no doubt whatsoever that DA:I will outsell PoE. But since I'm not an EA stockholder, or a Gamestop franchise owner, I don't really *care* about that. I'm an RPG fan. I only care about how *fun* these soon-to-be-released RPGs are to play, and the impact that they will each have on the genre itself. So yes, Comparing them makes total sense.

Ugh... Can the Codex peeps do some edit work on that page?? It's a mess. Aside from the very first question, we don't know who's talking, or when. There's random italization, and bolding from top to bottom. And the ego tripping level is absurd. Is this an interview or a message board debate?

Amorphous entities (like oozes, jellies, slimes and puddings) should drop humanoid equipment/attire... if that is what their previous victims were wearing upon being engulfed/absorbed.

Er...ok?

Really? I thought they were both going to be party-based, single-player, fantasy RPGs - and - both will have strongholds, crafting systems, magic, combat with swords, multiple races, multiple classes. But we can't compare them? Screw that. They are peers. We can compare them, and we should.

Nope. Not going to get dragged into another one of your word-wars.

It.... doesn't matter. PoE's system will be as described above: There will be quests to complete for XP and objectives within those quests to complete for XP. And while this is a clear example of the very same 'unintended redundancy' you condemn kill-XP for inflicting on the system, I've never met anyone else on earth who opposes such a thing. You are misunderstanding the abstraction. Lephys, a Bunny (what a stupid straw man, but lets go with it), will not be difficult for an archer to kill. Thus, it will not require 10 days of stalking, followed by a sustained arrow barrage. Its XP value will be suitably low as a result, and that is how it should be. On the other hand, a Blue Whale is a massive and elusive (but just as harmless) creature. ITS xp reward will be far larger, since it WILL require significant stalking, and a LOT of arrows to slay. If this was true, then a 20th level Fire elemental would be worth 0xp to someone with 100% fire resistance, since it poses no threat to him.

And a game flaw.

Oh, it's worse than that. You've watched the video. Calisca is a Fighter. You must be female if you wish to play as a fighter. Also, Romances in this game are compulsory, but only on male PCs.

Well, I thought Lephys addressed your points fine. He left himself open for valid counters though. So? This type of redundancy is going to happen even if there's no kill XP at all. For example: Take any Quest containing multiple objectives. 1) First, you're rewarded every time you complete one of the quest's objectives. 2) Then you're rewarded when you finish the quest itself. To eliminate the redundancy that you're describing, we would have to either scrap #1, or scrap #2. If killing something is giving you good archery practice, then by definition, it IS granting you something: Experience in archery. You get better at something when you practice doing it, yes? More to the point: the best way to become a better archer is to practice your archery in live combat. KILLING things is what grants combat XP in games that have it. The XP value of the kill is based on how difficult it was to kill that creature, not necessarily on how much of a mortal threat it posed to you.

I'm used to it. Every single one of the IE games paused the world so that the player could concentrate on what was important: The dialogue going on in the window. In the rare times when that didn't happen, it was considered a bug and usually got fixed in the next patch.

Yeah, Skyrim does the 'learn by doing' classless system. It's 'cool' I suppose, and of course, you can argue that it's realistic too. But I wouldn't choose it over a good, robust class-based system. Ever. At least not in a party based game. I would, however, enjoy a system where you begin the game classless, and then have to specifically work towards one of the classes available to you in the game. Then once you get there, you advance in it till the end.

What does this even mean? Sales? Sure, but only because DA:I will be released on PC and the consoles (all 4 of them), while PoE will only enjoy PC sales. But that's not how any true gamer compares RPGs. And I think we're going to discover, pretty soon, just how much it doesn't matter that one of these RPGs has $100 Million in development funding being thrown at it while the other has less than $5 million. I predict that 6 months from now, we're going to look at both games and realize that the 'AAA title' doesn't offer as much of the gameplay and story depth, or detail, or even the sheer role playing and party based richness that the low budget title offers. But...it'll be shiner and more Hollywoodesque. But again, that's not how I measure RPG quality.

It's come up in other threads but I'll repeat it here - 'Objective XP' doesn't equal 'Quest XP' I too would like to get XP for exploring areas - but that can be set as an objective by developers, it needn't be a quest given to you. Similarly, "wipe out the xvarts" could be an objective - one that involves killing in this case (poor xvarts) - but that probably would make more sense tied to a quest. So, theoretically, this system doesn't actually do anything to eliminate kill grinding. Since murdering every hostile in the forest could be an objective.

Potions of minor regeneration are free?

Hopefully, the best loot will be in containers in optional encounters, and off the bodies of enemies in the required encounters. But whenever we have one of these threads everyone always cites Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. I've never played it, but maybe someone who has can tell us how it handled the loot issue.

Is this moronic hyperbole really necessary? Who the hell would ever back track to the very beginning just to kill that 1 remaining mook? In a role playing game, what you're describing is easily solved by intelligently doling out the XP rewards, instead of flat out removing them for the segment of players who might not be roleplaying a party of clever Mcguyvers. Here's an example: You see a pack of Ogres guarding a treasure chest Kill them.... and receive 300 xp. Or: Trick them into leaving the chest unattended.... and receive 600 xp. ^Degenerate gameplay removed. Since we've just been given a real incentive to not kill grind for XP (the rewards are bigger if you use trickery), while still leaving the option open for those who wish to advance in levels by, heaven forbid, using their fighting skills.

After countless threads on this topic, I see the merits of both sides. I'm still on the "please give us XP for kills" side though. The solution to murder-grinding is, obviously, to give the player a reason not to murder grind. And that, obviously, means rewarding (even heavily rewarding) non violent approaches to problems in the game. Great. Who would ever oppose something like that in an RPG? But, taking it a step further, and forcing the issue, by saying "OK, you will get heavily rewarded for talking or stealthing your way past this encounter and only slightly rewarded NOT REWARDED AT ALL for fighting your way past it.... Is that really a good way of handling things? The Best RPGs make *both* options (violence and non violence) attractive. Well, I wouldn't flat out call it a problem, so much as something I'm uneasy about. If the bulk of XP rewards you get in the Mega dungeon is from 1) finding the stairs down and 2) solving that puzzle, then I can see the experience going from "explore and take in all the sights" to..... "Run! find the puzzle, then find the stairs down....15 times!" But... after watching the demo over the weekend, I'm no longer worried about anything in this game. My trust in Obsidian is nearly absolute.

I don't know. A game like PS:T would have been fine with no kill xp. But a game with a 15 level mega-dungeon?

^this is a really good point too. Doesn't the video end at this giant purple machine thing... and isn't there some robed figure walking around in front of it?