Stun

....Dual wielding, sword and shield. Again, It's like Icewind Dale 2, which did the same thing: 4 weapon set options.

It's Amazing, really. It's like we Cryogenically froze Sawyer, Cain and crew for the last 12 years and just thawed them out now. And here they come with the next IE/Troika game!

Impressions/tidbits I've noticed.: Giddy I am at the "vibe" of the whole thing. Visually, it's ToEE meets Icewind Dale 2, from a first glance at least.. -animations (running/attacking) seem ripped directly from Temple of elemental evil. -I noticed the ability icons are borrowed from IWD2 spell icons (I saw IWD2's Executioner's Eyes, Blood Rage and Destruction icons) Again, these are all good things. But I suspect that this is going to throw me off until I get used to it lol -I like that instead of having a health bar and a stamina bar, there's just a health bar and the portrait. -Inventory is still confusing me. I saw something shared (I'm assuming that's the deep stash?) But then I saw the individual character stuff, but only like, 6 slots? So... much scrolling will have to be done, I assume? -We'll be able to turn the floating UI things into a solid stone bar like the IE games! YES.

It has...Begun.

Cool. They went all the way to the top for this.

Well, it's saying 8am for me, so, 50 minutes from now. Doable! I'll be here!

Mostly the same. Especially the fully railed plot Linearity. There are a couple of other things that I really didn't like about Icewind Dale 2. A couple of real gripes that hurt the game IMO. 1)Endlessly monotonous encounters. (I believe the modern term for this is "trash mobs".) And IWD2 is ~95% Trash mob encounters. You're in chapter 2 right now, so soon enough you will witness precisely what I'm talking about. You enter the ice temple. You encounter a small group of enemies. You kill them. Then you walk down the corridor and face the exact type of encounter...again. Lather, rinse and repeat. Over and Over. For hours on end. Every chapter. 2)Enemy loot drops are exceedingly dull. When you do kill that small group of enemies, you will be rewarded with..... ammunition. Bullets, arrows, bolts, throwing hammers. Or healing potions. Over and Over and Over. Bosses and named enemies tend to drop loot that's a little better. And of course, chests often contain decent loot. However, the best stuff by far is found in Shops. And while I understand the reasoning behind such a design, I dislike it. Loot *means* more when you have to fight for it. It means a whole lot less when you can just buy it from the village merchant. Still, it says much about a game when one can cite such huge flaws in it and still rank it in the top-five-of-all-time list. It is incredibly fun to build characters in IWD2. Combat itself is superb. And IWD2 is unique in that it's the only D&D based game I have ever played that managed to maintain full, challenging tactical game play at the epic levels. When you "New Game+" in HoF mode, you get a challenging game that requires you to make full use of your high level skills and all the loot you hoarded from your last playthrough.

You are mistaken. He said this: We absolutely allow people to try it and we will probably not put much effort into balancing it. We do not design anything with the assumption you will have additional party members. ^they're not balancing the game under the assumption that you've got a full party. Edit: Hell, why did I even waste time doing a forum search? Sawyer said this on page 1 of this thread:

ketchupmancer.

No, I mean, if they're seeking to improve the game, why would they decide to add romances to it? That's like trying to improve a delicious apple pie you just baked... by adding Ketchup

That makes no sense at all. lol

I doubt it. And I doubt the reason they gave for not having them in PoE will suddenly not apply for the sequel.

The fact that love and romance are important influences on our real lives does not dictate that our RPGs must follow suit or suffer from some credibility gap. The very nature of the medium itself dictates otherwise, in fact. Video games are, and always have been, designed to offer a temporary escape from real life. This is doubly true for fantasy RPGs where the fantastical is often applauded and preferred over the real and mundane (ie. Magic. Monsters.) Besides, some people simply don't like Soap Operas...and this is despite the fact that they're probably closer to real life than....you know...an episode of South Park, or one of those Cop shows

If that's true it would explain a whole lot. EA: Hey, for this next game, make sure your writing sucks. Bioware: Yes Sir!

I wouldn't go that far. Achievement badges have no in-game use. They're just silly online ego-boosters. But people who want increased/special rewards for increased challenges aren't looking to have their egos boosted. They just want to be "paid" accordingly for their hard work. If my party kills a huge ancient Dragon, I expect more rewards for completing such a task than if I had just killed a young dragonling.

Finally: We're back to having a game where traps are a threat, instead of just a token annoyance. I approve.

And Purina makes dog food that some dogs absolutely love to eat. What's your point? Bioware Promancers don't really count. They'll eagerly gobble up anything from Bioware that even *hints* at NPC e-affection. They *like* the unnatural mechanics behind the mini-game. Call me naïve, but I am operating under the assumption, since we're on the Obsidian forums, that the thread goers here have more refined tastes in RPGs than that. <sigh> Do I need to write this in crayon? I. am. not. saying. that RPG Romances can't be done properly because they haven't been done properly in the past. My argument is that RPG Romances cannot be done properly because it is fundamentally impossible to properly implement RPG romances in video games. There are too many inherent limitations in the medium to allow for it. There are too many budget sacrifices that must be made. The fan base is too diverse. etc. Disagree with this if you want. I am fully aware of my own bias and that not everything I'm saying can be broken down to mathematical fact. But don't friggin put words in my mouth.

If I wanted to say that, Bruce, I would have. I didn't though, because it doesn't represent my stance. My stance is that there are *reasons* why no one has ever succeeded in properly implementing romances in video games. And those reasons are fundamental, given the medium. They cannot be fixed. And many of those reasons have already been discussed on this thread. But, I will quickly repeat them now for clarification. 1) Because it is impossible to give the player any agency in a video game romance without turning the process into a standardized, predictable mini-game. (hey look! If choose this dialogue option, I will gain approval points with this person and I'm on my to Romance victory! etc.) Romance shouldn't be a 'game'. 2) Because if you don't give the player Agency, then what you have is a forced situation. And forcing the player into a romance is, by definition, an RPG flaw. 3) Because RPG Romances require either sex, or kissing, or hugging, or pronouncements of love. Problem: In a video game, these things make people cringe. I believe the psychological term is "Uncanny Valley". 4) Because if you don't include sex, or kissing, or hugging, or pronouncements of love, then you don't have a Romance. You have a Friendship. And that's not what Promancers are seeking. 5) Because some gamers are straight. Some are gay. Some are lesbian. Some are bisexual. Some are transsexual. Some are male. Some are female. You must represent them all. If you fail to represent them all, the ones who aren't represented will assume you have taken a social stance against their sexual orientation -Or- that you half-assed the implementation of Romances in the game. Which is another way of saying "your romance implementation is flawed". 6) Because successfully doing #5 necessitates significant developer resources be spent. Invariably, this means budgeting must be significantly lessened elsewhere, like on Character leveling dynamics, or combat system depth, or area design, or actual gameplay content outside of these romances. Ie. Stuff that's far more important in an RPG than friggin romances

No. There are only a few features that simply cannot be done flawlessly in a fantasy RPG. Romance is one of them.

That something it lacks is NOT Romance, however. It was Party member interaction outright. So you're not making any sort of on-topic point here at all. Although I do take issue with the notion that anything in IWD was soulless. IWD is a dungeon crawler, and every feature it had was designed towards that end. Any deviation from that formula would have felt out of place. Just think about it. Your Party enters Kresselack's tomb: Protagonist: Hmm... Nice dungeon Cleric: It's a tomb. I bet there's undead here. Protagonist: You're right. I'll prepare accordingly. Thank you! Cleric: any time <<blushes>>> And don't worry, I won't let anything bad happen to you. Protagonist: I.... I didn't know you cared Cleric: Of course I do! Here look, we're conveniently in front of an ancient but empty coffin... you wanna... Protagonist: I thought you'd never ask ::::fade to black:::: :::vomiting ensues:::: No, Romances wouldn't have worked for Icewind Dale, would they. They would have killed the atmosphere and the entire game would have followed suit.

Don't know about fairy tales, but I can give you 2 minor examples in RPGs. Planescape Torment: Ravel. She is in love with the protagonist. And she's a famously ugly ancient Hag Dragon Age 2: Merill. If you can get over the fact that she looks and carries herself like a 10 year old, you have to then deal with her Yoda ears and her sci-fi Alien eyes.

Call me bias, but I'm in total favor of Resources and time spent on *good* Optional stuff, like branching content, real plot choice and consequence, strongholds, bigger weapon variety, more Classes, and even more NPCs. But not romances. That is the official Obsidian stance for PoE, after all.

Can it be done for free? As in, without any production costs or development time? Because that is one of the frequently cited inherent flaws with Romances in RPGs. They're expensive and time consuming to do well and a large segment of the gamer population simply does not like them, no matter how 'good' they are. And the usual counter-argument of "they're OPTIONAL! Feel free to IGNORE THEM!" does not sit well with these people when they know that giant chunks of the resources for features they DO like must be diverted... to pay for the implementation of optional gimmicks... like Romances.

Oh Lephys I love you please come to my tent.

Realism? Give me a break. If there's anything your typical RPG romance lacks, it's realism. Did you know that in BG2, a Human male with a charisma of 3 can successfully romance any of the female love interests? That is, by definition, unrealistic. Someone with a charisma of 3 is not only repulsive to the eyes, but he/she completely lacks social skills. Realistically, it is an impossibility for a character with a charisma of 3 to be interacting, attracting, and building up enough interest to form a romantic bond with anyone. Yet BG2 takes it even further. Viconia, Jaheira, and Aerie will not only fall in love with you, but if you have all three in your party, they will viciously compete for your attention, as if you were Justin Beiber. No. Your best bet is to argue that either 1) You like these romances despite their unrealistic nature or 2) You like these romances because they're fantastically unrealistic.