PrimeJunta

Damn straight. If you have to have orcs, at least let them unionize.

Maybe he's a backer and will do it for free?

I want Arnold Schwartzenegger to voice everybody. Everybody!

@Stun now I want to play that game.

That's because IWD2 had kill XP. PoE doesn't. They'd have to adjust the XP rewards for objectives. Doubt they'll do that.

I gotta ask... do you guys equate "conventionally attractive" with "someone I'm physically attracted to?" Asking 'cuz it doesn't work that way for me, at least. I've been physically attracted to a quite a lot of women over the years, and only some of them have been conventionally attractive. Conversely, I know a quite a few women who are conventionally attractive but who I'm not physically attracted to. Chemistry is complicated IMO, and appearance is a fairly small component of it.

Not as romantic interests, I think. As ogresses, witches, evil stepmothers, and what have you, certainly.

Hard to argue with spending resources on good stuff instead of bad stuff. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent, but you did say that "giant chunks of the resources for features they DO like must be diverted... to pay for the implementation of optional gimmicks... like Romances." I was taking issue with "optional," and perhaps also "gimmicks." Because as a general matter I like "optional" and sometimes "gimmicks" can be nice little additions too. E.g. the hacking and lockpicking minigames in FO:NV. Definitely gimmicks you could just as well replace with a skill check, but I felt they did add a nice bit of flavor without turning into a chore.

That would be tragic.

@Stun: the cost argument isn't all that compelling to me, although in all fairness and somewhat to my regret I've used it myself. Thing is, I especially like games with lots of optional or, even better, branching content. The most common argument against including lots of optional or branching content is "most players will never experience some of it, so wouldn't it be better to spend those resources on required content?" My answer to that is "no, because that would necessarily replace choice and consequence with illusions thereof, which would cheapen the entire experience." I.e. treating romance as just another type of optional content and arguing that it's a resource drain is counterproductive, because the same argument applies to any optional content. There are better arguments against romance (in the BioWare/dating-sim sense) than that, many of which have been made in this very thread.

The way they were written, hell yes they would.

Make it a spinoff set in the same universe, but later, and I'm so in. Sequel... no thanks, because I'd like to see sequels still set in the same era, and it would mess with the continuity. Even better, make one that incorporates time-travel so we can explore change even more.

Not just the merits, @BruceVC. Drawbacks are also fair game.

This is what I mean by different definitions. Deionarra was the only plot device in any cRPG I've played that comes close to my understanding of 'romance' in the classical, literary sense. She, however, has nothing to do with 'romance' in the dating-game/harem-anime/dime-store-romance-novel sense. So at least some of us may be talking at cross-purposes. I.e., I'm all for more Deionarra, but dead against more Aerie.

But the thing is... it is a gimmick, and it does negatively impact games, like turning the warship Normandy into Love Boat. (Again, excluding Deionarra-style fully integrated into the story romance.)

@PieSnatcher I have the feeling there's a bit of talking-past-each-other going on here too. Perhaps people are using somewhat different definitions of 'romance.' I, for example, am categorically opposed to 'romance as dating game,' as in BG2, NWN2, the ME's, the DA's, and so on. However, I am not categorically opposed to 'romance as central plot driver,' as in Planescape: Torment. I haven't heard even the most ironclad antimancers object to PS:T's romance, to my recollection (@Stun?). On the other hand, I do get the feeling that most promancers seem to be talking about the former, what with talk of 'romance options,' comparing the charms of Viconia as opposed to Aerie or Leliana as opposed to Morrigan, and so on. I do feel very strongly that the 'dating game' style of romance is a bad idea and actively detracts from the games in which it is present. It's not a matter of better writing or making a better dating minigame; it's just fundamentally bad and wrong and shouldn't be done at all.

OP: Argue about romance, I'd expect.

I thought it was funny, but then I have terrible taste in humor.

If every character has the same number of weapon slots, why not assign hotkeys to each of those, and apply it to all selected characters? Ctrl+1, Ctrl+2, Ctrl+3, say. Then equip slashing or piercing weapons in slot 1, crushing weapons in 2, and ranged in 3. Ctrl+A, Ctrl+3 at the start of the encounter, then select your front line and Ctrl+1 or Ctrl+2 to switch to melee.

How many of our personal stories would make for fantasy RPG's you'd want to play? Mary Sue/Gary Stu protagonists make for terrible fiction. "Just base the main character on you, but give him piercing green eyes and an ancestral weapon." Blech.

To answer the question... I don't know how hard PoE is going to be at normal difficulty. I usually end up around one notch harder than normal these days, but back in IE game days I played at normal (i.e. standard D&D rules with friendly fire). Josh has said he's balancing it at Hard, and then tuning encounters down for Normal and Easy, and up for Heart of Fury. If so, I'll start out at that difficulty and adjust it if necessary. I'll go with Trial of Iron once I've figured out how not to die a lot, because otherwise I have a tendency to ruin games for myself with savegame abuse.

@semu I believe you'd lose that wager. Obsidian have hinted that they want to make the story a personal one, and that the setting is in a golden age of discovery and progress. That doesn't mesh well with impending end of the world. Impending end of the world is also incredibly cliché and I think they'd rather avoid that if at all possible.

I disagree. Greater scarcity, whether in loot, XP, or trading prices, is an excellent component of harder difficulty. Playing a game at a harder difficulty should be its own reward. If it's only enjoyable because it gives you shinier shinies, it's not very well done.

If I may... I haven't played DA2, but I am playing ME2, and I've developed a quite a dislike for Miranda, and a part of that has got to be the fact that she goes into battle wearing apparently nothing but stripper pumps and body paint. Blatant pandering is blatant. In highly visual games like what BioWare has been doing since Jade Empire, the way a character looks and what she wears is a big part of her portrayal.

Feargus has indicated that there's gonna be another Kickstarter sooner rather than later. I'm kinda hoping it'll be Hmmm Hmm Hmmmm Hm Hmmm Josh Sawyer's Personal Dream RPG Experience. I'd back that for sure, if only to see what would happen.