Parallax

I'm using the Nvidia GEForce 540m, which is a pretty average graphics card*, and it's not so bad. A little sluggish feeling, but it doesn't look like it's dropping frames, stuttering or otherwise having problems. *For the sake of giving a baseline...it can run vanilla Skyrim on High without any problems, but it cannot run AC4: Black Flag or Titanfall without significant issues.

Dragons, like any potentially powerful and dangerous foe, are subject to the Conservation of Ninjutsu. I imagine Baldur's Gate 2 would have been pretty boring if every third boss were a demilich. But there is only one Kagnaxx, and boy, are we glad that's the case...

Those random encounters always annoyed me, too. To the point I installed one of Kensai Ryu's mods, which meant you'd be attacked at night by other parties, wielding magical equipment and using powerful spells. They levelled up with you as well, making them competent adversaries regardless of level. There wasn't too much backstory as to why they were attacking you, except if you were good a party of Cyric worshippers would come after you (makes sense, you are the Bhaalspawn) and if you were evil, high level Athkatla guards (full plate armour, +3 spears, healing potions) or the Order of the Radiant Heart would send people to kill you. And everyone got bounty hunters, just because. They weren't too hard once you got used to them, but the learning curve was brutal - the first time my party nearly got totalled by the enemy mage and assassin alone. Goddamn potions of invisibility/speed/backstab wrecked me. And the mages would use contingencies and spell sequencers to be combat ready in the first round, while the cleric and druid would buff the party and disable your own characters.

I'd like to see a character like Elizier Yudowsky's interpretation of Professor Quirrell in Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (I'm not one for fanfic, but I make an exception for this writer). Quirrell is...smart. Incredibly, dangerously smart. In some ways, he reminds me of Irenicus from BG2, but far more cold and calculating. He always thinks three steps ahead and prides himself on not falling for the logical fallacies and myths that seem to ensnare other wizards. This makes him more than a bit cynical and distant. His clever prodding and probing of Harry's intentions and motivations are insightful and he's a skilled battlemage because he prepares, he uses the element of surprise and he always goes for the kill. I almost believe he may not be the antagonist of the series, because it's very hard to envisage Harry being able to defeat him. But as a companion or antagonist, his presence in the story is almost mesmerizing.

I'm really divided on this question. On the one hand, I do certainly like the idea of being able to travel and do things once the main quest is done. It adds to the feeling of the created world as an actually existing place, and allows for players to have greater choice how they go about doing the quest (wanting to do the plot quest before tying up some side quests, rather than having to do it the other way around). However....well, I played and completed Skyrim not too long ago. I had a long and boring summer with little to do, so I played it a fair bit, as I do love exploring in a computer game. After getting my character to about level 40, I decided to pursue the main quest to completion and then go back to the others once I'm done. Only, I didn't. After completing said quest, some of my enthusiasm for the game seems to have dwindled, though of course there are other reasons why I haven't gone back (illness, work commitments, other games). But at very least, I think some of that is because I did something I don't normally do, and pursued the main quest before tying up the side-quests I was interested in. It depends on what the main quest is, as well. If it's something of world-threatening proportions, or has some kind of very large impact which changes how the world is, I kinda think such a plot, if not requires it, certainly builds up tension by it being the final quest you undertake. Everything else is done, every last possible resource, character, spell or weapon that could have been acquired has been. You're never going to be more ready than you are now, and there is no going back. This is it, the final and ultimate challenge. But there is no guarantee the main plot is going to be of that kind. And perhaps, with the main story, whatever it is, allowing the game to continue once it is over would work. There is also the question of how exactly the expansion pack is going to work. Perhaps the expansion will take place after the end of the main quest and allow for returning to old areas while pursuing this new storyline. I wouldn't be adverse to that, actually. Although equally it could be that the expansion is integrated into the main game, much in the way Tales of the Sword Coast was, in which is something of a different matter, of course. I guess what that wall of text is saying is that it's too early and I have too little information for me to say one way or the other which I prefer.

Human rogue. Regardless of game, I almost always play it through as a rogue first. The play style appeals to me though I will admit the competition from the Cipher and Chanter are fairly fierce, and they came very close to being selected.

Originally I pledged $250, but then upped it to $500 as part of the push to get George Ziets on the team. Luckily, I have a job which affords me with a reasonable amount of disposable cash and a tendency to save my money. That way, when something like Project Eternity crops up, I can put cash on the table right away and not worry too much about the cost.

I'm not up to much this afternoon, and I've got a couple of decent beers in the fridge, so why not? Beats watching re-runs of Stargate on...whatever TV channel I've got on in the background.

Without exception, the fights against other parties were my favourite in the game. As I was discussing in another thread, fighting a group who had similar abilities and possibly even tactics to you made the fights a lot more interesting and difficult and I find that kind of thing really enjoyable. Do I take out the spellcasters first, or the front line fighters? What about the archers positioning themselves back from the frontlines and using poisoned arrows? Is brute force the best option here, precision fire or retreat and hoping to seperate the enemy up and take them out one at a time? Almost paradoxically, having such enemies gives you more options in how to fight because, unlike a trash mob fight, you can't coast by on auto-attacks and low level spells. It allows you to mix things up and get creative. There is also the fact that such parties tend to have loot which is more useful to you and your party...though of course, the better the loot, the more difficult it is to get it from it's current owner (as it should be).

I'm yet another one who really liked the DA:O UI. Visually it fitted well with the setting, while not getting in the way of the gameplay.

One thing I hear from people is that fantasy games that try to reach the widest market audience almost invariably go for the generic "Western European High-Medieval" setting. This is one reason why Oblivion's setting was a lot less fantastic and strange than Morrowind's, for example. Having that kind of setting conforms to most people's perceptions of what fantasy and, to an extent, RPGs are about, and so tend to sell better. I love the Planescape setting personally, but if the above is the way many studios think about such things, I can see why it hasn't been used again. Morrowind is pretty damn normal in comparison to Sigil, and the fear might be that having a game too far out from people's expectations just wont be as commercially viable. It's a damn shame if that is the case - nothing would make me happier than a market for more games like PS:T, but it doesn't seem to be the way things are.

I'll admit - something inside of me* twists uncomfortably at the idea of an unwinnable encounter. I don't mind an encounter that is almost impossible - something you need to be maxed out at in terms of levels, have the top grade equipment, the right spells, the right strategy and where chance plays an unreasonably large role. In fact, those are the kind of encounters I love, because it gives me something to work on, even once I have completed the game and perhaps played it a couple of times in rather different ways. That's the kind of challenge that will get me playing a game again and again, even if I end up beating my head against my keyboard in frustration at times. I think a few people have already said this and I agree - if it's a fair "unwinnable" encounter, then that's a lot less annoying. If some creature is utilizing the spells, teamwork and game mechanics better than I am, then yeah, I deserve to get my arse kicked. But if it's a scripted defeat, or done via cheesy "insta-kill" or immunity powers...well, that's just no fun at all. *That's probably my ego. I'm a sore loser and was raised on a steady diet of strategy games. I know a computer can beat me at chess, but it doesn't make the losing any less painful.

As I recall, an interviewer once asked if Vin Diesel was more Sith or Jedi and he answered "Chaotic Neutral". So not only is he a big gamer, chances are he's more than a bit into RPGs too. I back this plan entirely.

Damn, I swear when I went to bed last night, it was 2.67 million on Kickstarter. And now... 2.72. Given that was about seven hours ago, that's a huge leap. I sure hope it continues at this pace!

Well, that certainly helped me decide what background I was going to have on my laptop. Also, loved the lore. Can't wait for more!

So...I have to wait for 8pm as well. Of course, 8pm is when I'm back on duty for work, and so have to be away from my laptop. The only night this week, as well. Any other night, I'd be off duty at 8pm, but, no, it had to be a Thursday.

I've doubled my pledge to $500 in hope of helping us get George Ziets.

As someone who rarely created a spellcasting character, "Breach" in BG2 was my bread and butter. I laugh at your puny Stoneskin! Now lets see how you hold up to a poisoned backstab.... And even better, despite stripping every physical protection, it was only a level five spell. Talk about overpowered...

A pay raise would see me pledge more. Just a hint, in case my boss is traversing the forums.

I don't think this has been mentioned, but please please PLEASE stop all the action in the game when characters are talking. Nothing is more annoying than when you're trying to get a piece of quest critical information off someone and you have to end the conversation because of a random-event attack. Yes, it does somewhat break immersion, I'll admit, but I think it is justifiable, given the level of annoyance it can cause.

Soulmata, are you sure you're not telepathic? Because I've been thinking about pretty much the same things, even right down to the comparison with SCS and feeling like you're actually playing against another person, and not just a bunch of poorly scripted punchbags. Enemies working in a team, being aggressive and pressing the advantage, using spell combinations as a player would...those kind of things made for the most intense and memorable clashes in the games. Having difficulty relate to how cohesive, smart and aggressive the enemy are, as opposed to how hard they hit, how many spawn or how much weaker you are would be ideal.

Well, it's going to depend strongly on the gameplay specifics of how bows work, of course. I'm OK with the idea of having highly limited arrows with powerful bows, so they are saved for the more difficult encounters or dangerous enemies. But that does make playing an archer character less attractive, unless they have other skills they can use when they are not using bows. It could work well for a ranger or rogue type class, where stealth, trap-making (and disarming), lockpicking and other combat skills mean they wouldn't have nothing to do until some Big Bad required an arrow between the eyes. On the other hand, large stacks do make things alot easier. I know I used mods when playing Baldur's Gate because the small pool of arrows got on my nerves so. I was OK with Skyrim's archery system, initially, until it became massively overpowered at some point along the way, which made carrying what were essentially infinite stacks of otherwise limited ammo something of a gamebreaker (I think my current character is carrying around 1000+ arrows, not to mention a good few hundred crossbow bolts, and can kill most things with two or three shots from stealth). I think gameplay balance should ultimately determine how it is going to work. Even infinite arrows could work, so long as ordinary archery attacks were not that powerful, and the most damaging attacks were limited in some way, like an assassination-style attack that could only be fired from stealth (and so at the start of the fight) or once per encounter. Would it be possible to link bow power/arrow stack size to the difficulty setting? So having the limited/high power bows in Expert, the large stacks/less power in Normal and the Unlimited Arrows/Not that powerful in Easy? I don't know how workable that would be, but it's a possible way to let everyone have the archery gameplay they want.

Hi, first time poster here. I've played every Infinity Engine game except Icewind Dale 1. In fact, I probably played Baldur's Gate 2 more than all of the rest of the IE games combined, thanks to the modding community (and being a poor student...BG II was about the most advanced game my computer could run until 2008).