Loranc

For some reason this came to mind about this talk of AAA titles vs Obsidian.

Blunderbuss The only firearm to make this list, the Blunderbuss was an early form of shotgun, using powder and shot. The weapon was muzzle loaded and is identified by the distinctive flared muzzle. The nasty part of the Blunderbuss was actually a flaw in the design, the flared muzzle caused the shot to spread quite widely and reduced the muzzle velocity, meaning that shots outside of very close quarters resulted only in shrapnel wounds rather than death. A blunderbuss could, in theory, be loaded with any kind of shrapnel or shot, small stones or scraps of metal were used as ammunition at times. The gun was used by armies of various nationalities, although the weapon originates from Europe. A smaller, one handed version of the Blunderbuss, called a Dragon, was also used. Wounds sustained from a close range hit from a Blunderbuss would be brutal, potentially blowing away whole chunks of the body. Notable appearance: Jack Sparrow, of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, wields a handgun similar to a Dragon, while at least one member of the undead pirate crew seen in the first movie uses a Blunderbuss type firearm. Taken from http://listverse.com...weapons-of-war/ Everyone needs to keep in mind that the more fancy weapons were made for nobles, they would commission blacksmith, or force them, to have really nice and shiny weapons made. Chances being that the noble would never use the weapon, just hang it in their house or carry it on their side. But the average weapon a person could afford was unfortunately plain looking. Now I don't expect that to be the case in PE. I'd at least like the weapons to have some flavor to them. It'll be interesting what we'll end up seeing here in the next couple of months. I don't expect to be an average person, so here's to hoping we see some really creative weapons/armors designs.

I personally find the God-Like races boring. I'll most likely be playing an Aumaua, originally I thought for certain I'd be playing a Cipher, but starting NwN 2 back over, I don't think that'll be the case. I enjoy sneaking, lock picking, placing traps, and other stealthy things way too much. So, i'll most likely end up playing a rogue. I figure the Cipher will most likely be an available companion, so i'll be able to check the class out that way.

Okay sarcasm aside, I would actually like to see a 'hidden' companion or two. Companions that are hard to obtain would actually be kind of fun. Instead of the normal 'Hey i'm gonna follow you around cause you talked to me once.' Kind of deal. I may be thinking too much into this, but it just sounded like a cool idea.

So many questions... about all of this and not enough answers. I hope my main character doesn't catch a cold .......

Heh.... that comment made me laugh. But, I see your point. I don't think they've completely fleshed out the whole dying yet, and some of their other ideas are just ideas until they get around to play testing them. They said there wouldn't be x or y, but until there's actually a game to test their ideas and theories in there's no telling what may get added or changed. I guess I probably came off as 'don't add anymore than 8', but i'm not against adding more companions. Eight is fine with me, but if they wanted to increase it to 13 or 14, that'd be fine too. I just don't want there to be an over abundance of companions in the game.

See... I can remember and name every companion in the ME and DA games, but I can't remember half of the companions in BG1+2, and I remember all the companions in PS:T as well. I really think more companions = bad idea.

Yeah but I have no idea which ones... it's been so long. And with BG2 I was not figuring in the expansion party member Sarevok. You know there's like 8 companions in BG1 I've never even met, or don't remember meeting.

BG 1 had 25 companions. But keep in mind, I hardly remember half of them... they were pretty 'forgettable'.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but Baldur's Gate had 25 playable characters and Baldur's Gate II had 17. Edited my above post to reflect this, guess I was in too big of a hurry to remember the exact amount in BG 2, sorry about that. BG2: -Minsc -Jaheira -Imoen -Yoshimo -Aerie -Nalia -Anomen -Korgan -Valygar -Keldorn -Viconia -Jan -Cernd -Haer'Dalis -Edwin -Mazzy -Saervok Looks like 17. (post edited to fix accuracy.)

(post edited to fix information accuracy) Errr... BG2 had 17, Dragon age 1 had 9, Dragon age 2 had 9, Mass effect had 6, Mass effect 2 had 11, Mass effect 3 had 8. (I don't count dlcs as companions.) So... how many more companions are you talking about? Cause you sound like you want 20.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FdaCxMcw_Y What the hell.

Mmmm..... I love the dragon designs in How to Train Your Dragon. It's like dragon sub races almost, each one has a different appearance, instead of just changing the color of them. While the dragons were interesting in BG2, they all looked exactly alike, except for the color.

Hmmm.. new game plus would give you the option to turn on all the hardcore stuff too. Obviously not going full hardcore my first play though, I want to enjoy the story and not reload a ton of times .

3rd? I thought they were second, after that Ouya thingy.

Right, of course, even if you discover it after the fact. I remember in Baldur's Gate 1 coming across a wizard's tower in one area and then later in another village hearing about a wizard who lived in a tower in that area! Of course, I knew who they were talking about but if I hadn't trekked over there yet, it's the perfect passive "living world" clue to get me to go explore. That's exactly the kind of stuff that I love in RPGs! Like I said, I think you could do a mix - have the town and certain location maps be very localized, but in-between them and other locations have there be some of the wild areas to explore and branch out into just like BG1. That would be astounding. If free exploration isn't included I will probably like this game 50% less. That was one of my biggest pet peeves with Final Fantasy 13, they completely removed free exploration from the game in a sense. I love being able to travel where and when I want to without being completely constricted. As long as it makes sense story wise. BG1+2 and PS:T both incorporated this into their games. Sure there were certain spots you couldn't get into right away, but for the most part it was a free to explore world.

I'm staying out of that thread. But, I'm all for any size/shape/face/color of person in an Rpg. However, the other IE games do not represent this well, how often do you see an African American in an Rpg? You can't go as far as saying more diverse women and stop there, there's actually a lot of bias in rpgs. However, I'd rather not go there. Well, unless there's an America in said RPG, then seeing an african american wouldn't make much sense. That being said, they've already said that there will be various different ethnic groups, even amongst the different races. That's cool, and I didn't mean African American per say, I meant someone with dark skin color (not pitch black like dark elves.). IE games normally have at least one companion fitting this description. But for the most part all the companions are 'fair' of skin in most rpgs. I'm looking forward to the various different ethnic groups in PE.

I find that highly unlikely. It's not like we could change the PS:T companions, for example. The class weaves heavily into a character's backstory--I don't see how Forton or Cadegund could simply be changed by a few buttons... On the other hand, the related question is whether we can pick their specific sklils/stats/etc. while leveling, maybe going towards a specialization. Hmmm... that may be enough, being able to do the normal level up of them, just like the other games. And I guess it doesn't matter about changing their class as it will most likely be a Mod anyways, BG1+2 both had one. Avellone spoke, I think it was recently, about being disappointed with the writing for Gann because his class choice didn't really factor into his character. So I should hope not. If the character is tied in a fundamental way with their class, changing that class might be a little too strange. As long as the class fits the character I won't care if it's a completely useless class for my party. I just know in a few companions I had to change some things around with the use of mods, and most of the time it wasn't a class change but a feat or skill change. For example having Minsc with 2 points in bows, I'm sorry but Minsc got pissed off at every little thing and super excited about everything else. The only way I could picture Minsc using a bow was with using it as a bludgeon weapon to smash their skulls in.

My question is, and I'm sure this has been asked/answered somewhere. If I like my companion but disagree with the class that the developers picked for him/her will I be able to change my companions class in the Adventurers Hall?

I'm staying out of that thread. But, i'm all for any size/shape/face/color of person in an Rpg. However, the other IE games do not represent this well. How often do you see an African American in an Rpg? You can't go as far as saying more diverse women and stop there, there's actually a lot of bias in rpgs. However, I'd rather not go there. Thinking more on it, I wonder why video games have tried so hard to stay away from having 'overweight' companions. Or even just one's that are not always pleasant to look at. It would actually bring something more to the game for me, because if you're not focusing on physical appearance than the only thing to focus on would be their story/lore/dialogue. Would defiantly make for a very interesting experience.

All women in video games should look like felicia day.

I like this idea. Some games can get really cluttered with companions, I think 8 is more than enough if not too many.

For project shaker, if I'm getting this right you have to donate 15 dollars to even get access to their forums, what's up with that?

I'm going to duck out of this thread probably permanently. I think I've pretty must got the gist of how people feel about romance. And for the most part I'm in agreement with the majority of you guys, so I really see no reason to keep going back and forth until PE actually submits something about it in an update. The main points I agree with are; (In no particular order) *It should only be added if it fits the story. *It doesn't need to revolve around the main character. *It shouldn't be forced. *Every companion should not be romance able. *It should be added in a way that adds depth and feel to a character, and not something cheesy 'fan service' equivalent. *I shouldn't have to romance a character in order to get the same feeling of depth and overall emotion. The companions should have the same depth and emotion to them with or without being romanced. (This is a big one for me, I felt that a lot of games you 'had' to romance a character in order to get an in-depth feel for them. It actually ruined a lot of gaming experience for me.) *Romance doesn't have to be based on sex, the romance could be something with an underlying text. (I could picture the main character having feelings for someone but never being able to express them, sort of scenario. Not sure what this is actually called but i'm sure there's a named for it.) *The romance doesn't always have to be goofy-fun. (I'd love for a game to do a dark romance. Perhaps they introduce a character that is really enjoyable, someone you really grow to love/like, and then something tragic happens to them.) Anyways, I've spent way too much time on these forums lately and I really need to get to playing some games.

It is pretty hard-headed when you refuse to read the post and respond only in dollar terms and not in terms of time, which was my argument based on what the devs actually said as a constraint on the number of companions. Unless people are fine with hiring more writers from someplace like Bioware. Really, your refusal to even address an argument based in fact is very disappointing and doesn't cast your stance in a favorable light. Though if Avellone needed two years to properly write equal-exclusive content for non/romance, I'd be fine with that, I suppose. Found the interview: So if one compromise is to have equal and parallel or exclusive non/romance content per companion, address that. I never said I didn't read it, I said I chose not to respond because we were going in circles. And the reason I brought up dollar amounts was because there are plenty of good non bioware writers out there that would fit PE just fine. You almost seem to be against adding any other writers on the team and that Chris should write everything. All I'm saying is that if it fits the game and they do decide to add romance, they're not going to sacrifice other parts of the game to do that. I'm not sure why you would even think that they would.