mute688

I bought the game last night and have only spent half an hour in game to check out the settings and UI, but my first impressions don't have me rushing back to it. When I picked up the first SOTS, within minutes of starting the game I was comfortable with the UI. It was simple and intuitive and my initial quick look turned into 3 hours of gaming. My half hour in SOTS2 was spent trying to figure out how to move my ships and trying to figure out the research screen. As I said, only had a quick look but to me it seems a step backwards from the first game as far as UI goes. This seems cluttered, overly complicated and unintuitive. I'll read the manual and then have another look, but first impressions mean that second look will be low priority. I'm sure there's a decent game buried beneath that UI, but I'm not in any hurry to find it.

Theme Hospital doesn't really get any harder. It simply introduces new equipment each mission. By the end the hardest thing is having the patience to achieve the required goals, like getting the environment (I think it was called environment, maybe it was satisfaction?) up enough. I hated having to keep placing mirrors, plants and paintings everywhere just to get some metre up enough to finish a level.

This is probably a silly question, but is the new xcom pure turn based or is it a real time with (auto)pause system? It simply didn't seem to always run as a turned based game. For example, overwatch fire seems to run in real time with all units firing simultaneously and the enemy seem to move in real time when they are sighted. I've also, on rare occasions, had enemy take two, sometimes three moves in real time once sighted (dispersal doesn't trigger on first sighting so the enemy move once, then they get the triggered sighting dispersal then on rare occasion move once more in real time). I read somewhere (will try and find a quote) that the game was in development for 4 years, which seems a rather long development time, and I was wondering if it was originally designed as a real time squad based game but was overhauled to some sort of hybrid system after the reaction to the FPS x-com. I'm probably wrong, but I have little knowledge of programming and was wondering if there is any actual difference between real time with auto pause and turn based.

Yes and no. Exmples aplenty, but not actual proof. Because this is not the sort of thing you CAN prove. After all, how can I prove that X is what lead to change Y, even if it makes 100% sense? After all, how is a game balanced? Trough testing. How does one test a game? By playing. How do people play? However tehy want. Will testesrs save-scum? Most certanly. Will that affect their view on the blance/usefulness? Most certanly. Will that feedback influence balancing? Defiantely. Can I prove it? No. Do I care if I can prove it or no? No. What does that mean for you? No examples. Deal with it. lol, I see. No problem. I'll deal with it. I sorta figured that's where you were at but it's nice to get confirmation. Feeding time is over.

Do you have an example from an actual game where the option to save anywhere has been the basis for changes to the design that you find unacceptable? I'm talking single player game, not multiplayer as I can see multiplayer issues of balance affecting the single player game, but I am having a hard time thinking of any single player game that has been affected in the way you describe, ie classes being changed drastically due to save scumming. Edited to add: And if a class has been changed due to save scumming then you are campaigning against a symptom, not a cause. It would seem to me that you should be campaigning for the save scumming to not affect game design rather than to eliminate save scumming.

It would depend on the availability of arrows in the game. I've rarely played a game that let me run out of arrows. There always seemed to be abundant arrows found on bodies so having to continually restock them was just an annoyance. If PE is going to have a small number of arrows as loot, then I can see a value in them being limited rather than unlimited, as long as I'm not forced to juggle bundles of 20 arrows in my inventory.

I'm only pledged for $35 at the moment. After I've paid the PE pledge I'll have to see if I have enough left over to pledge a bit more. Only just bought Nexus:TJI on GoG last week. Haven't played a lot of it so far but I'm enjoying what I've seen so far.

I've purchased due to the fact that I've been unable to get my original disks to run, at all. It installs fine, it just wont run. I then purchased the digital download version off GoG and that also wont run. BG2 runs fine though, so I'm hoping that the EE will run on my system.

I see game mechanics as defining player freedom. I don't see it as an either/or. I don't think anyone expects unlimited freedom, simply freedom to play the game in the manner they see fit within the game mechanics. That said, of course balance is important. That also being said, designing a game around the possibility that some player, somewhere, may use an exploit to bypass some intended design element is, in my book, lucicrous. Design the best game possible within the constraints of allowed time and money and reasonably assume that people can either play the game in the spirit in which it was intended, or they can exploit certain game mechanics to whatever end they desire. It's a single player game. Who cares if anyone or everyone is using faulty design to expolit the game mechanics. I prefer the approach of leaving the decision up to the player. It allows me to play in different styles during consequent play throughs. I can see what happens if I do certain things differently without having to replay large expanses of the game. If I want to do that, why do you care if I'm missing out on the intended overall experince?

I know you didn't intend the question for me, but I wanted to chime in anyway. I do think player freedom in regards to saves is more important than a few exploits. I find it unrealistic to expect the devs to find all exploits and design them out. It becomes a question of what is more enjoyable. Do they design out save scumming and exploits, something which the player has to actively want to do, at the cost of player choice and freedom, or do they not limit our choices and freedoms and reasonably assume that exploits will be ignored by anyone who does not wish to use them? I hope they choose not to limit our choices and freedom.

I think this is a case of having to simply agree to disagree. To me, those aren't design flaws based around the inclusion of a specific save system. They were player exploits that can be ignored. Now, I understand that maybe some people lose some enjoyment from knowing of the existence of an exploit and having to not use it to get the most from the game, but my opinion is that the freedom that saving anywhere, or maybe anywhere outside of combat and conversation, gives is a good outcome. I will reiterate though, that I doubt the devs will design this game around the assumption that people will use exploits. I'm confident that the game will be designed on the assumption that we will play the game in the spirit in which it was intended to be played. That means no compromise on designing the choice and consequence part of the game, no trivialising of any of the classes, but freedom to play in a different style if we choose.

Think of it this way. Without a publisher backing this game with a massive marketing budget, the kickstarter campaign effectively becomes their marketing campaign. It doesn't cost them anything beyond the tier reward costs and with things such as the facebook 'like' they can market to a wider audience. Despite not liking/using facebook personally, I think it's a great idea. I'd rather see this than any portion of the kickstarter money going to a marketing campaign.

This is the important point. The save mechanic is not something that's "outside" of the gameplay; it's something that's integral to how the game is played and thus its design impacts everything else. With a lax saving mechanic all games, regardless of other difficulty settings, end up trivial. Can you give specifics? It's hard to argue against generalities. From my very limited and uninformed perspective, developing a game with choice and consequence and then designing the game around the assumption that people would bypass those choices and consequences would be amateurish at best. I have great confidence that the game will be designed around those choices. If the devs do design the game on the assumption that I'm not playing how you want, then I have probably backed the wrong developers. I don't think that will be the case.

I actually don't accept that theives were pushed more and more to a combat class, but just for fun, let's assume you are right. You still have nothing to indicate it is because of the save system. I can think of a few reasons for a developer to push towards a more combat orientated thief class that have nothing to do with how and when players save their game. Are you sure you want to use "the game shouldn't tempt me in the first place" as an argument? Really? Especially after saying let's assume self-control is the issue. If you are tempted by the game, then it is your issue, not mine, and I shouldn't be penalised for your shortcomings. Without limited save points, we can both play in the way we want. With save points you get to play how you want, but it's just tough sh*t for myself and others like me. Shallow and egotistical? When it comes to single player games....you bet. I play how I want, I'll cheat when I want, I'll save when I want and I'll also choose not to do those things when I want. And guess what, my preference also allows you to play how you want, Your preference limits my play options merely because you want your hand held, so who exactly is shallow and egotistical? But you are right. We have nothing to discuss. At all.

Your complaint isn't about a faulty game mechanic, it's about people. The example you gave doesn't show that the game mechanic is badly designed, it shows that people will play the game the way they want to. Exactly who, in your example, would be complaining that the rogue class is useless? The people who are using it the way you describe? I doubt it. They obviously want to play that way. Or would it be people like yourself who read threads about people playing that way and feel you have to tell them how wrong they are for not playing how you play? I usually try to finish my first playthrough of a game accepting everything as it comes. A party member dies? So be it. I'll continue to play with the consequences. I lose a battle? I keep playing. After that first playthrough, though, I like to try different things. I like to experiment with different ways of completing quests, of winning battles, trying new skills and talents at level up, different classes, different races. If the devs institute save points I will withdraw my $280 and spend it elsewhere. Why? Because your view on how the save system should be instituted would ruin any further playthroughs for me and I have no intention of spending that sort of money on a game I would only play once at best. I have no problem with accepting the consequences in a game despite knowing I can undo any mistakes by simple reloading a save. I don't do that on my first playthrough though. I choose to not reload. I can also choose to reload if I want. How is it that you can't? How is it that you need to limit my choices to feel better about your lack of discipline? Maybe it's not the rest of us that have a problem. *manly fist bump*

Save points FTW! I also want TV manufacturers to put a 30 second cooldown on the channel change button. How dare people flick through stations when the advertisers have gone to such trouble to put ads in your programs. And what about all those directors, producers, actors and everyone else that make crappy programs that you don't like. Why should you be able to bypass their programs. You should watch it as they intended. Which reminds me...what the **** is up with fast forward buttons on dvd players. How dare anyone want to watch a movie not as the director intended. Sheesh!!!

And this is why I deleted my BSN account and stopped playing Bioware games. They are honestly bemused by why anyone would be concerned over this attitude.

I may be misunderstanding your point, but it seems to me that, to take your magic missile example, you would still want magical, ranged combat abilities, you simply don't want magic missiles. You want races that are diverse and interesting, you just don't want them called elves, dwarves and orcs. That's fine if that is what you want, but beneath the in game lore and story these are simply labels. It is the in game lore that makes these races and abilities unique and interesting. Until they have fleshed out the world they are creating, you can call the races anything you want. A new name for a race wont make it interesting if it simply fills the role of the elves, while a race of elves that is unique with a fully fleshed out history will be interesting despite being called elves. Until we get the completed game in our hands and on our hard drives, we wont know how diverse, deep and interesting the world, the races, the classes and the magic system will be. I can understand being disappointed with the focus on gameplay mechanics at the moment, but I doubt they have much of the lore and history of this world fleshed out to lay over those mechanics to any great degree. As they do flesh it out, I have no doubt that we will see and hear much more.

Really? People are upset about the lack of detailed information? Have you forgotten this is a kickstarter project? This isn't a publisher funded game that's been in developement for 18 months already and finally been announced. This is a game that is still in the concept phase. The kickstarter campaign hasn't even finished yet for **** sake. They've only just finalised what engine they will be using. The gameplay mechanics are still being whiteboarded. The combat system, the magic system, the quest and movement systems....all still just concepts, but you want details of the story already? Personally, once the kickstarter is finished I'm going into Project Eternity blackout. I've pledged money to a group of people I trust implicitly to do what they have proven repeatedly to be very able to do....create fantastic games with immersive worlds, interesting characters and deep, surprising stories. They've done this repeatedly with absolutley no input from me. I have no doubt they'll be able to struggle through without any input from me this time also. I'm going to let them do what they do best and see what they can surprise me with on the other side of the 2 year wait. Have a little faith people. These people know what they are doing. That's why we've pledged money to this group of developers after all, isn't it?

I don't know if it's what I'd call my "best" memory, but it is one that has stuck with me for over 20 years and something I've tried to recapture in games ever since. I remember playing one of the Gold box games for the first time (Pool of Radiance) and being new to RPG's I was fascinated by the whole experience. I can remember entering a cave very early in the game and being attacked by a group of about 20 kobolds and 4 or 5 shamans. I didn't take the fight very seriously at first(heh, they're only kobolds ), that is until they killed my entire group within 2 turns. As I said, the whole RPG expeience was new to me and I must have reloaded that fight dozens of times. It became a personal quest of mine to beat that fight. After 2 days and about 3 hours of playing time, I finally beat it. That one battle hooked me on role playing games and I've since loved any game that can give that same type of challenge where I have to learn a new system or game mechanic.

If they announce a console version, I withdraw my pledge. If you seriously want RPG's of this type for your console, I suggest petitioning MS and Sony for consoles that can support this game type rather than asking for this game type to be shackled by conforming to console specifications.

Actually, I don't favour a particular experience system. I rarely pay any attention to what level I am, how much experience I have accumulated, how much XP to get to the next level, etc. I prefer to ignore that and simply play the game the way I want regardless of how, when or where experience is granted. I figure the devs have the sense to allocate enough XP throughout the game for me to be able to finish it, so I don't care about it. I was simply interested in the discussion.

Which to me is either an encounter design problem, in that too much experience is given for umberhulks in general (if that was the standard XP given for random umberhulk encounters) or a quest design problem if the usual umberhulk XP was substantially less. It can make the XP system seem to not be working, but is actually a case of other systems being designed wrongly.

I personally wouldn't have a problem with the scenario you gave as long as the experience for completing the quest was substantially more that the XP for killing him after. If the XP for killing him after completing the quest was no different to killing a random mook, then I don't think it would be much incentive to kill him. If the quest isn't flagged as completed after convincing him to not fight and you then receive a second lot of XP for the completed quest, that would be problematic but again would be a quest design problem, not an XP system problem.

Isn't that an issue with quest design rather than the XP system? If the quest was given a completion flag after a succesful resolution which resulted in no added XP for solvng the same objective 3 times, there would be no problem. Or am I being obtuse?