rjshae

I'm expecting less. Stereotypical wizard characters are typically more effective as combat artillery, firing from the rear. But 17% smaller party size suggests it'll be much harder to form a line, making battles more likely to be a bunch of random, boring, individual skirmishes, as in DA:O. The combat demo we saw with the sand creatures confirmed that in my mind. Hence, a multi-class, melee-capable wizard would make more sense than a pure wizard. But that impression may change once I start playing the game.

Europe probably needs the metric system more than the U.S., having such a diversity of international standards in play would make cooperation difficult.

If there's an in-game explanation, it probably has to do with logistics. A small party can be self-sustaining and can fairly readily journey large distances by living off the land; a large party needs a supply chain, which limits their speed and range. Large parties depend upon porters, supply dumps, carts, beasts of burden, guards for the camps, and so forth. The requirement grows exponentially.

Have you tried hyperventilating into a paper bag? Relax, and enjoy the day.

Note that not every nation uses commas to denote thousands.

Funny though, Mazzy was one of my favorite characters from BG2. Hopefully at least one of the PoE2 sidekicks will be equally enjoyable to have in the party.

Nope, no skimpy digital representations here. Trying to fight slimey monsters while half-clad seems daft. Save it for the employees in the in-game brothel.

For a cloud-services developer: without u, the cloud would just be a clod

Seriously? It isn't. The NPCs and 'story' simply aren't interactive enough. Its an entertaining hack\slash and exploration game, but the RPG elements are light and largely irrelevant. And choice and consequence are kept in the writers' hands, not the player. It is a role-playing game. Yes, addressing your concerns would have enhanced the role-playing aspects. But the game definitely lies on the role-playing spectrum.

No, it'd be too easy to min-max a party like that. I don't have an issue with camp followers in a game, but I prefer the sense of immersion that comes with having a set party that travels with you and endures the same risks as you. With the suggested approach, I think you risk having a party split between those optimized for combat and the rest optimized for non-combat.

Remember why that happened though: LucasArts forced Obsidian to finish KOTOR2 within a very short time frame of 14-16 months. Presumably that isn't the case here.

Is there a good reason to imagine these DLCs were cut content? If so, what is it? If not, why suggest it? More likely they started off with a broad set of options for suggested content, figured out what they could prioritize and still meet the schedule, then preserved selected other potential content as options for future expansions. That's just business at work. What we're getting is very likely what they could accomplish given the resources and time constraints, so I'm not clear why there would be some sort of conspiracy at work. If the original game doesn't hold up well, there's no way the added content is going to help sell it. They know that. What we're getting with the DLC probably isn't even the full list of potential additions.

Hopefully the game will hold up well even without the expansions. I'll probably play them during a future replay, so for me their purchase depends on whether it is worth a replay. If I never feel the urge to finish it, then probably I won't bother with the add-ons.

Oh joy, another "what is a role-playing game?" discussion. All I know is, the more 'choices with consequences' I get to make for the character build and h{er|is}} actions in the game, the closer it feels to a role-playing experience.

For me, one of the better RPG element of the examples he gives (Fallout/Elder Scrolls) was schedule-driven characters. If their response had been driven by the time of day, that would have been even better. Second up were the presence of interactive NPCs with a story to tell but who weren't part of the main story line, and who you could actually give a darn about. Third was a change in local or world circumstances due to actions you have taken. Stuff that adds to the sense of immersion. Despite all that though, I connected much better with my character when I could build him (or her) from the ground up and control his advancement in detail. FO3 did that very well, at least with the intro.

That concept seems to be based upon a chemical propulsion model. Perhaps an air-breathing, beam-powered propulsion system may still work, if the lasers are applied with sufficient strength and duration?

Perhaps dual parrying daggers? Otherwise, its one of those corner cases I wouldn't expect they're going to spend money supporting.

I enjoy sci-fi cRPGs and the OPs suggestion is a good start. My interest would improve greatly if is were troupe-based with turn-based combat, plenty of diplomatic interaction, and some good alien PC designs.

Fallout setting -- mountain bike -- specia[!l] stats (aspice?). Why not? Could be fun.