Stun

A pretty fundamental one. The money we gave them is NOT a charity. It's direct funding for a product. We are paying for goods and services. But, there's a huge difference between not fulfilling that obligation, and... not dotting every "I" and crossing every "T" (like the petty grievance examples you cited in your OP) More to the point: Any developer is totally free to do a Kickstarter with an intentionally vague mission statement like "Hi! we're your favorite developer. we're gonna make a game WE want to make.... back us and let us work on it. Period". But when they go out of their way to describe this vision specifically during the kickstarter campaign, then they kinda ARE obligated deliver a game that is as consistent to that vision as technically and feasibly possible. The problem arises when Developers do the latter, and then several months into development (and well after they've gotten everyone's money), we, the fans begin seeing gigantic discrepancies, one after another, in slow-drip form, between what they promised and what they plan on delivering. Thankfully, This hasn't happened with PoE yet (or any of the games you mentioned), but that doesn't mean that the fans have no reason to complain when they see small stuff. Sometimes when there's some smoke, there might be a fire. Depends on the criticism. And here, I'll talk about PoE now, specifically. I, personally, have a gut feeling PoE is going to be a brilliant game worthy of being judged on its own merits. However, I'm certainly not going to dismiss anyone who decides to judge it based on how well it emulates the IE games. And neither should the Developers. Like it or not, THEY'RE the ones who opened those flood gates in the first place by citing the IE games to attract more backers. It was a calculated marketing decision, and they know full well that sometimes those have costs. Of course, if they manage to deliver some amazing masterpiece that not only stands on its own merits, but also manages to have a story as deep as Planescape Torment's, combat as tactical as Icewind Dale, and scope as massive as BG2, then they will have absolutely nothing to fear. NO criticism will be valid against such a dream-come-true-game.

You mean like... being able to freely spam prebuffs to make fights easy - That horrible horrible Horrible horrible degenerate practice that never occurs accidently (obviously), but rather, only occurs when the player actively seeks it out. You see no big issue with that. Neither do I. But behold: Here's an entire forum of people who condemn the Infinity engine games for it.

PS: I wouldn't rejoice ever much about PoE not having hard counters. Since it will have them. We haven't even gotten updates on all the classes, yet we've already seen one or two hard counters that Mages will be getting. What do you call Minor Arcane Reflection?

Translation: I really loved the IE games. They were the best games ever made.... But they were sh*tty, untactical, frustrating, and not very fun. LOL

So... you know the stuff you admittedly and voluntarily did not read is nonsense, somehow? If it's from you, absolutely. I hate to tell you, but nothing works if it's not done appropriately. You can take something that you think is the absolute best thing ever in video game design, and should be in every game, and screw it up by simply doing it wrong. I dare say almost the entire production process of a video game is appropriation. "Sure, crafting should be cool, but how do we do that for THIS game? Sure, combat is great, but how do we put that in THIS game?" Level scaling is a mere tool. Like a hammer. Throw a hammer through your neighbor's window, and it's bad. Use it appropriately and it's good. Hammer a nail in the proper way and it's good. Hammer the nail sloppily until you dent up the fence post and/or crack a board, and it's bad. The sheer determinance of what kind of foes you're going to face at some given point in an RPG is not bad, and that's all level-scaling is. Until you use it in some specific instance/implementation/context, and to some specific degree, it's neither good nor bad. You, sir, are intentionally... okay, whoa, maybe not intentionally, but knowingly being a pointlessly stubborn fool right now, and it's a ridiculous waste of even your very own time. I'm done with you. There's nothing else that needs saying for you to be capable of comprehending what I've typed here, other than a modicum of effort on your part, and to take off those damned Rocket Boots of Assumption from your feet, so you can actually sit still long enough to process a point before deciding what you think about it. Enjoy your forums. Missing the point. Right on Cue. Lephys. Responding to a gripe about a game play mechanic (ANY game play mechanic) by simply saying "well, if it's done right it can be good!" is Meaningless, unless you follow it up with an example of HOW it can be done right. You haven't yet done this for level scaling. You've tried. And you've failed spectacularly. It speaks volumes for how inherently sh*tty Level scaling is that the single best answer anyone has given on how to make it good is to: HIDE IT - make it rare and unnoticeable... like you're not using it. lol But I DO love that you are at least admitting that any mechanic, no matter how crappy, can be made Good via "appropriation". I can't wait for the next 'Save or Die spells' discussion we have. I'll be sure to remind you of this convenient viewpoint you just sprung at us here. I promise.

<puts on his degenerate cap> I can counter that! Again, make the encounter not end. Keep one guy alive and let him follow you to the next encounter.... and feel free to buff your party along the way.

No doubt. Or my personal favorite: leave 1 guy alive from the previous encounter and let him follow your party as you buff your ass off (in relative safety) for the next one, thereby insuring that you're fully buffed up prior to that giant "next" encounter. Which just reiterates a point I try to make whenever josh discusses his laborious, grandiose efforts to stamp out degenerate behavior: For every well designed mechanic, there will be 10 ways to render it pointless. And usually it takes the gaming community less than a day after a game's release to start pumping them out.

I don't think "entering combat" will be something you can toggle at will. So I doubt josh has to worry about a gamer exploit like that. Edit: Although I would be interested in hearing more about how stealth is going to work. If you send a stealthy character up ahead to scout and he spots a group of enemies, will he then be able to buff accordingly, or does the game only define "combat" as: "when both sides start attacking?"

Has this one been confirmed? We haven't had the warrior class update yet, (although Josh has tossed some warrior skill snippets at us.) But I haven't seen anything yaying or naying an aggro mechanic. How do you figure this, exactly? The fact that your mage won't be able to cast a stoneskin spell when he wakes up in the morning to keep him protected all day, does not mean that there won't be multi-combat buffs. In fact, there will be. They've been confirmed. Josh has repeatedly talked about the various non-spell buffs (stronghold resting bonuses, for instance) that will stay active with you for several encounters.

What? I don't agree with this. DA:O's massive budget was the result of bloated voice acting costs, cinematics, 3d graphics, development of an in-house engine, 4 1/2 years of on-again, off-again development time, and of course, the costs required to make an Xbox 360 and PS3 version. None of that is needed to produce a masterpiece RPG. Dragon Age 2 probably cost more to make than All of the IE games... COMBINED. Is it a better game?

If we fix your DA:O list, it will shrink right back down to about 30, where it accurately belongs.

No, I think I'll continue to be "snippy". From where? I got a better Idea. Why don't you try *playing* BG2. Seriously, you forgot Dragons. That's a pretty Glaring Omission. That's like someone listing DA:O's bestiary and forgetting The Darkspawn. And for that matter, you should maybe Play Dragon Age too, because This.... is nonsense: Urthemiel *IS* the Archdemon. And for that matter, there's a lot of silly double-ups on your List. Dumat. Dumat was the First archdemon, which does not appear in Dragon age, because he was killed 1000 years earlier. Kitty IS a Desire Demon. Sloth IS a sloth demon. Snug the Bronto is a friggin companion. (can we include on BG2's list all of BG2's companions?) Schmooples? Alright, I'll give you that. And for the Baldurs Gate list we'll add Boo. And I just love this: 38.Dog 39. Dog (Dragon Age II) A literal doubling up from both games. Excuse me, a TRIPLING up (123. Mabari) LOL. We'll triple up everything from BG1 and BG2 as well.... That'll give us another 200 entries on the BG2 list. Your copy/paste list is meaningless.

What? the list you found/compiled is not even halfway complete. You've missed whole categories of enemies from BG2. Where are the 5 Demon Types? Where are the 4 Illithid Types? Where are the 4 Sahuigan types (and the 6 named Sahuigans? Where are the 4 Koa-Toa types (and their Prince?) Where are the f*cking DRAGONS? Where's the Gythyanki family of monsters? Where are all of BG2's non-hostiles? (since you've decided to add this silly category to pad DA:O's bestiary number). Where are the Familiars? And where's Throne of Bhaal's Bestiary? You missed it. You literally missed it all. The entire Celestial family species. And the various Tetherian guards (all types) And Il-kahn guards (all types) The other 3 types of Golems, the other 2 types of Demons. The 4 types of Devils, The 3 types of Fire Giants. And then the list of Uniques from both games.....which goes on forever (Mellisan, Draconis, Demogorgon, Abazigal, Sendai, Yaga-Shura, Illisara, Brennen, Gromnir Il-Khan, Torgal, Irenicus, Shangular and his unique comrades + the other 60-100 uniques that I can't be bothered to name because I have to go to work in about 12 hours etc. etc.) The Elemental princes (all 6 of them) The Master Wraith (and for that matter, the gigantic list of undead from both the main game and the expansion that you flat out forgot. Yeah, that one didn't get past me. since it adds about another 30-50 to the bestiary alone) Ditto with the 2 beholder types you decided not to include, The New Deurgar types, the new Umberhulk type, All the new enemy variants from Yaga Shura's temple (there's a boat load of them... there Burning men, fire trolls, fire salamanders, burning skulls etc. And we can't forget the chinchilla Bhaalspawn outside the temple.) The Unique spider from Sendai's enclave, and for that matter, the 3 new types of spiders introduced in ToB, and all of Sendai's named guards.) Then there's the unique stuff in Abazigal's lair (eagle eye, and other types of beholder-kin, Lycanth the mad, etc) And each unique entity in all 3 final seals of Watcher's keep level 4...I think there's another dozen there) The statues on level 1, the Guardians on Level 2, etc. And.... we're only scratching the surface. You've decided that the Genlock species gets 17 individual entries for Dragon age, but then you dishonestly decide that Mephits from Bg2 only get one...even though there are at least...8 completely different types of Mephits. You did the same with Hurlocks (they get 14 entries) can we do the same with Bg2's vampires? (which you only gave 1 entry, even though there's about...14 different vampires types, named and un-named?) Haha Griffons.... are not in Dragon age: Origins or any of its DLC, nor are they in Dragon Age 2 or its DLC. They are strictly mentioned only in the lore. But if you wish to include lore-only entities, then of course we will do the same with Baldurs Gate 1, 2 and their expansions.... and that will force us to add every single monster from Fiend Folio, Monster Manual 1 and Monster Manual 2, that have not already appeared in the Baldur's Gate Bestiary ( so...what...another 1000 or so monsters? More?)

I agree. The guilty party here was rather idiotic to try and do so when they know full well that you cannot compare a tiny little unripened grape to the massive, Guinness book of world records-winning Watermelon...... Unless you're an idiot who wants to be dog-piled.

Please do so, Bryy. Because so far you've managed to come up with a laughably minute list by normal RPG standards. 30 different enemies. A number so pitifully small that it is an insult to compare it with what BG2 had, which is easily 5 times that many, and likely more than even that. And No, this is NOT about "liking one game over another". (I liked Both games. A lot) But a game's Bestiary is not a subjective, opinionated thing. We are dealing with numbers that can be counted. Give credit where it's due. Baldurs Gate 2 did a few things objectively well. Its bestiary is one of them.

^I recently tried doing this on another thread here. I got up to like 80 (and that's without even counting variants of the same species, of which there are....many. (there are more types of Golems in BG2 than there are Darkspawn in DA:O.) And I still probably missed about 40 or 50... or even more. It's hard as hell to try and list BG2's Bestiary in its entirety. It will take you hours if you go it alone. It's far more numerous than any other game's. There is no doubt about that at all. The real question is: how much more? Well... by a conservative estimate I'd say at least 10 times more than DA:O's.

Escapist, though, has a single shiny gem in its giant earth-mound of garbage: Yahtzee's ZeroPunctuation, which is the best game review site in the world, despite the fact that it goes out of its way to say: Don't take me seriously, you idiots!

I think I like your definition more than the wiki one PrimeJunta. Take Witcher 2 for example. It's got a setting, a world and plotline that are very much in line with how the wiki entry defines low fantasy, but then it tosses a protagonist at us who can only be defined as a walking manifestation of High fantasy. And of course, he's not the only one of his kind. So... it's somewhere between Low Fantasy and High Fantasy. (Medium Fantasy? lol)

Damn. Why doesn't this forum allow me to like a post more than once? ^this is eloquent and accurate stuff. Lephys... Pay attention. You might learn something Loot placement is Hardly limited to what level-scaled critters have equipped/on their persons. In open worlds, there's also the matter of what those creatures guard, what those creatures block, and what can be looted in the caves/dens/castles/dwellings/bridges where they reside. Not even BG2 could solve that problem, which is why they had to SCRAP level scaling whenever it was time for decent loot dispensing. (Firkraag guards the Holy Avenger, and Firkraag... Does not scale to your level.)

Where have I said that? LOL ^that's from your very first post on this thread. Now, I'm sure you're all c*cked and ready to give me your own Lephysville definition of what subtle as you want it to be, means, and that this definition in no way can ever mean so subtle that it cannot be noticed, ie. it is CONCEALED. But I'm really not interested in partaking, again, in your bizzare, nightly mental gymnastics. Lephys, this has already been explained to you a year ago. It is because you ramble on pointlessly. You are like a bubbly teenage girl with a phone. You are the Don King of message boarding. You take 10,000 words to say what a normal person can say in `1 quick sentence. And I told you that I will NOT waste my time addressing your deliberately long-winded rantings. I will pick and choose the parts that approach coherency. ^I think it's time for you to cease this pretentious arrogance of yours and speak for yourself. I have never played a game that had level scaling and didn't realize within halfway though the first playthrough, that I was being subjected to level scaling. I guess, though, that one would actually have to play an open world (or semi-open world)RPG that doesn't employ level scaling, in order to truly see the refreshing difference. Yes, this can be done in a strictly linear game. The Icewind Dales do this. Of course, such a design WORKS in linear games. Oh, what a great talking point. The giant Blanket catch-all to fix any game flaw that has ever existed: JUST IMPLEMENT THINGS APPROPRIATELY. I have news for you Lephys. Contrary to your fantastical belief that YOU have the answer to everything, you...um....Don't. If Level scaling could be implemented appropriately, someone would have succeeded to do it by now. But as it stands, no one has. Because no one can. Because the problem with level scaling is that despite how subtle and rare you make it in a game, it will always be in direct conflict with other game features and Ideals. And your myriad of analogies, examples, suggestions, anecdotes, and sarcasm cannot overcome this fact. The best that anyone can do is severely limit/minimize its existence so it doesn't do too much damage to everything else. But that's neither a cure, nor is it an ideal. It's just turning down the volume, instead of unplugging the device.. We have not even scratched the surface on the subtle problems that Level scaling causes. I would love to engage you in a discussion of the effects level scaling has on loot placement in the game world (for example). Or it's effects on experience point gains. Uh...NO. When a game begins it is assumed that you survived whatever travails were hurled your way right up until the decision to become an adventurer occurred. The explorable game world does not need to explain its so-called "static" nature, or your miraculous survival to adulthood within it. You survived, and that's all that matters. And now it's time for your journey to begin. This is not the case with level scaling. Level scaling travels with you. With level scaling, the player literally witnesses its occurrence, and the world that contains it must then offer up an acceptable explanation why it is happening -- why the goblins in act 2 are literally healthier than they are in act 1; Why that mage suddenly has 2 iron golems guarding his tower when you invade it at 12th level, but only had 2 straw golems guarding it just 3 weeks earlier when you were 5th level (Iron Golems take YEARS to create); Why that wolf den has 4 wolves in it when you're 1st level, but 15 wolves in it 2 weeks later when you're 5th level (did they have a pack recruitment drive? Did the ladies get horny and then cast Otilukes extremely expedient pregnancy on their own bodies? I can go on. We can discuss the policial rammifications of level scaling if you'd like - how if you visit a big city at level 2, the milita there are 3rd level, but then if you visit a nearby small town at level 10 its militia are 12th level.... and how this fact should logically mean a successful sacking of the big city if the two should ever go to war. But, again, you are the one who believes that Level scaling can actually be implemented in a way where none of these problems occur. Count me as a skeptic. You haven't actually come close to explaining any such thing yet. And neither has any game developer in history.

You're thinking of it backwards. If it's not initially designed in such a way that it's noticeable in the first place, then there's nothing to conceal. What do you mean there's nothing to conceal? It's still Level scaling, remember? And you yourself have said, over and over, that the best way to implement level scaling is to conceal its implementation. ie. craft a LIE. I guess this would be a good time to ask then: what are the benefits of Level Scaling? Go ahead, say "Encounter Balance". Say "Encounter Balance" so that I can point out the many ways that such a thing goes counter to the spirit of a believable explorable open world.

Gee, I dunno. Critical hits are good, so let's make critical hits occur 90% of the time! What a terrible analogy. If it is determined that Critical Hits are a *good* feature, then an intelligent developer will make sure that critical hits occur every time the player rolls a 20. But yeah, I get the whole "execution" thing. Apparently, The best way to execute level scaling is to make it invisible, as if it's not there at all. Yeah, that makes sense. We can't just...you know just not have it there in the first place. Thus we wouldn't have to conceal it, or deceive the player into thinking it's not there, or hide it, like a hideous tattoo that we're ashamed of.

Wait wait wait... If a feature is a *good* feature, why would one want to only use it sparingly, or make it so subtle that it's un-noticed? Gosh! I could have sworn I already addressed this about 50 times. Ok, lets do attempt #51. We'll use the same sewers-under-the-city scenario. We have level 1 Rats. And hell, we can even have a quest tied to them (Quest: the local health department is concerned that its rat infestation may cause a disease outbreak. The citizenry is demanding that someone clear the sewers of the rat infestation.) Ok, well With level scaling we've kinda already made this quest meaningless, since as soon as a 10th-12th level Party enters the sewers, those Rats will suddenly be replaced with a far FAR bigger threat (10X bigger, to be exact.) There is now an infestation of Highly intelligent Vampiric Wererats. And a cognizantly aware gamer...one who had previously taken the game seriously, suddenly questions the entire game's logic and storytelling. Why is this a health department issue, when this actually rises to the level of a MILITARY THREAT? Why is the citizenry worried about a disease outbreak, when they should instead, be terrified, and screaming about how these rats have snatched and murdered citizens every night? Answer: Oh shut the hell up you logic fans. Games aren't supposed to make sense, they're just supposed to mindlessly and nonsensically BE BALANCED AT ANY COST.

What actions are you talking about, exactly, Lephys? And here I thought that the entire RPG community would be on the same side of the fence with the easy-to-understand notion that,Ideally, all encounters should be meticulously designed and hand crafted by the developers, and then placed into the part of the game world where they'd make the most sense, and then present that world, as is, to the player. And thus the need for level scaling would not exist. Since level scaling is nothing more than the practice of mutating encounters, changing them to FIT the Party, instead of the game world and its lore. Again, it is BAD developer behavior to design, say, Level 1 rats, then put those rats where it makes sense to put them (in the sewers of a city), and then say: "Great! Done! Wait.... we have a Problem: BALANCE!!!! We believe that it will be wrong if the player party is 10th level when they enter those sewers and fight those rats. Because Level 1 rats are not a challenge to a 10th level party. We must do something about that. Wait. I know what we can do! Lets have those rats level scale with the Party! Yeah, lets make 10th Level Rats! Hopefully, that party of powerful seasoned adventurers will not notice (or won't care?) that a pack of f*cking rats is battling them on equal terms. Laugh if you wish Lephys. Dismiss this away as a silly "extreme" or whatever. But the FACT remains: This phenomenon is not extreme or rare. it is an overly common problem in RPGs. it is what happens when developers resort to level scaling. And it happens ALL THE TIME. Even in the example given at the start of this thread (BG2), were the Level scaling is so 'subtle' that many players can miss it, it STILL negatively tampers with the game world's setting and believability. In BG2, Level scaling caused the devs to insert random liches into trash mob encounters in unimportant areas, thus cheapening and insulting the presentation of what should be the rarest, and most powerful type of ancient undead in the realms. The argument has been made (by you I think), that if the devs level scale their encounters, then it won't make a difference on a 1st playthough, since the player likely won't *know* if that encounter has been scaled to his level or not. Well, Lephys, I've never in my life played a game with level scaling where I didn't notice, usually before I got halfway though the game, that the devs have lazily decided, because they weren't smart or creative enough to come up with a better solution, to level scale their encounters in order to keep up the challenge for the Party. But I digress. Unlike you, Lephys, I don't really need to defend my stance here. Because this is one of the rare gaming issues where the PoE developers are on my side and not yours! POE will not have level scaling, except for maybe portions of the critical path if at all. Feel free to Cry, Sigh and Wail about that, at your convenience.

Well, as you point out, the "how" is easily explained. Usually by simply reading the rule-book and such. The "why" is a much trickier thing, since it's totally dependent on the campaign in question (usually the lore). In the Forgotten Realms, it has to do with convoluted laws of the multiverse involving the Weave and Mystra or whatever. But this is a moot point. Obsidian is using a fairly unique system and frankly, I'm getting a good vibe from it. It *sounds* pretty darn cool. And if it ends up working well, I really won't care about any "whys", will you?