rjshae

What, this hasn't turned into a romance thread yet? What's wrong with you people?

My expectation is that they will at least recoup the original KS funding, and maybe more. Enough for another game at any rate. But I'm a 'glass is too large' kind of guy...

It's not on yet, but Orphan Black has been renewed for a third season and they are starting filming. Just ten more episodes, unfortunately.

There were no general or conversation skills in the IE games either (barring IW2, I think), and it was already clear back then that Thieves needed something more. There's a reason there was no single-class Thief companion available past the mid-game in BG2. Right, but IWD2 probably represented the pinnacle of the IE series development and hence a model of the future trend. Despite it being a primarily combat-oriented game, it managed to implement 16 of the then-current D&D skills.

Are you speaking from experience with the beta? Do you have a more specific example?

Have a look at 'Manage Ignore Prefs' under your user settings....

The changes to the binary nature are related to combat outcomes, rather than engagement. The engagement is a similar process to selecting a response in a conversation; once you've selected it the event is triggered. I don't see a benefit to changing that.

Yeah haven't tried rogue yet, but in my ideal world of RPGs, it is OK to have a group member who is inept or bad at combat. Vic in Fallout 2 comes to mind, where until late game, he was a liability, and unlike Sulik's insane burst shorts, was terrible when you first picked him up. And yet I loved Vic, his comments, his role in the party-- what he lacked in combat he made up with character. That is not to say the rogue should be nerfed, or buffed, but I liked how thieves or bards in Baldur's Gate 1/2 struggled in combat but made it up with other things throughout your adventures. But I suppose no one in the post console world would ever accept the old school liability thief, I'm at peace with that. Given how the skill tree is flattened down to a meager 5 in PoE and there are no longer any conversation skills, Rogues definitely need a more expanded role in combat than they had in the IE series.

I've seen plenty of gaming opinions in here that don't match my own, so I'm definitely taking the assorted negativity with a big truckload of salt grains.

D:OS is disrupting all of my modding efforts, dang it. I really need to do something about that. Okay, back to the game...

The movement in the Torment demo looked pretty poor to me, as if the characters were sliding across an invisible surface. I really don't understand why anybody would like that--it's too disruptive of immersion.

This is why I like point-buy systems such as HERO/Champions or GURPS. The economics is already in place to apply weight to your attribute decision making.

I think the old DragonQuest PnP game had weapon skills right: different weapons could have different levels of mastery. You could achieve a greater mastery with a rapier, say, than you could with a club. Perhaps having a matrix style of specialization might help: specialize in both social categories and in weapon style. You need to have both to achieve the highest degree of specialization.

Yeah, it would be interesting. It'd need to be carefully balanced though--you shouldn't be able to super-min-max your character that way.

I'd rather not see the rogue become a front-line essential--their class should better suited to ambush, infiltration, disruption, and assassination. I.e. roles where sneakiness and spike damage capability are useful.

I've had a weapon break in the middle of combat, and had to change my tactical approach as a result.

Somebody who bought a collector's edition could be a little bummed if they went and watered down the scarcity. In fact it'd be good if they changed the box style a little for non-backers.

The speed aura doesn't speed up attack speed? That seems counter-intuitive. It seems like you'd want to be able to flip between attacking fast or attacking with accuracy.

I started with a Mac. Loved it, but I was seriously bummed about the limited number of games from which to choose. Finally had to give up and get a PC for gaming purposes, but by that time the second wave of CRPGs was dying off.

Why would character size matter? It'll only change the in-game view by a pixel row or two. But I guess they could have a small-medium-large option for those who like to fiddle with the character build. I believe they had to modify some of the proportions for the purposes of seeing them in game.

How are people liking the weapon durability/repair system in this game? I remember there was a group of determined posters rallying against it in PoE. But in D:OS I think it adds a nice touch of verisimilitude (because it requires you to carry and use multiple weapons), and the time requirement seems pretty minor.

"But it was just so adorable when it was a baby..."

Exactly. Fast attribute progression is just a pavlovian reward mechanism, so how is that not lame? Slower attribute progression is probably closer to an accurate simulation of human development, at least once you're an adult. Perhaps not if you're still a teen. Fast progression, as in the DA series, also encourages weird attribute asymmetries and over-specialization. The latter is okay for combat-oriented games, but the rapid progress makes it more difficult to take the drama seriously. It works well in games like D:OS that are a bit tongue-in-cheek. But not nearly as well in DA:O.

We've debated ragdoll physics on this forum before, so this is a bit of a rehash in the form of a troll. Not sure there's that much new that can be added to the discussion at this point.