Tartantyco

wat They are meant to convey the personality and attitude of the character. You don't pick the ones that clash with your own character's personality and attitude...

It's okay. It's not BG1 level, though. I just don't like that washed-out, intentionally low-detail look.

Yeah, there's an EE portrait mixed in there. Also, what kind of paintings do you look at? The current ones have the "made on PC" look.

I wasn't aware that Obsidian was forcing you to buy beta access,zersus.

Why can't they just make portraits look like they did in BG1? There really isn't anything that has ever come close since. I mean, look at the warmth, depth, atmosphere, character, andlife in these portraits(Except for the vile, disgusting EE portrait). Now it's all just flat, colorless, and hollow "representations" without any life in them.

The PoE devs still have many opportunities to mess up. You creating fanboy fantasies is none of my concern. However, what you're quoting refers to the IE games, not PoE So, yeah...

By all means, dismiss any post that directly addresses your points one by one. And then proceed to call its writer a troll. Excellent debating tactic. You really don't get to criticize my debating technique. You just repeated the same tired argument that's been countered several times already in your post. That's not directly addressing anything. Literally nobody has argued that. What has been argued is that individual systems were broken or poorly implemented, and that putting in those same systems despite there being better alternatives that do not alter the IE feel is pure nonsense.

I'm gonna throw a tantrum right now, just to be safe.

No, I simply assume that the devs know better than me when and where to place XP. Especially considering I haven't even played the game yet. I doubt they're going to randomly place dragons on the roads, though.

Either the devs give you XP for it or they don't.

But you quoted someone else, responded to them, then attributed their words to me. Because you're blind. No, I quoted Volourn's post and replied to it, then in another paragraph I specifically named you to make it obvious that with my following comment I was no longer referring to him. It seems you've resigned yourself to the former category.

Do tell me how my logic sucks, Volourn. And I dismiss Stun because of posts like this, which is what I was referring to.

I don't have waste space quoting you to respond to you, Stun. See?

Wow, how many times do we have to repeat this? The reason why you get XP for dealing with the ogre, but not the beetles, is because it's a quest the developers put in. It's as simple as that. Stun, you are either an idiot or a troll.

Any possibility of the devs giving us a timeframe on this?

But that is exactly the issue, isn't it? That giving XP for kill makes killing everything the primary way of doing everything. Leveling now has to be balanced by that playstyle, or that playstyle will be extremely overpowered. The games aren't broken, but individual systems within the games are either broken or severely underperforming. Take the spells, for instance. How many of them are completely useless in the game? The same goes for weapons, some weapon types are far superior than others. Once more, the point of Pillars of Eternity is not to make an identical copy of the old IE games. The point is to create a game in the spirit of the old IE games, something that feels like the old IE games. That does not imply that poorly made game mechanics are going to be implemented. You keep making ten completely opposed arguments at once, Stun. Do you want XP-for-kills because otherwise it'd be boring? Because it's "logical"? Because "that's how the old games did it"? The extent of you inconsistency is mind-boggling. Uh, no. The reason why you get XP for completing objectives is because that provides the best gameplay experience. It has nothing to do with "making sense" or being "logical", or any of the other nonsense you guys keep espousing. It i implemented this way because the developers feel that it is the best way of allowing players to progress through the game as many ways as possible, with as many character and party compositions as possible, in the most balanced and well-paced manner. And Stun, the word is "chore".

Thanks, Prometheus.

Is the reason why it's silly because you don't like it?

It's not about utility, Bryy. It's about that nostalgic feeling of reading through all the tables and lore in a physical manual.

You have incentive to do both (all) and if properly implemented I don't see the problem. You say "properly implemented", but you don't actually provide a functional system(No Stun, saying "Planescape: Torment" is not a proper answer. It has exactly the same problems). This is the issue. You simply cannot create a system that fairly rewards you for every approach, because not every approach is something that you can mechanically apply a reward to, or that isn't horribly abusable. We've already explained this. You need to provide specific solutions to these issues, you can't just say "properly implemented".

We're not dealing with the most rational people in this thread.

You may think that you didn't, but you did. Objective-based XP is XP rewarded for accomplishing a set objective. If killing the beetles isn't an objective, then you don't get XP. Not getting XP for killing the beetles while getting XP for dealing with the ogre is perfectly logical in the objective-based XP system because the developers set dealing with the ogre to be an objective, and they didn't set dealing with the beetles as an objective.

... The point is that it is not anymore logical to get XP from kills, so arguing that objective-XP is illogical when you're arguing for an equally illogical is inconsistent. Why are you wasting our time misrepresenting arguments? Nobody that I know of on the objective-based XP side is arguing that the system is logical. We're arguing that it provides a better gameplay result than XP-for-kills. I never wrote that objective xp is illogical. You did so right here, dude.

It's one thing to have XP for specific kills, and a completely different thing to have XP for any kills.

... The point is that it is not anymore logical to get XP from kills, so arguing that objective-XP is illogical when you're arguing for an equally illogical is inconsistent. Why are you wasting our time misrepresenting arguments? Nobody that I know of on the objective-based XP side is arguing that the system is logical. We're arguing that it provides a better gameplay result than XP-for-kills.