Elerond

Yup there is high probably for that to be the case and even if it comes out before PoE we still speak very short interval that it would be somewhat impossible to port PoE to new engine in all three platforms, without speaking problems that there will be because Unity 5 does somethings differently than Unity 4, they already had problems with Unity 4 as its Linux version didn't have all the same things as Windows and Mac versions.

They probably use auto blurring software to hide license plates and software has got false positive from that POL-syllable

Well, that sucks. I guess France24 was initially correct According to BBC there was reports that terrorist shoot people when they took over the super market in first place

Original Dune game was not so great combination of adventure and strategy game, where Dune 2 was cult classic RTS game pioneer and it was one of the best games during it time.

When you carry a handgun in a purse (or similar) there is possibility that the gun's safety gets switched off by hitting some other object in the purse, which is why I would always recommend one to carry gun in holster if they must carry one with you even when you carry them in purse, bag, back-bag, suite-case, etc.. And from my observations people that are most relaxed on how they handle guns belong those who perfectly well know how guns should be handled, but are blinded by their experience which causes them act carelessly, which is when accidents are bound to happen. I would say that this is also true to any dangerous object that people use, people (at least some) are just bound to become more relaxed in handling things when handling them becomes routine, rising possibility of accident at least some degree. But when we speak objects that have ability to kill people we never will be able to prevent all fatal accidents with them as long they exists because there will always be (chain of) unseen circumstances that will lead such tragedy.

Product achieved and exceeded all the goals that it's buyer and developers put for it so it was not by any sensible waste especially tremendous waste of development time, as those who put their time and money in it were more than pleased for the result. I would claim that any claim to claim that Skyrim was (most) definitely a waste of development time has born from childish notion that other people must use their time to please claimer and/or people like the claimer.

Game is good, but PC port is far from to be what one could call decent. So game didn't restore my faith that Bioware would make games which are targeted to audience which I belong. I haven't never doubted their ability to produce games that offer enjoyable experiences, but with audiences that they currently focus on I don't see them to produce in near future games that get to my favorite game list or list of great games that I have played. This probably don't mean that I will not play their future games, but they have lost their special place in my heart.

People that murder random people always find excuse for their actions (because they are mentally unstable which causes them to want to harm and kill other people), although police and other authorities have higher change become their target when respect towards police and other authorities, which is indoctrinate in citizens from young age, starts to fall off for one reason or another (like for example authorities failing to explain why their actions were justified or people undermining president's or other political leaders' authority for some reason).

Regardless on what price game will be sold when it is finished and distributed in stores, the main advantage that KS backers get from being backer is to get game made in first place, as otherwise it wouldn't have been made. Of course cheaper price and earlier access could have given additional enticement to back for somebodies, but I would say for most of the backers those play quite small if any part in their decision to become backers. And I am quite sure that people will pay much less, for example, than me (about $400) when game finally comes out. This is what people that gave more than minimum think. The 95% of backers want a cheaper game first (the 95% are those that gave as little as possible to get the game). On average people gave $54 for the game, which of course comes from simple math where you divide end sum with number of backers, which don't tell how the sum is actually divided between backers, but it gives you number that tells you how much game would have cost for you if all the backers had paid same amount for it. Of course I can't say why people backed game, but I would say it is bit unrealistic to expect to get it cheaper than anybody can ever get the game if you take part to fundraiser to make it possible to make the game in first place. Average means nothing in this case and has nothing to do with my statement. My 95% is not an accurate number, but I am sure I would be far from it if I went to count it.The point still stands that most people wanted to get a game they would like to play cheap. EDIT: OK did some math (this only includes KS backers). 62.07% people backed the game at base levels that give you a digital copy of the game. 11.35% people backed the game at the 35$ level that also gives you a manuals and soundtracks. This is a cheaper version of digital Deluxe versions of games on Steam. 7.74% people backed it at 50$ level which is an expanded digital Deluxe level (and probably costs the same as digital deluxe will). Lot of people also opted to take add-ons, meaning that they gave more money than their tier indicates.) But any way I would say it is bit silly to complain that people that didn't back the game should not get game as cheap as most low level backers (if Paradox would had decided to do so) when those backers got game as cheap as they got only because other people were willing to invest more money in the game (people in $20-$50 tiers only put about $1.6 million towards game if we don't take account add-ons, which is less than half of the money pledged towards the game).

Regardless on what price game will be sold when it is finished and distributed in stores, the main advantage that KS backers get from being backer is to get game made in first place, as otherwise it wouldn't have been made. Of course cheaper price and earlier access could have given additional enticement to back for somebodies, but I would say for most of the backers those play quite small if any part in their decision to become backers. And I am quite sure that people will pay much less, for example, than me (about $400) when game finally comes out. This is what people that gave more than minimum think. The 95% of backers want a cheaper game first (the 95% are those that gave as little as possible to get the game). On average people gave $54 for the game, which of course comes from simple math where you divide end sum with number of backers, which don't tell how the sum is actually divided between backers, but it gives you number that tells you how much game would have cost for you if all the backers had paid same amount for it. Of course I can't say why people backed game, but I would say it is bit unrealistic to expect to get it cheaper than anybody can ever get the game if you take part to fundraiser to make it possible to make the game in first place.

But if enemy don't act certain way and rule system don't put in certain restrictions it would not work in first place. In Bethesda's games (TES and Fallout 3) you can use kitting as tactic. I would say more like "something exist because of artificial things copy it for infinity as it is so cool!!!!!!!" If game (rule set) don't need it to be good it don't necessary need to be added say I.

Cavalry archers didn't use kitting but tactics which they ride as close to enemy as possible before they can attack you and shoot them and then ride away, which is said to be effective tactic although it has it's own disadvantages as Seljuk's cavalry found out in Battle of Dorylaeum.

I strongly disagree, because kiting is silly tactic that works only because AI programming is poor. Which of course don't mean that players should not use it in their tactics repertory if it works in the game, but if it works it is mostly because developers didn't do perfect job. Well, you are wrong then. Kiting does not work because AI is bad. Kiting works because it is a good tactic. What AI fails at is to respond to it. In fact, I would ENCOURAGE kiting by adding special talents and skills (tumble). By default, Kiting should have penalties i.e. moving and hitting gives you a penalty to attack roll etc. , Kitting is good tactic only because of how AI works and how games rule restrict things, which in my opinion make it silly tactic and often too effective tactic. I would just make kitting awkward to use (by adding more enemies in encounters, making them faster and lowering speed, damage and accuracy of moving ranged characters) and not offer any or few special talents or skills to make it less awkward.

I strongly disagree, because kiting is silly tactic that works only because AI programming is poor. Which of course don't mean that players should not use it in their tactics repertory if it works in the game, but if it works it is mostly because developers didn't do perfect job. The thing that's called "kiting" in (not only) IE games is one of the core elements of playing RTS games. It is a fact that IE games combat felt pretty similar to RTS games, one of the main reasons is the possibility to kite (and the general feel of moving units around during combat). Kiting isn't wrong, it is a logitimate tactic. As Shrek mentioned, it is the goal of AI to be potent enough to respond to kiting so it's harder to kite properly. If you dislike kiting, it means you dislike one of the core elements that constituted the feel of combat in IE games. Kitting may be core element of rts games (I disagree with this notion, but there is no reason to debate this in this thread), because of silly artificial rule sets that they use and how AI works when its kitted in those games. Kitting is wrong because it is silly tactic that usually works because of artificial constraints and how AI works in said games. Who said I dislike kiting, I said that it is silly tactic, which as itself is reason to disagree with notion that there is nothing wrong in kitting. And I think that kitting should not work as effectively as it works in IE games. Also I would say that I am absolute fine if rts game or IE style game (for example PoE) uses artificial constraints to block people using kitting and forcing them to use different tactics.

I strongly disagree, because kiting is silly tactic that works only because AI programming is poor. Which of course don't mean that players should not use it in their tactics repertory if it works in the game, but if it works it is mostly because developers didn't do perfect job. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Kiting has been in many many games over the years and it is considered one of the more interesting things. In Starcraft 2 zerg banelings owned groups of marines until one of the players started kiting with marines very well. It wasn't stupid, it made the game much more interesting. OK, this was a MP example but still kiting is not stupid. Also it is not needed, even in RTS games kiting is considered an advanced tactic and it is not needed to beat the novice or newbie enemy (it certainly is not needed to beat singleplayer campaigns). Also in BG games, not everyone kites and certainly people don't kite effectively. Kiting is only needed for special plays (all team squishy) and it is good that it exists as it empowers different plays and increases replayability. Kitting is tactic that is possible because of artificial limits of the game. Kitting is not advance tactic (this is of course my opinion) but quite simple one, it don't demand any great tactical skill to understand why it works or even to realize that one could use it and when to use it. It mainly works in many rts and rpg games, because of different unit moving speeds and how AI moves auto targeting units (it is AI that moves characters in games like BG and most rts, where player only tells where AI should move the characters, etc.). Kitting is silly tactic (this is of course my opinion) and it usually works because of how AI is programmed to work in the games. But as I said this isn't reason not to use it if it works in the game. And in BG kitting is not most efficient tactics for all the party compositions, which is why not everybody at least not in every encounter use it at least as their main tactic. PS. I don't really know where you draw your conclusions of things in your first paragraph, especially when silliness/stupidness ever has stopped something to be interesting?

Answer to your question is yes. People will be able to redeem their copies of the game at least from Steam or GOG.com there may be some other services like GamersGate (as it has strong ties with Paradox)

I strongly disagree, because kiting is silly tactic that works only because AI programming is poor. Which of course don't mean that players should not use it in their tactics repertory if it works in the game, but if it works it is mostly because developers didn't do perfect job.

Regardless on what price game will be sold when it is finished and distributed in stores, the main advantage that KS backers get from being backer is to get game made in first place, as otherwise it wouldn't have been made. Of course cheaper price and earlier access could have given additional enticement to back for somebodies, but I would say for most of the backers those play quite small if any part in their decision to become backers. And I am quite sure that people will pay much less, for example, than me (about $400) when game finally comes out.

Not the profit, the sales. If it sells much, we'll have more games, sure. The profit of this game is guaranteed because no money is spent by Obsidian in it. There is couple factors that you should take account: Kickstarter pays development of the game, but not it's marketing and support, which are things that Paradox has to take account when they set price for the game Obsidian has promised to make expansion for the game with profits that they get from selling it, so they actually produce at least decent amount of money. Game's development has extended over the point of the time when Obsidian estimated that they run out KS funds, so they probably need to use some of their own money (or pre-sale money) to finish the game. Also Obsidian has hopes that they can develop Pillars of Eternity their own inner product that can be self reliant so that they don't need to go to publishers or crowd funding to pay next installments that they make in the series. Paradox also plans to get retailers to sell physical copies of the game, which usually means that they can't sell digital copies in too low prices.

They are just idiotic teenagers that can't see reality, but way to get excitement in their lives and rebel against authority that they don't like, usually for some petty reason. Similar idiocy born from naivety has always existed in people usually in teenagers. If those people would need brainwashing or some other effort to get them do idiotic things we would have much less problems in this world.

Real story what happened in Jaws

You have understood it wrong they aren't called Elder lions (or wolves) because they are old but because they are older less domesticated race/species of lions/wolves who grow larger, tougher and are less afraid of people. I would say it is sadder still see that those cultists use those giant beetles as their front door guards.

In BG new commands were usually needed every 6 seconds if you were a spell caster and any non-caster usually fought same enemy until that one dies which didn't happen for few rounds (6 second = 1 round) unless they were trash mobs where you didn't even need to pause at all. So you paused at worst about every 6 seconds and at best until anyone on enemy team died. Casual players didn't bother much with effective use of spellcasting and just paused to give troops new targets after current ones died so they paused even less often. In PoE everything is faster and deadlier and as such asks for pausing much much more often. Also from what I understand, PoE will not support AI scripts for your characters like IE games did. But isn't there a "slow mode"? Yes there is. I would say after playing couple times latest patch on hard using 'fast' mode in all the combats, that combat speed isn't problem or times you need to pause the game, but how difficult it at times to interpret what happens on the screen. Especially in spider caves it is often hard to tell who is hitting who. Also path finding in latest patch is bad especially how game interprets where characters can move. I found myself often in situation where enemies form lines to come get slaughtered big spiders especially seem to have hard time to move in the fight. But anyway my point is that it is not speed of combat that makes thing feel bad at least mainly but other factors that make combat hard to read and feeling quite clumsy.

I would guess that only copy protection systems that game will have are its product keys and limits that store where you buy it puts for it's copies of games.

1. You probably need to wait for expansion or PoE2 to get those, as Obsidian runs out of resources (time and money) to make such additions to PoE. 2. Game has lot of choices that fit in those broad categories, but it don't have general judgement system that will judge your choices. Although game has reputation system that tracks how people perceive your character, but that tracking don't follow good-neutral-evil categories. 3. Deities probably should have some effect in priest spell repertories, but for reason mentioned in first point that probably don't happen in PoE. 4. Global teleport spell are fun but they have also bad habit making event scripting more difficult and leave game breaking holes in them, and PoE uses BG/BG2 style map which reduces impact of global teleportation some what. 5. Characters with survival skill should be able to track in certain points in the game, although hard to say how significant such feat is. Rangers and druids get bonus to their survival skill. 6. You probably will not see any 7. There is ability to use character's special abilities in some conversations, but I don't know if there will be any character that you can talk if you use some sort charming or domination spell to them before conversation. 8. This probably would need new system in place to actually work which probably means that it is in this point of the scope of the game. 9. You gain reputation in conversation depending on what options you choose, but I don't think that there will be money sinks which give you unlimited amount of reputation like in BG.