Bryy

Wow, you really just did that.

So true, maybe each of us are both of them. To be honest, I am just happy to discuss the issue with some nice people here. Purely under a selfish perspective, I get so much out of it because it shows me different point of views. You always learn something. By the way, all your comments are small jewels. It's very nice to read you. You've got your answer ten times over, plus you yourself answered the question on the first page. I don't even. And did you honestly use the "the only reason you are disagreeing with me is because you must not be smart enough to understand my points" excuse?

You do realize it's a co-op game, right? Yes, and that doesn't change my point for the single-player experience, which is what I would play. I'm getting the strong sense you won't play co-op/MP because "it's not the right way to play".

Adabesi lives.

You do realize it's a co-op game, right?

Hmm. You're talking about re-allotting the budget. Specifically Less level design = More writing. OK. In that case, definitely no. That kind of thinking got us Dragon Age 2. I'd rather not be subjected to an experience like that ever again. Just jumping to the DA2 Defense here, but a year long dev cycle got us DA2.

... no. What you are suggesting is something publishers do. Plus, it is just bad management. An it's not how business works in general. Just because one segment works less and earns less does not mean the paycheck for another group gets bigger, nor does it mean their hours get longer. I am sure everyone at Obsidian is on salary, meaning they get paid the same amount on matter what. Or are you seriously suggesting that the designers do the same amount of work in less hours and with less pay?

Considering they used Kickstarter... yes.

"Let's cut plural amount of gameplay so we can fall in wove."

QFT I'm about ten hours into Act 2... dear lord, it's three times bigger than Act 1.

You do know they are not real, right? This stuff is always predictable, though. Josh says they don't put in romances, because they have to be done really well to be satisfying, and they'd rather spend time on other things. But working on other things is stupid. They should just cut a few dungeons to make way for romance. Said the guy that is arguing for more content.

They both have the same amount of content. I mean, you said so yourself. So, if they both have the same amount of content... one doesn't automatically have MOAR content because they have different content. You're making huge, absolutist claims while at the same time saying that you're not. That's no way to discuss anything.

He wasn't apologizing for anything. In fact, you were the one that took it as an insult. And then you tell him to just ignore you if he disagrees with you?

Cops kicked us and about fifty people out of the park. We all went to the Home Depot parking lot. It was super lame.

Larian made 6.5 million in the three days Original Sin was out. Out of that, they made 2 million profit. I think the chances of Pillars selling well are pretty good.

Because they don't own the IP and they wanted to create their own IP. Honestly, why Baldur's Gate 3? What, exactly, would make it Baldur's Gate?

OP, A few things. As others have pointed out, your vague notion of romance and what it "should" be is flawed. You can't properly express what exactly you want, and then you go on to give Planescape's usage of romance as an example, but you also answer your own question as to why it was thematic and needed for that game. Josh Sawyer's comments express that romance was thought of, but only as an extra and not essential to the plot. So at the end of the day, it needed to go to the cutting room floor. Then, you do the always classic argument of "but it's not REAL if players mod it in afterwards!". This is all mixed in with patronizing talk of how great the writers are, so obviously adding in new dialogue and arcs would be the easiest thing in the world and the only reason they must not be doing it is because they are stupid. The Lazy Devs argument. Lastly, you end it by basically saying that they don't care about their backers. Classy, dude. Because ultimately, backers are not game designers and we don't really know what is good for a game. This is the problem with the new Torment game in which the developers, for some reason, believe it be the backer's choice for something as fundamental as what combat system the game uses. In reality it was the developer's choice. And honestly, if the backers were making Torment, there would be no female gender option.

I will not lie. Pillars has a lot to do to beat Original Sin. I'll still play Pillars and am sure it will be brilliant... but Original Sin just set the friggin' bar for CRPGs and for Kickstarter Games in general.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfWOpgATkjQ Some dude takes the most ridiculous and completely insane route to insta-kill a boss.... and it works.

.... whut?

I don't see how you can say any of this.

*cough* It isn't real time with pause. I am still messing with it myself. I am finding the combat to be way out of whack. Everything always outlevels me 1-2 levels, and half the time I am massively out numbered to boot. The game starts with two characters then promptly puts you in a "I hope you have 4 characters" scenario. Doesn't make a ton of sense. It's very easy to get the two companions plus access to the random party member function. The problem is that the game doesn't really tell you what to do.

It's one of the few things actually worth the money in a rig, IMO.

Yup, homophobes exist. I don't see how that has anything to do with why bisexual romances in fiction are a bad thing.

To be fair, Original Sin has a metric boatload of recycled dialogue.