Hiro Protagonist II

And not all 17 enemies would necessarily hit. Also, you say the solo player could find a cunning ploy to overcome the odds. Would this not make the player skilful or a better player if it was due to tactics?

An enemy wouldn't make 17 attacks to your one. Also, it's the same with the enemy. The enemy cannot WILL their Fighter to land all his hits, or their Wizard to land his spells. "In an RPG with set mechanics and rules, and the representation of your characters' skills and capabilities, you are limited to those capabilities." - Lephys So an action game has no set mechanics or rules? Only in RPGs? No representation of your characters skills or capabilities in action games? Only in RPGs? Not limited to those capabitlies in action games? Only in RPGs? Okaaayy. We're truly in Lephysland now. That quote of yours can have RPG swapped out for ACTION Game and it would still apply. In fact, I would say MOST if not ALL games can be swapped out for RPG. Even a game of chess. No idea why it's the domain of RPGs. Truly baffling. Why do you need "some minimum amount of party member capability"? Why do you say you need to have this minimum amount? When you change that one player to do things they normally wouldn't do, then you're changing the circumstances that player can overcome those obstacles. When you have a Mage with no fighter or thief abilities, a Thief with no mage abilities, and a Fighter with no thief or mage abilities in a party compared to a solo Mage with Fighter/Thief capabilities. You're still using Mage, Fighter and Thief abilities in both circumstances. All you're doing with the solo character is taking longer in some circumstances to overcome that obstacle. A party with Mage, Fighter, Thief will be able to disarm a trap, open a lock. A solo mage/fighter/thief will also do the same. Which party had it harder in the above example? Which party had it easier? Neither was harder or easier for both. It was the same. Because the party dynamic has changed and there is a different character in the second example. Some fights will take longer with the solo character, but it doesn't necessarily make it impossible. And it doesn't mean that just because the solo character took 10-15 minutes to beat a fight, that it will be easy for a 6 party team. The fight for the 6 party team may be hard as well, just won't take 10-15 minutes to do so. It just took longer for the solo player to beat it. This part in particular, the game is "designed for you to have to make good use of your limited resources in order to succeed in general" - Lephys That also applies to solo players as well. The solo player is also "having to make good use of your limited resources in order to succeed in general'. The solo player is most likely playing the game differently compared to if they had more party members in their team. It doesn't negate the fact that the way they are playing with less party members or with a solo character is not legitimate when they are following the rules. No one knows if the encounters scale to party size. And they should not. Unless of course it's a feature of some difficulty level like HoF mode such as IWD 1. And it shouldn't be impossible as it becomes closer to a party for 1 if the player is able to work out how to overcome those obstacles. There may well be different ways to approach a fight and when you have less party members, new opportunities may present itself that you may never have thought of.

This is not a squad of 6 soldiers with limited ammo. This is a rpg where a fighter can fight indefinitely with unlimited swings with their sword. Where a mage can throw unlimited at-will spells forever. Also, why do you need 6 party members in PoE? If it's a party based game that should be finished with a party which some posters claim, then a 2 person party should be able to finish the game and you would be okay with this? The same with 5 party members being able to finish the game, the same with 4 party members being able to finish the game. You don't have a problem with 6 people in your party but you do have a problem with 2 in your party? It comes down to the player with how many party members they will have and their reasons to do so. Some people will play with 6, some will go with 4. Is the person who plays with 4 doing it wrong? And it's the players choice, it may be for story or roleplaying reasons, or the challenge of playing with less or only 1 member (solo) in their party. It's a fallacy that because the game can be finished with less party members, then it's easier with more party members. As I already explained with one reason, lesser party members will specialise in skills they normally wouldn't, while those skills will be shared with more members in your party.

You still haven't answered the questions on what makes a skilled player. Are you suggesting Arcade players are not skilled players because they're not playing rpgs? Because they're not focusing on tactics? They are or are they not exploiting or abusing some part of the game? Therefore they are not skilled players? Or have arcade players found a pattern in the game, exploiting the game with their pattern which makes them unskilled players? No skill at all? They're exploiters and abusing the game mechanics? You also say arcade games does not focus on tactics but rpgs do? Really? News to me. Endrosz said, "Abusing broken game design DOESN'T make you a better player. That's just the power fantasy that you tell yourself." What makes broken game design? Is an arcade game broken when you work out the enemy AI as is the case with arcade games like Pac-Man? And why are the players on Twin Galaxies lauded for working out the patterns, getting high or perfect scores? According to some people on this forum, they're exploiters and abusing the game mechanics and not skilled players at all. 1. No argument from me. But this usually comes with meta knowledge. 2. Ah ok. So players who found Mellissan hard to beat are noobs and likely to have had a bad main character/team. Despite possibly importing their uber character from BG1. 3. No idea what this point is for. And my post said the following, considering you seem to have disregarded it: Underlined emphasis. Special Note: Follow the rules of the game. So if you follow the rules of the game and still manage to solo and beat the game, are you an unskilled player because of prior meta knowledge? Are all those players on Twin Galaxies unskilled because of prior meta knowledge? What makes a solo player skilled in playing and beating the game?

Did the person who worked out the pattern for Pac-man exploit the game by getting a perfect score? Are you exploiting the game by finding patterns in them? I remember playing the Atari 2600 games Dodge 'Em and working out the pattern with hand drawn maps (which I still have to this day) at non-stop full speed and getting a perfect score. (the clip only shows one enemy car but later you face against two enemy cars). Did I exploit or abuse some part of the game? Or are people at Twin Galaxies abusing and exploiting some part of the game design by getting incredibly high or perfect scores? Those are not RPGs and do not have a focus on tactics. The fear that PoE will be soloable has its roots in the fear that the game will have cheap exploits. After all, your tactical options are very limited with one person; if a player only needs one guy to beat the final boss, then the boss must be a breeze for my party of six. So as long it's not a rpg, and a person works out a pattern within a game, then the player is not exploiting or abusing the game in any way? So (arcade) games don't have a focus on tactics? I'll have to tell arcade players next time when they're playing (especially tactical arcade games) that they're not using tactics, according to some on this forum, are exploiting and abusing the game and are not skilful players. Also, it's not an either/or. There have been players on this forum who have admitted they can't finish ToB and beat Mellissan. Some find the fight hard but doable with a party of six. Others have beaten her solo. If one guy beats Mellissan solo, then according to you, the fight is a breeze with a party of six. No.

Did the person who worked out the pattern for Pac-man exploit the game by getting a perfect score? Are you exploiting the game by finding patterns in them? I remember playing the Atari 2600 games Dodge 'Em and working out the pattern with hand drawn maps (which I still have to this day) at non-stop full speed and getting a perfect score. (the clip only shows one enemy car but later you face against two enemy cars). Did I exploit or abuse some part of the game? Or are people at Twin Galaxies abusing and exploiting some part of the game design by getting incredibly high or perfect scores?

I agree. I don't understand why you need to take a set minimum amount of party members throughout the game. It should be up to the player if they want to travel alone or take companions. Just because you can have party members doesn't mean you should have to take them. The lone wolf adventurer overcoming insurmountable odds to achieve victory and becoming the stuff of legend. That's a challenge I'm willing to try. Also I find it odd that two people in your party is okay because you now have a 'party', but solo isn't? Seriously?

No. D) the stuff is normal for the level 12 party of 6, or E) the stuff takes longer to overcome for a single level 12 person, or F) Your solo character is using multiple ways and skills (which would normally be done with multiple characters) in that lengthy battle to overcome it, or G) You're using tactics, skills or things in the game that work and which follow the rules to overcome the enemy that other people may not have thought of, or H) You're great at playing games with these sort of challenges which gives you the edge over others who can't do this. And there would be more ways that other people would try. Concerning point G. You can finish IWD2 with a level 1 Rogue and open every chest, find and disarm every trap in the game. The way you do this is multiclass to a different class (say a Mage) and level up that second class and you can still allocate points to your thieving abilities with your second class. That's all within the rules. Even though PoE doesn't have mutli-classing, you can still allocate points in other skills you probably wouldn't. So that solo mage in PoE can now find, disarm traps and pick locks. In a normal party of 6, you wouldn't be allocating thieving points to your mage.

I always go for what I consider a conventional party. Paladin, Fighter, Rogue, Druid, Cleric, Mage. This is what I usually have for the IE games or something similar (multi-class). Fortunately, most of these are covered by the companions. If an unannounced companion does happen to be a Druid, I'll go for a melee character like a Paladin, Fighter or Rogue first. If there isn't a Druid companion, then I'll go Druid to balance it out as I like the idea of three spell casters. I'll play at least two play throughs to experience all the companions. Then I'll go and play with themed parties as I do with IWD. Edér and is merry band of rogues. Aloth and his wizard apprentices. etc

Perhaps letting Karkarov explain himself. And it seems to be splitting hairs or changing the context. The connotation of pretty much any adverb applied to "impossible" is that there is a known circumstance or set of events that would produce the "impossibility", but that those circumstances are so improbable as to not be worth consideration. And so any term you can think of with a similar definition would be synonymous. Almost surely impossible - that the event described has a theoretical probability of one (here, referring to the probability of the "impossible" event not occurring). That doesn't mean the opposite (the "impossible" event) can't happen, just that the chances of it not happening are (N-1)/N for a "large" N (approaching infinity). Practically impossible - The connotation that it is "impractical" (not worth the cost) to plan for it to happen. Doesn't mean it can't, but the odds are so slim the costs and benefits of expecting it aren't worth it. Nearly impossible - "Nearly" is a synonym and possible definition of "virtually". All but impossible, more or less impossible, nigh impossible, near impossible - ditto The way Karkarov's post comes across to me was he hoped it would be next to impossible, meaning it may be possible but hoped it wouldn't be. Yes you do want to speak for him. Which is what you're doing. And no one is suggesting solo play with be more approachable based on the game is easier with more party members. I expect the game to be extremely difficult with solo play. And going by Josh Sawyers comments, it seems the game is not balanced around solo play but a certain number of members in your party. Perhaps taking your own advice 'It's probably best not to tell other people what they think'.

Obviously you do care. So much that it's one of your 'personal hopes' that it will be impossible to solo the game. Seems a little weird to hope for something that has no effect on you (since you won't be trying it) but does have an effect on other players who get great enjoyment out of. For me, I play games to get enjoyment. I don't 'hope' for things to be impossible for other players when it doesn't affect how I play the game my way. It's their game, it's their way of playing.

AFAIK there are no achievements in the game. According to the old FAQ, there are Steam achievements. I don't know if this has been changed.

Got an invite to the cow level. Totally hilarious. The health globes are beef steaks. There were so many shrines and pylons. And something like 5 Conduit pylons as well. We tore through everything. And we came across the Lord of Bells on the 6th level. In my excitement in taking the screen shot, I died but luckily it wasn't HC. The Rift then went on and on and eventually ended on level 10. Definitely the best rift in the game. But I did get the achievement which was great.

There we have it. Science has now been brought into the debate. Only someone like Lephys could bring in science and animals into a boob armour discussion.

So why quote me, say stuff like 'seeing you people' which suggests me and then go on about a 'crusade' and continue with something irrelevant like the 'ban bossy campaign'? Which if you went into that thread in WoT, you would know I was vehemently opposed to that campaign. Why quote me and then say, 'or the ban boobs in games campaign.'? Where have I been a proponent of banning boobs in games? You also go on with posters 'white knighting'? Really and who might that be? Tell us who the white knights are. Are you calling me a white knight? Seriously? That's laughable. I was also merely stating there's a bit of hypocrisy in this thread with certain posters all for boob armour and yet those posters had a different view in another thread for more realistic armour. Can you not see the hypocrisy when a poster is for realistic armour and derides boob armour in one thread (weeks, months or years ago), and then when this latest update comes out, comes into this thread and is okay with it and doesn't see a big deal. And seemingly forgets what they posted in the other thread? Also, who is saying boobs on armour is going to be the death of PoE? Why even bring that up? What has that got to do with anything? You're reaching by saying things like "I don't think that boobs on armors is going to be the death of PoE" considering no one said anything of the sort. And you didn't notice it when looking at the picture but you do notice it when playing an IE type game when the characters are less than an inch tall on the screen. Yep, need that boob armour so I can work out who is the female and who is the male. "to be able to distinguish my characters" as another poster said. Need those boob pixels! My original point was I found some of the excuses by posters laughable. If you're going to make excuses, then at least make them believable. Or just be honest and say 'I'm all for boob armour in PoE' right from the start.

What is even more funny is seeing you people crusade on the forum, because boobs are showing under a armor. I don't know what is more pathetic, the "ban bossy" campaign or the ban boobs in games campaign. No. Nice strawman. I'm not against boobs. Hell, look at the Diablo 3 thread and you'll see me posting there and the game has some of the most ridiculous armour in a video game. I love playing the game, I like the ridiculously large weapons, the stupidly out of place armour that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Because everything in Diablo 3 is exaggerated, taken to the extreme and it fits in the game. The large weapons, the boob armour, everything. What doesn't fit in this game is the boob armour, considering Obsidian changed Cadegund's armour. if Obsidian didn't change it and said, this is the style we're going for. Exaggerated armour types. No problem. I find it odd that Obsidian changes it originally and then goes back to boob armour. It doesn't surprise me that it's the males who are the ones asking to keep boob armour in this game. Even though we have a thread in this forum called "Armour and weapon designs - a plea' and in it's 5th part now. And I note the hypocrisy of posters in this thread who are all for boob armour or who don't care either way but then were against it in the Amour and Weapons designs thread.

It seems not for some people. Apparently some gamers need visual aids like breasts to distinguish between their male and female party members, because as some people have said, 'I'd prefer to be able to distinguish my characters'. The curser over the character is not enough to identify the party member, the skills they have when you do select that character, their clothes, their voices when you click on them. No, we need erect boobies to protrude out.

Are there any women on this forum that are okay with the boob scale mail? Or is it just some guys who are posting they are okay with it. Some of the reasons have been laughable. eg. I need to have boob pixels on my armour so I can tell the difference between a guy and a girl.

I have to wonder why Obsidian reversed their decision on boob armour. The original plate worn by Cadegund was changed to look more flatter. Now we have scale boob armour. I wonder if my post about the Druid may have influenced a dev? The original picture in update 72 shows the Druid Cat form to be neither male or female. There are no boobs. And there appears to be no genitals. However, I made a post in the same thread and changed the Druid cat form to have boobs. To differentiate it from the original version. Perhaps my photoshopped Druid swayed Obsidian's decision or a dev and they saw the merits of accentuating certain parts of the female anatomy. Clarification is certainly required.

What? What a load of baloney. Would you like to see some screenshots that illustrate how wrong you are? Or do you just need someone to walk you though those oh-so-complicated adjustable Feedback options in the game's main menu that you couldn't figure out? Well it is Ffordesoon's first time playing BG2 so he may be missing stuff like what's happening in the combat log. I do find it interesting that so many new people on this board who backed PoE have either not played the IE games before or only just playing them now or recently. I can't wait for PoE to be released, to see if it has the same combat mechanics, the same type of encounters, same type of anything as the IE games that so many people deride as faults in the IE games.

I'd have to agree with Gromnir about the boob scale armour. When I read the update the first time, I don't know which I read or saw first. The words female armour or the boob scale. The first picture on the left is more noticeable than the one on the right. It looks odd seeing scale armour potrude out like that, with the scale armour going back in under the breast, like a tight fitting t-shirt. It looks like the armourer molded the scale links into this form. It makes it odd moreso that the plate armour doesn't have the boob cups protruding out. Just the scale.

Read this thread. I already did. You listed one. Beholders. And yes, I went through the whole thread. How about actually giving examples (notice the 's' on the end of examples) instead of saying you did which you haven't. And I'm requesting specifics, not general monsters. As I said, a lot of quests gave you items that helped you along and gave you hints.

Enough with this ridiculousness. Spells look the same? I'll ask again, did you try reading their descriptions? By the way, if you're merely referring to their graphic animations then I'd very very concerned about PoE, as you will likely have the same gripe with its magic. There is no way Obsidian has the funding to make every spell animation be super distinctly different from the others. And if they're not, then we will get people like you complaining that Arcane Veil looks too similar to Minor Arcane reflection, and the whine will be: Well, how am I supposed to know what defense that enemy mage has put up!? <waah> This was brought up before in another thread. Dispel Magic and Remove Magic was one example. They're the same spell? WTF? Quite an entertaining couple of pages in that thread after my initial post.

^ Valid point. I don't understand how someone with such vast knowledge can know so little. Anyway, my question was more that I had very little knowledge of pnp D&D and I didn't find it that hard to get through both BG games. In fact, I probably missed half the quests as I didn't realise there were so many. I also never knew Minsc was a NPC in the original game when I played it. And never played the canon party in BG until after I played BG2. I thought wow, that's kind of an interesting party and went back to BG1 to play it. I found BG2 gives you so many hints that it's hard not to be prepared. Flail of Ages in the De'arnise Keep is practically thrown at you near the start once you get out of the starting dungeon and it's one of the best weapons in the game. It's like the game is saying, 'here, you'll need this weapon to complete this quest'. And a lot of quests were like that.

Can you give some specific examples? What the game was 'constantly throwing things at me without giving any clues about what those things were'.