Varana

Also, I get the distinct impression that people get all nostalgic about BG2. People constantly complained about Aerie's and esp. Anomen's romances back in the day, and they all had their serious shortcomings (and were very prone to minigaming them - I still remember giving extensive advice on CLUAConsole:GetGlobal("Lovetalk","LOCALS") to troubleshoot romances). They weren't just as cringy as DA:O gift mechanic but still, I fear they wouldn't really be met with exstatic praise if Obsidian transposed them to PoE2. ;D

It says nowhere that they count in base 27 or 9. Even we use base 12 (and 60) for time but don't usually count with it. The Iroccian calendar was made up by one guy, it didn't develop "naturally". He could have created his system entirely for mathematical or aesthetic or kabbalistic reasons. Also, there are some really weird numbering systems on earth. You don't need actual fingers or toes or things like that; all you need to do is define spots on your body to count (e.g. 5 fingers, wrist, elbow, shoulder, throat, shoulder, elbow, wrist, five fingers gives you base 17).

There's people doing transcripts of the streams on reddit. Thank god for them! Because there's no way I swap five minutes of reading for listening to over an hour of talking. Sorry, but if there's nothing substantial happening visually, streams are such a horribly inefficient way of presenting information. So no, I don't watch the streams. I can read, thank you very much. (Sorry for the rant, has nothing to do with you. Carry on. )

That's one of those things where you suspect that they tripped over their overcomplicated worldbuilding but can't be quite sure that it's not intentional. And I especially like that you filed that under "crazy ideas". :D

Headline and text are clashing - Germany does already repatriate people who're denied asylum. It's a plan to extend the practice in various ways. Also the singular fixation on Muslims. An significant part of those denied asylum come from various Balkan countries, including non-Muslim states like Serbia, Montenegro, or Macedonia. Fourth paragraph ("Germany rejected more than 170,000 asylum applications in 2016 but repatriated only 26,000 people"), first twist. (Not included in this figure are those who return without being forced to, and that number is several times higher than those 26.000.) And there's nothing in that article to support the main agenda of the Daily Mail, i.e. "OMG THEY PAY MILLIONS TO MUSLIMS OMG TERRIBLE SAD!!!!!". (There would've even been a hint of fact in there, as part of the plan was to extend support for people who want to leave Germany but can't afford it. (That's a thing that's been going on since 1979: Explanation)) Also, the plan put forward was only partially accepted; those "departure centres" won't be installed, as things stand now. Final brain trust verdict: Headline way too shrill. Text is mostly good but doesn't support the Daily Mail article. (You asked.)

There are some facts hidden in there that are legit. The story as presented - including context, implications, and general impression on the reader - isn't.

It's the Daily Mail. Trust them to twist things (or report them completely wrong).

Rahelron: Now that is something I agree with. Having a twist to something you did, or tracking your actions and revealing consequences later, too often mostly refers to negative consequences, and things turning out worse than intended, and making the world gloomy and depressing has become normal. (There has been said a lot about the "loss of utopia", in reality, in fiction, and even in games, and fantasy is no exception. It's no coincidence that the utterly pessimistic and pointless Song of Ice and Fire dominates mainstream fantasy.) But that isn't about having no consequences, or only foreseeable consequences. It's more about what to expect from those consequences. When I can reliably predict that any twist will only make things worse, I'll get wary of twists (or stop caring about the game world), and at least for me, that leads to checking in advance before I make major decisions. And also: Yes, giving meaningful feedback to the player about the intentions, actions, and character of people in the game world isn't easy. Between making things too obvious and turning people into caricatures or walking clichés ("this guy's obviously evil / incompetent / a total jerk! why does no one see this?"), and hiding things too well or simply not telling the player anything ("ha! you could see she's evil by how she treats her pet hamster, and now your companion's mad at you because you didn't notice!"), there is a fine balance that doesn't write itself. So I think I agree with you on some of the points you're coming from; I just vehemently disagree with the solutions in your first post. P.S. Sorry for the long sentences.

Having a god for the oppressed may lead to stability in that even they accept the Engwithan pantheon as worthy of worship. The gods are there to assure the people that some god is responsible for what's happening to them, and can be placated by worship or offerings. So there is a god associated with famine and plague - sacrificing to Rymrgand may end these events, and people generally accept the reality of the gods' influence on their lives. (They don't have to cover all possible aspects of life, just be broad enough for their worshippers to fill in the rest.) Also, the Engwithans certainly didn't think that civilisation would be nice. Looking at the domains and aspects of the gods gives an interesting insight into the Engwithan world view: There is no god explicitly associated with mercy, compassion, and altruism. There is arts and creativity, but not science or knowledge. Instead, we have Wael who is all about obfuscation and secrecy. Change and cyclical thinking plays large role. Engwithans apparently didn't believe that society would be static or that a long-lasting state could be achieved. There is a certain emphasis on stability, esp. with Woedica, but it is assumed that things will change with time, and that's where Skaen will play his role. Resentment is inevitable, rebellion will overturn the old order, a new one will be established, until the cycle begins anew. As for the second question: in addition to what Messier said, the Engwithans weren't really advanced aliens. They were really good in manipulating souls, but in other areas, "current" society has them surpassed, and with certain advances in animancy, their secrets were in danger of being understood (though not yet replicated). These weren't god-machines created with incredibly advanced technology, compared to contemporary society; they were things created by an ancient society that had been surpassed already in other areas. If the ancient Egyptians had placed a fusion reactor into the pyramids, that would be (vaguely :D) similar - our scientists generally understand how it works, we just can't build one, yet, but the most impressive thing about it would be that it's so ancient. We certainly wouldn't worship it. Although I agree that the general feeling of "god is dead" could be a bit too overstated at times.

I liked the BGs with an uncapper for that. You max out actual skills and spells and so on, but the counter continues counting, you get to press that sweet "+" now and then, and it gives you a token HP or something which doesn't really matter. Psychology is a strange thing. :D If reaching the level cap substantially before the end is possible, there should basically only the critical path remain (and maybe the finishing stages of some really important side quests).

Turning things on their head in an epilogue: Maybe not the best idea. Doing that within the game: Completely fine. Let's take an actual example of that: Raedric and Kolsc. Kolsc is supposed to appear as the better option. Then, Raedric comes back, and things get worse. If you hadn't deposed him, this wouldn't have happened, and all you can do is prevent him from doing further damage. Is that bad? No, imho. Even the following turn of events: If you don't help Kolsc, Raedric continues his tyrannical regime, but most inhabitants of the village live. If you help Kolsc and Raedric comes back, he murders all of the villagers. Could you have foreseen that turn of events? No. Does it make for a bad experience? Overall, not. Also, you can kill Raedric again in retaliation. "Player agency" is one side. On the other hand, there is the illusion that the game world could exist on its own, that not everything depends on the player doing stuff, that characters in the game world have an agenda and a mind of their own. That is equally important. The game world is a stage for the player but it has to create the impression that it weren't. You need unintended consequences for that. And yes, I did recommend you a walkthrough. Spelling out every consequence of actions your character could have no idea about, within the game, is just building the walkthough into the game.

It often depends on the story of your game, and your expansion. For a general story, you have to strike a balance: Create a sense of urgency (or things're getting worse!) so the player feels the need to do stuff with their character, and becomes engaged in the story. And second, giving the player freedom to explore the world, do side stuff, and so on, so they don't feel like just rushing through a novel. All RPGs fall somewhere in between. But in the end, there is a certain genre convention, an implicit understanding between writer and player: The game will wait for you. There will be side content that is not directly tied to the main quest, you will be able to do it (even required, to level), and the main quest will not advance unless the player chooses to do so. At a certain point in the game, the world will open up to the player to do all sorts of things - save random virgins from dragons or vice versa, get a castle built up, become a vampire (why not?), an expert in graverobbing (err... "clearing dungeons"), in alchemy, blacksmithery, and courteous manners, and all these things... and all the time the evil cultists are waiting in their skull temple, starting their ritual just in the moment the protagonist enters their general area, whenever that might be. That is completely "unrealistic", but it is an accepted trope (unless you're trying to be extra edgy about it and pretend to be special and stuff by not using it, which usually makes your game worse). The same with mid-game expansions. Sure, they detract from your overall quest - but there's lots of things that do that. (What exactly was the point of doing all that stuff around Dyrford when you could've gone straight to Clîaban Rilag, instead?) Some side quests hide their side questy nature a bit better, and expansion packs have the disadvantage of standing out as obviously not critical content from the start, but that's about it. On the other hand, setting an expansion after the main game depends heavily on how that main quest ends. Some games (usually those with a more open world) let you continue playing after the main quest, and that's an advantage for having a post-end expansion. If your ending changes the world profoundly, however, that might not be so easy. Also, what your end boss actually is. If, during your main quest, you give the player the means to slay gods, dragons, and dragon-gods, you can't really back down afterwards, severely limiting your options for a post-game expansion: it has to have mostly high-level content, and that easily gets stupid if you think too long about it. (That Oasis fight in ToB...) You have to ramp up your run-of-the-mill enemies like guards and mildly annoying wildlife to ridiculous levels to still provide some sort of challenge to your god-dragon slaying party, or allow them to one-hit almost everything. That happens during the game, as well (esp. with scaling), and is another accepted trope if you don't overdo it (*cough*Oblivion*cough*). It just becomes much more obvious in an expansion pack, also because that's obviously separate content from the start. In the end, you'll always have to compromise somewhere, and rely on the players to overlook certain inconsistencies. A mid-game expansion pack messing up the game balance, is a separate issue that you have to provide for, but there's solutions to this, even though PoE1 didn't really achieve that. But that's a question of implementation, not of principle.

I find that mindset of "there might be things I cannot get, and that detracts from my enjoyment!" a bit troubling. If things fit together, your choices have consequences (intended or not), and your companions and you react to what's happening to make the game world feel alive, that's what the game needs to do. That you're cutting off one path when choosing another, should absolutely be done if it's logical within the game world, and not watered down. Developers will usually tend to provide access to most of the game - just because writing stuff that only a fraction of gamers ever see, is luxury, and luxury is expensive. For larger paths, this will only ever affect very few options. For smaller stuff (a character needs 16 Resolve for a particular dialogue option, or these things), you can have those options displayed in PoE. And in general: The internet is your friend. Wait a few days until the first guides are out, and usually, you'll find information what options are open to you and how to achieve specific outcomes. If you're sure that you won't play a certain path, watch it on YouTube. (That's what I did for Witcher 2.) (And if the game is a bit more friendly to modding, having a look at the dialogue files might also be an option.) Edit: Sure, having a path that's missing out on the Sahuagin city, was a stupid move - because there was no real reason behind it. If there's an actual reason (like, you hold up an army advancing on a city in one path, then there shouldn't a siege battle afterwards), I don't think the game should shove ill-fitting content in there just to make sure the player has seen it.

If "testers" are one reason, that is a good thing, isn't it?

Aloth is from Aedyr.

1. for being so much more than the sum of its (not always great) parts: Baldur's Gate II. Also, mods. 2. for worldbuilding and the "main quest? what main quest?" approach to RPGs: Morrowind. Xenophobic elves in mushroom towers eating beetle legs FTW! Also, mods. 3. in the "great experience while playing, rarely going to replay" category: Witcher 3. Narrowly de-throning Planescape: Torment because of the gigantic effort put into it.

Yes, diluting artistic vision can be harmful to a project. OTOH, don't rush to conclusions. I find that musical guideline highly questionable (though not enough to have you shot with a .44 Magnum). Sorry for derailing the thread. I'll go now (and think about how to hide "Shostakovich" in an English sentence, which will take a while).

But Edér needs a chainmail bikini!!!! That sounds great so far.

Some of those Fig funds may also com from backers who decided not to do traditional backing this time around but invest a more substantial amount hoping for some returns. So at least part of this number is not shady money from anonymous sources like MegaCorp but also backer money. No one outside the company knows how big that part is, though.

Rolandur: You mean, Usenet? :D Anyway, I tend to agree with Gromnir. A story needs memorable and likeable characters, meaningful relationships, and distinct voices. Put good characters into a cliched setting and have them run through a predictable plot - it will still be fun. (*cough* Eddings *cough*) Now, fantasy is all about setting - but distributing setting information at an enjoyable pace, is not really easy. (And even harder in a game where you can either click through seven Durance conversations in a row, or have two hours of dungeoncrawling in between them.) But you don't need to tell everything there is about the setting; only what's necessary and/or fun. Setting information is like an iceberg - what the reader (or player) knows, is the top of it; and they have to get the impression that there is a whole ice mountain still under water (you don't have to actually develop all of it, as a writer). (© Brandon Sanderson for that image.)

Not necessarily. There are games that do their own "achievement" system, completely independent from any online service. It's just that using Steam/Galaxy to do that for you, is easier. All that an achievement does is at a predetermined point in the game, it turns a 0 into a 1 and displays an uplifting "You go, chap!" message. You don't need the internet for that.

I don't think the novels were the crucial part - Yen and Triss (who was promoted to one of the primary love interests by the game, afaik) work quite well even if you did not read anything of Sapkowski before. (The overwhelming majority of players didn't, I'd guess.) But the Witcher games have the advantages of having a very defined character as protagonist. Geralt isn't a blank slate like PoE's Watcher (or BG2's Charname), the writers can write really specific dialogue for him. (The Nameless One also tends more in that direction, even if he's a bit more open to player input.) Everything you need for the relationship with Yennefer is within the game itself, you don't need the novels for background (in fact, for Triss, they're probably more in the not-helpful department). But the game doesn't have to cater to a wide range of possible characters, back stories (in PoE, you can decide to be lots of things from all over the world), or motivations. This makes it much harder to write compelling character relationships (including romances) for protagonists like PoE's.

Yep - I mean, I had some serious trouble keeping myself motivated when I hit the level cap in PoE1. Seeing that magic number go up (even if it gave you just a few HP every level) is important, for some strange psychological reason. The issue doesn't just arise with quest XP, though - if you give XP for killing things, those grinding trash mobs or doing a lot of sidequests (which usually involve killing things) will also be way ahead of those only following the main path. Though I think balancing the game in a way that a player can safely beat the main quest without doing side content, is a bad idea anyway. And I'm not sure PoE1 does that: instead, it had a middle part where the player could choose between several things, and they were all balanced to be completed without any of the others, which was not a good idea. Also, Od Nua and the expansions (if you did them before a lot of main content) threw balance out of the window. Complete level scaling is not something that should be done again, after Oblivion, I think. Scaling parts of the game that could be done in any order - fine. Balancing the main quest so you have to do X amount of side content - also good. Scaling everything so it doesn't matter whether you completed 2 or 7 major side quests, you'll always run into comparable trouble - not good, imho. Things should get easier in the end if you do everything in between.

Bonus points for "literally". :D

You just need someone to grab them by their ears and jerk their head forwards and backwards. Looks like nodding, so consent. Sorry.