Dream

Because saying something like "Torment is a thematic franchise" is retarded when there has been a grand total of one game in the "series." Literally no one thought that until he came a long and started claiming it for the sole purpose of being able to call this game the next Torment despite it having no link to the original game. Plenty of things in media "share some of the ideas," but by the definition of franchise that most normal people use one requires more than a few tenuous thematic links between installments to call them part of the same franchise (especially when they're released almost two decades apart). It's obvious to anyone who read that interview that this game is definitely not Torment 2 by any stretch of the imagination and to claim it to be is simply PR bull**** to try and lure fans into shelling out money (not even Bioware had the audacity to try and pull that **** with Dragon Age). If it shares "thematic elements" then cool, call it a spiritual successor (that's why the god damn term was invented in the first place), but don't call it a sequel. Look at it this way, you don't see Underworld being called Blade 3, Quake being called Doom 3 (or Doom being called Wolf 2), or Dragon Age being called Baldur's Gate 3, and if this was a major studio like Activision trying to revive some old ass franchise by saying the exact same **** ****ing EVERYONE would be flipping their **** over how much of a cash grab it was.

If they said the exact same **** but didn't spend a third of the interview trying to push the whole sequel to Torment bull**** I'd be excited as ****. As it stands, however, I'm very skeptical.

That entire paragraph is him trying to change what the term franchise means so he can call his new game (that has nothing to do with Torment) a Torment game.

Pretty much. I desperately wanted it to be anything but that, but the more I read of that interview the more I kept thinking "How the **** is this a sequel?" Spiritual successor? Sure, maybe, but calling it a sequel? That just screams of name recognition and taints any legitimate goals they may be aspiring to.

Nothing, it makes it ****ing name recognition and that's it.

I don't think we should necessarily be able to buy "everything" we want by the end of the game. If money is more scarce, or prices are higher, then we'll have to choose among several similarly attractive options, but be unable to buy them all. That's what I'd like. I'd also like some game not to use an anachronistic decimal currency. Why not have 20 coppers per silver, and 15 silvers per gold, or something other than the horribly contrived 10/10/10 we see everywhere now? Those kind of forced choices just serve to annoy the player. They're not fun and they aren't even realistic (which is the usual go to excuse for adding in awful game play mechanics). If money's limited people just end up hoarding it on the off chance that there might be something in the next town that they need (and then the next, and the next, and so on and so forth). It's the same as adding a massively powerful item with a highly limited amount of uses; yea it's cool, but you end up holding onto it until the end of the game (at which point it probably becomes useless anyway). As for making a currency that's not 10/10/10; why the hell would you do that? Just to piss people off? 10/10/10 isn't "horribly contrived;" it's basic logic. Save that kind of bull**** for pretentious indie games.

As long as you can afford everything you want by the end then I don't really care what they do. DA/ME (after the first one) were annoying as **** in that regard.

I try not to inform myself about things that are going to spoil the experience for me.

P:E is going to be 20-30 bucks for a 40+ hour campaign. Even if you get zero replay value out of it how is that a bad deal?

So your assumption is what? That every other non native English speaker speaks as well as you do?

So had you not informed yourself then you wouldn't have known beforehand and thus the experience would not have been ruined. Based on that then your decision to inform yourself rests in what exactly? Masochism? It's like spoiling a twist ending and then complaining the twist was easy to spot.

True, if they straight up forget to include the right answer then yea it would be a challenge, but if they just misspell it then I think it'd still be possible to solve if it was multiple choice.

And as I have said before, I have no problem with having both options, and I am in fact not proposing anything. I would, personally, prefer a game where the AI does even more than it does nowadays in RPGs (and that does NOT concern combat so much that it would turn into a different genre - combat is mostly fine the way it's usually done nowadays in "IE inspired games" like NWN2, the AI is just not good enough yet), but even then it should always be optional. Just keep in mind that while a game might be catered to certain hardcore fans, developers rarely want to alienate other potential players. And the hardcore fans, they do not need to be represented anymore on this forum. Finding out what "casual RPG players" want can be very important for developers. Especially if what they're interested in isn't something that can't be done with the game they're doing for the hardcore crowd. This isn't an either/or, if it was, I wouldn't even talk about it. Having as much AI control as you're asking for isn't something you can have as an option because it would fundamentally change the game. Should the developers add a casual difficulty where the enemies are so easy that NPC AI can handle them and the companions have autoleveling? Sure, but for the harder difficulties you should be required to micromanage the party.

I don't think muhammad ali is evil. Oh you.

Muhammad.

Probably the fact that if someone who's espousing "everyone should know English" manages to fail at spelling things correctly then imagine playing the game as a non-native English speaker or someone who has dyslexia. If my whole argument hinged on the assumption that people should be able to spell perfectly then I'd make damn sure I didn't spell things incorrectly while making said argument, but that's just me. Edit: On that note, what if when Obsidian writes the riddle they **** up the spelling of the answer. Yea, QA should catch that and all, but we all know how great Obsidian is in that department.

RPG is a pretty broad genre. I like them but I generally dislike FF style turn based RPGs and so if I saw someone making a "FF style rpg" I wouldn't go "oh ****, an RPG; must support!" Also, The game was advertised as a modern IE game; all those other titles (FO, Arcanum, ToEE, etc.) were basically just listed to show off the accomplishments of the staff. The reason people are being hostile to you is because a game designed to solely rely on the AI of your companions will be inherently different from one that relies on a player controlling everything. There's nothing wrong with a game like that, but the IE games were most certainly not that. Basically if you don't want to deal with micromanaging companions then just set the difficulty to Easy/Casual/Faceroll/****/whatever they'll call it and play like that.

They should get Deltron 3030 to do the theme. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7_jbluF0qo

I'm gonna be straight with you here. Why the **** did you fund this game (and if you didn't, why are you even here) if you hate doing these things? It's like funding a sandbox and then saying you prefer games that are rigid and linear.

It wasn't meant to be a direct example, but to illustrate the limitations of the system. Also while you were sitting there trying to be snarky about people not knowing English you managed to **** up spelling both plural and riddle.

They should add Heaven or Hell mode because, you know.

Ingame puzzles are cool but straight up riddles where you have to type the answer are annoying as ****. What's the answer? "Cloud" "Wrong" *reload* "Clouds" "Wrong" *reload* "Sky" "Wrong" *reload*, wrong answer x100 "**** it, I'm looking this **** up." correct answer is... "a cloud"

That reminded me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhEYvOYceNs

Kind of like saying Rogue and Diablo are vastly different, but they are both still video games. So you're really gonna tell me that CoD or Forza have just as much in common with Rogue as Diablo does?

Oh, no doubt. I'd hardly want this game to take place on limbo or anything, but what annoys me are people who try and distinguish between the things they like as being "mature" because they "preserve verisimilitude" while the things other people like somehow break it. There's no such thing as a perfectly believable (for everyone) unrealistic world. The reality is we're all fans of the fantasy (I hope, else I don't know why you would be here), and so we all obviously enjoy unrealistic ****. The only difference is how far different people are willing to suspend their disbelief (whether because of pet peeves, intimate knowledge of certain subjects, personal tastes, whatever). Just admit that and stop trying to paint people who like something you don't as "elementary school children."