Dream

I don't think that if you're against handling certain things like they were done in IE (like stealth) makes you any less of a backer. Except the front page of the kickstarter specifically states the game is going to be a modern version of the IE games. Don't buy a roadster and then get mad when it can't haul **** like a pickup.

I would even go so far as to saying that Torment is an intentionally surrealistic game. But I don't think that's what the devs are trying to accomplish with PE. Which is an issue in and of itself. The devs have said that one of the advantages of kickstarter is they don't have to answer to a publisher, but shouldn't they answer to the fans? Sure they're making the game, but we funded it with certain expectations and the devs own personal desires for what they want in the game should come a distant second to what the fans desire (a game similar to BG, PST, and IWD in both mechanics and style). I know I didn't fund it because I trusted the names of the people, but because they promised a modern infinity engine game. Or maybe since they already have our money they feel they can do what they wish, but I'd rather not take such a jaded outlook. That's limiting the creative process in a way that no other artist would stand for. Personally I trust the developers to take certain liberties and break away from the old games because they clearly have a philosophy against many of the things that have hurt modern RPG's. I'd rather them not "answer to the fans" between now and release because the simple fact is that- as much as you may think otherwise- this community is as diverse as any other one, and no one person can pretend to speak for the rest of the fans. While the community may be diverse the reasons for their backing are not; the IE games, and as long as their philosophies aren't against things that were present in those games it shouldn't be an issue. Also the creative process in pretty much all art is limited. Michelangelo didn't paint the Sistine Chapel for ****s and giggles you know.

Because it's awesome, as 300 demonstrated. Rule of Cool.

The problem with modern Bioware games is they write them with a formula of how an "epic" should be. An epic needs a tragedy? Okay, lets add a tragedy; think of something sad and then we'll write around that and fit it in. It's the reason why no one gave a **** about the vent kid in ME3 (despite Bioware pushing the "weight" of his death HARD), but people were genuinely sad when happened at the end of Halo 4. You can't force drama or tragedy else it just ends up feeling artificial and the emotions the characters supposedly feel vastly differ from the emotions the player feels. ****, even Saints Row did it better than Bioware.

This isn't a puzzle game or hack-and-slash, this is an RPG. Aka R-o-l-e P-l-a-y-i-n-g. Which contrary to popular belief goes beyond any old fantasy game that uses the DnD system. There are as many genres of RPG as there are of games in general. P:E was advertised very specifically as a modern Infinity Engine game like PS:T, BG, and IWD.

I would even go so far as to saying that Torment is an intentionally surrealistic game. But I don't think that's what the devs are trying to accomplish with PE. Which is an issue in and of itself. The devs have said that one of the advantages of kickstarter is they don't have to answer to a publisher, but shouldn't they answer to the fans? Sure they're making the game, but we funded it with certain expectations and the devs own personal desires for what they want in the game should come a distant second to what the fans desire (a game similar to BG, PST, and IWD in both mechanics and style). I know I didn't fund it because I trusted the names of the people, but because they promised a modern infinity engine game. Or maybe since they already have our money they feel they can do what they wish, but I'd rather not take such a jaded outlook.

Fun is completely subjective, and realism is one of those things that makes a game fun for many people. It's also subjective whether realism ever becomes a trade-off with gameplay. I'm glad we agree. I guess the question then is what the majority (not the vocal minority of the forums, mind you) finds more enjoyable. The only problem with that is that the majority finds Skyrim most enjoyable. This game is aimed at a minority. Except the majority of the people that funded this project did so because of Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment, and those are hardly paragons of realism (especially Torment).

Fun is completely subjective, and realism is one of those things that makes a game fun for many people. It's also subjective whether realism ever becomes a trade-off with gameplay. I'm glad we agree. I guess the question then is what the majority (not the vocal minority of the forums, mind you) finds more enjoyable.

For real, bro? This is what I'm talking about, people don't even understand they aren't sounding smart when they use it. Verisimilitude - Something verisimilar/the quality or state or being verisimilar Verisimilar - depicting realism (as in art or literature) The same word. No, it's not the same as realism. The question is: what constitues reality (in the sense of the concept of radical realism), and reality is also constituted by - for example - physics. For something to be verisimilar, it simply has to follow an inherent logic. Or to make it a bit easier to apply: if you have two (false!) concepts of reality, you choose the one that is the nearest to the actual reality. If we assume that "our" reality in which we live is the "objective reality" then we'll get beaten by constructivists and we have to chose between two fictive concepts, the one being closest to the predefined reality makes the most sense. To apply it to the aforementioned Two Worlds 2-blooming-flora-and-fauna-famine-problem: of course you can say that maybe there is a spell on every starving citizen to prevent him eating everything around him or some other absurd thing. The problem with fiction is, that you have endless possibilities to just invent ANY solution for ANY problem, but it gets very, very, VERY difficult not to mess up the whole logic of the gameworld, because creating more and more "solutions" also creates more and more problems based on a solution and so on and so forth. To not have this argument about words that get thrown around by game designers, we could simply agree that we mean *something* in the verge of plausibility or credibility. Which is still not the same. I may be wrong, that's just the way I learned that stuff in my journalistics class, but that whole reality-concept-thingy was quite brief. You can attribute whatever meaning you want to the word, but the reality (har har) is it's the exact same word. Saying it's not doesn't make it so. Synonyms: literalism, naturalism, realism,representationalism, verismo What you seem to forget is, that the word verisimilitudeis connected to critical rationalismand exactly means, what I said it does.You can use it in a similar way, but there are many ways of describing reality and many ways to say "describing reality" with an entirely different mindset behind it. So verisimilitude is realism with the thought of critical rationalism behind it. That's what I meant when I first said that there are different approaches to a topic and philosophy was one of them. So the reason realism is important is because it's realistic. Got it.

The problem is some people want a game and some people want a medieval life simulator.

For real, bro? This is what I'm talking about, people don't even understand they aren't sounding smart when they use it. Verisimilitude - Something verisimilar/the quality or state or being verisimilar Verisimilar - depicting realism (as in art or literature) The same word. No, it's not the same as realism. The question is: what constitues reality (in the sense of the concept of radical realism), and reality is also constituted by - for example - physics. For something to be verisimilar, it simply has to follow an inherent logic. Or to make it a bit easier to apply: if you have two (false!) concepts of reality, you choose the one that is the nearest to the actual reality. If we assume that "our" reality in which we live is the "objective reality" then we'll get beaten by constructivists and we have to chose between two fictive concepts, the one being closest to the predefined reality makes the most sense. To apply it to the aforementioned Two Worlds 2-blooming-flora-and-fauna-famine-problem: of course you can say that maybe there is a spell on every starving citizen to prevent him eating everything around him or some other absurd thing. The problem with fiction is, that you have endless possibilities to just invent ANY solution for ANY problem, but it gets very, very, VERY difficult not to mess up the whole logic of the gameworld, because creating more and more "solutions" also creates more and more problems based on a solution and so on and so forth. To not have this argument about words that get thrown around by game designers, we could simply agree that we mean *something* in the verge of plausibility or credibility. Which is still not the same. I may be wrong, that's just the way I learned that stuff in my journalistics class, but that whole reality-concept-thingy was quite brief. You can attribute whatever meaning you want to the word, but the reality (har har) is it's the exact same word. Saying it's not doesn't make it so. Synonyms: literalism, naturalism, realism,representationalism, verismo

For real, bro? This is what I'm talking about, people don't even understand they aren't sounding smart when they use it. Verisimilitude - Something verisimilar/the quality or state or being verisimilar Verisimilar - depicting realism (as in art or literature) The same word.

No one used that word until Sawyer said it, and now people are throwing it around like they actually speak that way. Also they are literally the same word.

Here's what bugs me: people using fancy words to try and sound smart. On topic, don't sacrifice any gameplay or fun for the sake of realism.

Bull**** artsy endings have been more of a cliche than happy endings ever were. Damnit, why must I feed the trolls!?

Have fun with magic.

Was that the word of the day on some poncy website recently 'cause people just love throwing it around on this forum. Also you spelled it wrong.

Happy ****ing ending. Tired of people thinking they're being deep and artsy by ending **** on as depressing a note as possible.

I enjoyed the borderlands 2 callouts; especially Gaige at high levels of anarchy.

Call o... Nah. PS:T is the way to go.

It depends on how awesome it is. I don't particularly care that Dante can walk around with 10 scythes sticking out of his body, or that Jeanne can ride a motorcycle vertically up a giant statue in outer space since it looks freaking amazing. However, watching Shepard shrug off a laser blast that can cleave through dreadnoughts looked beyond retarded. I suppose a big part of this is whether or not the universe was created with realism in mind, and while I have no problem with realistic stories I generally prefer stories where realism isn't a major consideration (Bayonetta, PS:T, Alice, Borderlands, Sucker Punch, etc.).

What? That may have been the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread yet; surpassing even Grimlorn's "facts." This isn't 1982, it's 30 years later. Computers are powerful enough that they can do massive calculations in infinitesimally small time frames. Expert level SC, Q3, D3, etc. bots play the game better than most living breathing people, and half the time they appear more human as well. The reason that RT games don't make use of perfect AI isn't because of some lack of computing power, but because it would make the games impossible.

Not to sound trollish but there's really only one way. Don't play it.

The key point is that without any pressure they don't make mistakes; not that they never make mistakes. Turn based games take away the pressure of time which is why they are not inherently more challenging than real time games. The reason no one has done it yet is because a cRPG game in the style of the IE games hasn't been made in forever. Compare the AI of shooters from that era (Half-life, unreal, quake 2, etc.) to the AI of modern shooters; the difference is night and day. I suppose you could cite DA:O as being a modern version of the IE games, but Bioware, at least nowadays, isn't very good with AI (I'm looking at you Mass Effect). Also, TB games have plenty of their own abuses which are unique to that combat system, and which would not work in RT games.

Yea; obviously your local blacksmith wont be busting out insane looking armor, but if at the bottom of some long forgotten dungeon is a Champion of Khorne, a lich king, or some other similarly super evil/corrupt human then why not get his digs.