HungryHungryOuroboros

I agree about the awkward mingling of stage directions and voice-acted dialogue. Perhaps it just that I've not figured out the ideal time to read the stage directions, but it seems pointless to position them at a point where the player is trying to listen to other text. I scan the spoken words as they're said(not really "reading" so much as following along with where in the text the voice is) and read the stage direction between voiced lines. The game must have been designed pretty well for my reading speed, because I usually find enough space between lines to read the stage direction.

This is actually a big part of it. As it stands now you put all that time into designing your character, THEN you find out there isn't a portrait that works with him or her... Shadowrun Returns did it the other way around, and that is much, much better. I definitely agree. I think I'm pretty reasonable in general, I don't expect to have a portrait for every conceivable combination. But there are some really obvious, large-scale omissions from the current portrait pool.

I'm really confused. Why is the anniversary of the day the project started any more significant than the anniversary the project was funded? And why is an anniversary post so absolutely necessary that an update that is anything but is somehow rendered awful and worthless? I mean, that seems a bit ridiculous.

Wasn't that going to be a tabletop game?

Oh, awesome! The Console Wars panel I missed!

The big issue I have with games that let you increase attributes is that they often let you "max out" the attributes. In the endgame, all characters should not be equally capable of filling all roles. They should be the result of choices made to their builds and unable to perform tasks that can be done by characters who made a completely different set of choices. I don't want to have 10s(or 100s or whatever the cap is on this game's attribute system) on every single attribute for all endgame-strength characters. They have to be mechanically distinct.

Considering guns are largely used for mage-hunting, it seems like magic-users might be somewhat iffy vis-a-vis enchanting firearms.

I'm still not entirely sure why magic being unable to heal people is any less magical than magic that can heal people but can't, for instance, turn people into frogs. Various magic systems have different limits, but none are any less fantastical or outright made-up than any other magic system.

*gasp* Oh no! Atheists?! ...I personally find it more offensive that you consider the existence of atheists, even in a fictional fantasy setting, to be offensive on its own. Generally speaking it has been widely agreed upon that other philosophies existing alongside yours is a good thing, and that at best treating them as though they don't exist is kind of mean.

I'm so confused by the concept of people who want their games to be easy feeling somehow persecuted or some ****. Of all the games released in any given year, the vast majority of titles are designed specifically for them. Of the resources, especially the sheer DOLLARS, that go into video game production, the vast majority are turned directly toward making sure that they feel like it's technically *possible* to fail, but they're just *so good* after picking something up for the first time that they simply can't be beat. I don't think I ask for much. Out of every dozen interactive storybook RPGs with $20 million+ budgets, I'd like ONE difficult small-scale RPG with a sub $5 million budget that caters to my admittedly relatively small niche. I don't want to care if people who get everything in the universe handed to them on a silver platter feel excluded. Yes, I'd like Easy mode to be the afterthought for once. My Hard modes have been the same easy garbage but with enemy health lazily scaled, so it's still easy but now takes more unnecessary time. I'm sick and tired of being the afterthought. The film industry may be ****ed, but I at least don't have to worry when I go to the one independent theater anywhere close to me that someone will walk in and complain that something has subtitles, or that it uses a non-linear storytelling style, or that the sound and color are broken.

I'm still waiting for the Double Fine lawsuit. They gave a pie chart. How about the lawsuit that came about when Star Command showed its budget and it was largely eaten up by reward cost and legal fees? Hell, how about the lawsuit for Haunts, which has now used all the money and is on indefinite hiatus, with the prevailing response being "Huh. Okay."? Kickstarter provides an opportunity to think of your fans as something more than an adversary that must be corralled and locked into place. It's baffling to me that members of this same group consider their fellow fans with such disdain. Being open and sharing information is a freedom that is afforded by this model, it's part of what makes this model superior for projects like this over a publisher one.

What prejudices?

Considering they've brought up the concept of pause conditions(being able to set it up so the game pauses whenever a character is able to use another ability, for instance), I feel confident that if I so desire I could play it similarly enough to a turn-based game that it could serve as a reasonable scratch to that particular combat itch.

Thank God*. *who may or may not simply be an extremely powerful and nigh omnipotent cosmic kitten that just happens to have an upset stomach, and whose furballs and vomit manifest themselves on the mortal plane as monumental undulations in the spiritual fabric of the universe that holds space and time together so one doesn't go hurtling ahead of the other

Double Fine did it. If they make it, we should see it, I think. It's not about trust or about being able to make input, it's about communication. The publisher model is about putting a product on the shelves that you buy, beyond a couple names you're meant to positively associate with a brand, you simply are not supposed to ask or care HOW it got there. With Kickstarter, the more that is said about how games are made, the better. People should understand the kind of work that goes into budgets, how much things cost, how much time things take, etc. It's about linking the backers to the PROCESS and work behind the scenes of a game, and not just getting a pre-purchase of a product. Besides, Double Fine did it. Hell, Star Command did it, and their budget was practically set on fire.

Because people keep posting in it. Some of whom are saying "Five pages? Really?!" and "Not THIS again!" and "LOCK PLZ". We could knock off a few pages if those were ripped out.

Developer's commentary wasn't a reward, it was a stretch goal. It's going to be integrated into the core game, like Valve's in-game commentary.

While this is obviously a matter of taste, do you really think it's that bad? It's not like it's an enormous change or anything. Just a change to a more subtle, but still bulging shape. Honestly, and this is not meant to be offensive, but I'm struggling to believe that you're being serious. Again, I realize it's different tastes and all that but that is such an incredible exaggeration. Do you honestly mean that you cannot tell the sex of the character? Honestly? Sometimes I have to grab at someone's crotch to tell what gender they are, but for some reason this has left me with very few friends. It's obviously a lot easier to tell gender with the original armor. After all, it has the perfectly reasonable "nipple points", a wonderful artistic representation of gender identity.

Sure you can. The whole "God" thing could be some trick by an egomaniac who has a tad too much power going on, for one. Or someone could deny Gods in the same sense that we have people that deny the moon landing, or that the world is round. Or you could have both. Or some third thing.

Wow! You sure were able to show your superiority over everybody! Big thumbs up. TWO thumbs up, in fact. I'm just, wow. You're just...so smart. So, so very smart.

I think everybody should run around with big red clown noses. It's not ridiculous because magic, Q.E.D.

Yeah! Come on you guys! What the **** is up with you, expressing OPINIONS on a DISCUSSION FORUM?! We're not here to TALK about things or to type TEXT. Haha, text walls of china. Because words in a post are dumb. Seriously guys writing is dumb.

I really love the creative, original and artistic energy added to a game by refusing to copy what existed, and instead opting to copy what people made up by slapping massive breasts onto an otherwise conventional armor design.

I do like how the conversation shifts to people who support ridiculous oversexualizing females saying the conversation has no merit and must be shut down NOW(the subtext being "because my preference is default").

There is a difference between these two scenarios: -A young man, wanting desperately to seem "sensitive" to women(because women like that, right? RIGHT?!) defends any woman he sees on the internet(regardless of merit) in the mistaken belief that life is a machine that you drop Chivalry Coins into until sex pops out -Someone thinking chainmail bikinis are dumb, impractical, and pointless titillation that is counter-intuitive in any work that wants to be treated seriously as mature entertainment Now, there's nothing wrong with raw titillation or whatever. It's a part of a lot of entertainment that I personally enjoy. But if you're trying to make a "living world" that makes sense, is internally consistent, and deals seriously with mature themes? It just doesn't fit in the context of armor for warriors. There can be contexts where it's not ridiculous to both try and treat yourself maturely AND have sexual content, but the design of armor meant to be seriously thought of as being viable to protect a human being from conventional weapons is not one of those contexts.