evdk

Actually yes, cause love - is one of the core emotional things in this world. Only 'foreveralone' guys don't understand this. Actually it's mostly the foreveralone crowd that is campaigning for romances while weeping into a body pillow. Not that love has anything to do with cRPG romances, so nice strawman there, 7/10.

Stuff killed me outright like a bullet to the head. Heh, define "people".

Read his post again, if you don't understand. I am afraid you will have to take pity on my pitiful intellect destroyed by alcohol and explain it. Preferably in simple words and short sentences.

I have taken the liberty of fixing your terribly inaccurate post.

Well you get achievements for romancing each character that can be romanced in DA and ME. That's a pretty much open admission as to how important Bioware thinks these things are. They make up the majority of their fan base, of course EA thinks it's important. You seem rather fixated

You should choose your words more wisely. BG and BG2 - are Bioware's games. And there would be no PST or IWD without BG. What does that have to do with anything he's written?!?

God, romances should be included when they are appropriate, not as an arithmetic function.

Not fair as Geralt is actually successful.

BG2 is whole different level (of clichés) from PS:T. Torment "romances" which were almost not there were fine, BG2's were dreadful cliché ridden experience. The only thing in their favour was that you could easily skip them, because their role in overall narrative was exactly zero and the game never tried to push you in their direction anyway (DA2 I am looking at you).

Yeah, this is exactly what the proposed system should prevent and good riddance. Minmaxing exp gains is not fun. No, I'm just wondering and was maybe misleading by not quoting your earlier post (and quoting PsychoBlonde's post I wasn't intending to refer to) If you feel the first example forces or compels players to minmax experience, so much you'd feel it's good to block the possibility through game design. The why wouldn't you feel the inclusion of Undersigil (being a voluntary non-plot side area) to similarly force or compel you to plow through it to gain the extra XP you wouldn't get through other means? Or did you? Feel the Undersigil was compelling and wiped out everything there before continuing with the plot. Or is it because the area works as the developers intended, while they probably wouldn't have intended you to both talk to, and then kill the dragon? If so, I can understand your point of view, but I'd still advocate player choice to override writers intentions. Do stuff, get XP for stuff done. -- Edit. I'm really not trying to argue over this or change your mind. Just interested. Combat in Torment was terrible, I went to Undersigil exactly once, wept for a few minutes and decided never to talk about it again. But combat in PS:T in general was just a speed bump on the way to the much more interesting parts and I am not opposed to hack'n'slash games in general, it's just if the combat is really good I do not need the XP rewards to engage in it There is no reason a game with good story can't have excellent combat. e.g. Betrayal IN krondor. In that case combat is it's own reward and no direct xp rewards are necessary.

So why was it there to begin with, if not as a place where you can go and grind your character? I assume (and only that since I just peeked down there and then came straight back and continued with the story) it's exactly a place where you can go and grind XP. Did it unbalance the game if combat oriented players had a place to earn more XP? Did you feel compelled to kill everything down there for extra XP? If not, then why would you feel compelled to kill everything in Eternity, if minmaxing is possible. No hair off my back if the game is full of extra XP to be had and minmax possibilities aplenty, if it's not assumed I have to take them all. Reading comprehension fail? I merely stated that a storyfag game may not be the best fit for hack'n'slash genocide simulator lovers. I wasn't compaining that the Undersigil was included in Torment, I just wondered why you would buy the game and then only grinded there, disregarding the rest.

Sadly, story driven games are not usually made for these people. It's like buying PS:T and spending all playtime grinding Undersigil.

Yeah, this is exactly what the proposed system should prevent and good riddance. Minmaxing exp gains is not fun.

Thank you for your armchair moderating, I will be sure to keep your opinions in mind.

Sure, nobody is allowed to destroy FR but WotC themselves. But they did a marvelous job.

There is nor has there ever been a realistic experience system. Claiming that any of the myriads of abstractions of the complex process of learning is somehow more realistic than the other is intellectually dishonest at best, trolling at worst. tl;dr - HAHAHAHAHA OH WOW

The poll question is a bit biased but I voted for QA anyways

Christ, guys, I am getting a notification every time you quote me in that unreadable pyramid. I think it's time for an edit, don't you?

Which is something we don't know yet, because there have been absolutely no word on encounter design.

Jesus Christ Shrek, give your crusade a rest for a day, you are becoming worse then VotS, because in his case I am at least reasonably sure that he is trolling. You are deluded. I have no crusade only very valid points. Appealing to emotions or trying to humiliate others indirectly by such stupid accusations is riddiculous internet tactics. Stop being immature. While your constant demands that everyone who argues with you should read all your various posts on this topic and treating every one of your claim as inrefutable objective truth LS style is mature. OK, why not.

Jesus Christ Shrek, give your crusade a rest for a day, you are becoming worse then VotS, because in his case I am at least reasonably sure that he is trolling.

$140 + $20 for the expansion + additional $50 via the Codex fund raiser. I am currently scavenging neigbouring woods for berries and mushrooms.

Not really. You would still get plenty of loot from killing him. There's also the possibility of tying more then one quest to an encounter (in your example you could kill the dragon for a necromancer to reanimate or defeat him to ease he suffering of neighbouring villages. And the supposition that since you killed stuff you must have learn something is IMHO a slight misunderstanding what experience gain means - it's an abstraction to chart your character's growth which is not necessarily tied to killing stuff. I mean I see where you are coming from (and that you have written that in the end you don't really care if the objective oriented xp makes it into the game or not) but I think I prefer the system where you are not made by mechanics to commit random genocide campaigns against local wildlife.

Well, if there were be a red dragon in the game (let's hope not, I'm sick of them already) it would probably be tied to a quest. This is also why I believe that the distinction of regular and epic monsters is useless when the quests and encounters are properly designed.

Seems like a good reason not to artificially prolong the game by putting said trash mobs in it.