rjshae

I'm just happy to be living in a time when we can debate the relative merits of two excellent party-based cRPGs.

Mmm, sweet delicious rumors. Excellent.

Yes, I would expect that the price of being an avowed paladin should mean that certain faiths are proscribed. Otherwise, the game would need to handle the prospect of being a fallen paladin. In theory, you could get away with it somewhat by taking the Untroubled Faith feat, then focusing on the priest's dispositions for maximum benefit. Maybe there should be something equivalent for the Priest, so that their Holy Radiance doesn't become useless? Perhaps even the same feat?

A soulbound club called "Trump Everything". It does irrational, erratic things during combat, lets you gain extra loot for screwing up, and gives you a massive glibness bonus during interactions with low Int creatures. +4 ego boost to Resolve; -4 ego penalty to Perception.

Yeah, but will there be Vithrack slaver-pirates with glowy Adra-powered airships?

As long as they avoid portraying the stereotypical pirates of the Caribbean trope, then I think it'll be okay. I suspect it's going to be more like Malay pirates.

Iron Oath is successful.

The tuna, however, ...

D:OS was fun at first, and the tactical combat was excellent. But I generally prefer cRPGs that take themselves seriously.

Rogues are an excellent class because they provide a different path to success than just pure hack-n-slay munchkinism. When implemented properly, they should require you to use your head to think your way through (or around) a problem.

I wonder, will shadows now move with the passage of time as the light source progresses across the sky?

Dunno, but it's probably banned in Germany...

Old school security system?

I'd like to see a battlefield choked with black smoke from cannon fire.

My suggestion is to always wait for the third patch update before playing a game. You'll enjoy it a lot more without a ton of immersion-breaking bugs.

Poor Houston may get up to 50" (127cm) of rain. That's just crazy. Up here in Seattle, we just went through our wettest winter on record: 47.24" (120cm) of rain between Oct. 1 and June 1. Now we're on our 77th straight day without rain. Weird weather. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/29/upshot/harvey-rainfall-where-you-live.html?mcubz=3

Chanters should be able to form ensembles and make more rapid invocations using multi-part harmonies. I'm not sure how that could be implemented using game mechanics, but it might make for an interesting encounter.

Well, game design is limiting. "Freedom" in a game is limited, as what you do should get a reaction, which means it has to be preplanned by a designer in the first place. Disctiptions expand Obsidian ability to tell stories without expanding budget so I will take it. Whatever freedom you have will always be within what designers have imagined. Since we're already constrained, we should be made to feel even more constrained? If it serves the story then yes. I want it to be as limiting as it needs to be. You might be looking for something else in gaming than I do of course. I never found "freedom" of Elder Scrolls engaging, as yes, you can do anything, at any point you want but none of that matters. You can go straight and climb this mountain, but will anything interesting be there, or will anyone respond to it? Not really. Going against established rules of freedom is what annoys me a lot. In Dishonored you have to walk into a trap, even though you see it coming miles away, even though it goes against the freedom the game offered you thus far (and the knowledge you and Corvo have seem to differ). However, you could say something similar happens in Thief: The Dark Project but I as the player was never in charge of choices Garret made and the choice he made fit with his character. I can't say I ever found discriptions to be limiting (let's drop the "narrator" as it is not appropriate outside scripted interactions, and at this point "game master" would be more appropriate, I think) but they added details or build atmosphere which wouldn't be possible to convey through in game means. But I also tend to create conventional characters, so if someone goes for something more... unusual (like super dumb barbarian or sociopath) it might be possible that what game tells you what your character notices it's not what he should notice. Paragraph 1: This would eliminate a sense of exploration, which I greatly enjoy. If you don't want to explore the mountain then don't explore the mountain. Stick to the story, and let the rest of us enjoy the scenery and adventure. Paragraph 2: That just sounds like poor writing. Paragraph 3: There's an expression in writing: show, don't tell. To me it means don't use exposition when exploration and experience will serve the same end. Sometimes you have to resort to written or narrated descriptions, but they aren't always the best choice.

Well, game design is limiting. "Freedom" in a game is limited, as what you do should get a reaction, which means it has to be preplanned by a designer in the first place. Disctiptions expand Obsidian ability to tell stories without expanding budget so I will take it. Whatever freedom you have will always be within what designers have imagined. Since we're already constrained, we should be made to feel even more constrained?

Cannibal 'tired of eating human flesh' turns himself in to South African police. Blehhhhh.... Guess he was fed up with people.