GrinningReaper659

The Twitter user referenced here that got offended by this is clearly insane: constant cries to "KillAllMen" while getting upset about a mediocre joke show what sort of person we're talking about here. However, like Gromnir said a few pages back, if the joke were about a man who killed himself after accidentally sleeping with a black woman, because he is disgusted at the thought of sleeping with a black woman, this conversation wouldn't be happening. You'd all be talking about how offensive the joke is or how it "just isn't funny," but somehow it's a totally different conversation because you're all of the mind (currently) that it's okay to disregard the feelings of some groups but not others. In other words, there are a bunch of inconsistent people here that clamor on about whatever it's cultually popular to clamor on about. That's on both sides of this issue. I don't think it should be taken out at the moment simply because it would be ridiculous to pander to every obviously insane complaint that enters your field of vision, but there's a bunch of people in this thread that would do well to examine their views on these things. Jumping on the SJW train or the anti-SJW train is equally stupid, why don't you try developing some well thought out views which are actually based on something other than reacting with whatever good-feeling impulse first crosses your mind?

Got my stuff from USPS a few hours ago.

Well that's interesting - cookbook showed up on gog now (before was only in the backer portal for me) - so did the documentary but it says "coming soon" and is currently 0MB - thanks The documentary and novella have not been released yet so if you have access to these, they should currently show on GOG as "coming soon" and 0 mb, like yours does.

So, I had +2 DLC listed above and only "Pre-Order Bonus Item and Pet" was showing below the installer files. Then I used this link which someone recommended in the support forum -- https://www.gog.com/account/refresh -- to do an account refresh and it changed to +4 DLC listed above and links to "Pre-Order Bonus Item and Pet," "Kickstarter Pet," and "Kickstarter Item" showed up, so that link fixed my issue. The pre-order item and pet, although only one link, are counting as 2 DLC for the "+X DLC" number listed above the game in the library I'm guessing.

@Madpaddy the Kickstarter comments should still exist, if you're saying that Obsidian explicitly promised to let backers access the full game earlier than anyone else, go find the comments and screenshot/link them so we can see some proof. Without that there's no reason for anyone to believe it, you could easily be misremembering (no offense intended, human memory is fallable after all). I haven't heard a single other person mention this before.

My Backer Beta disappeared, they must be making room for all the incoming awesome.

Well, I think that many people are aware of this but are using the word "own" in a non-legal sense in reference to the amount of control they have over the product. If I buy a microwave and the store has me sign an EULA from the distributor stating that I can only use the microwave between 5 PM and 6 PM, but nobody has any way of or interest in knowing whether or not I'll comply and no intention of enforcing the restriction, then I own the microwave despite the agreement because of the actual control I have over it (even if legally my "ownership" would be restricted). I have full control over my GOG install files. Nobody's ever coming to check and see what I'm doing with them and I can manipulate and copy them as I please indefinitely so, as far as I'm concerned, I do own them despite the EULA and the legal definition of ownership.

Hey they passed Skyrim! Man so many games from 2012 and 2013 still on the top 10. 2014 was such a bad year for gaming. I don't think I've ever disagreed so much with a sentence about gaming. Divinity: Original Sin, Shadowrun: Dragonfall, and Wasteland 2 all came out in 2014. For me it was probably the best year for gaming in over a decade, but to each their own I suppose. Getting pretty excited for release.

I own... ~30 games on Steam, and I can play every single one of them without an internet connection. Now, maybe I'm just super lucky, and every other game available on Steam requires an internet connection. But... *shrug* I only had to be on the internet and logged in to buy and download them (which is the same with GOG), AND to install them (GOG doesn't require this, but, at the same time, if you've just downloaded a game, why not go ahead and install it real quick?). The only other advantage is that, should you lose your hard drive or something, and both Steam AND the internet have been shut down, you could still use your installer from GOG to re-install the game and never ever patch it (assuming you have the installer backed up somewhere). Which, admittedly, IS an advantage. Have you really checked with every single one (I'm genuinely curious)? My Steam library consists of the three games I got with my Wasteland 2 pledge: W1, W2, and Bard's Tale; the PoE and Age of Decadence betas; and Counter Strike and Path of Exile, which I haven't actually played. Since the first three are the only non-beta single player games, they're the only ones I've tried, and they do work offline but they also are all from InXile who decided to use the most minimal DRM option possible with Steam. Also, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I think that offline mode will run into problems or not run if a game isn't completely up to date. Anyway, I can run Wasteland 2 and the others from the executable file while offline so Steam may as well not apply to them (meaning it doesn't much bother me in the case of these games, but also doesn't do anything for me). I only redeemed my Wasteland 2 stuff on Steam because a friend convinced me to try it out. Well, the auto-updates don't appeal to me too much; I don't really care for the in-game achievement pop-ups which, yes, I know can be disabled, but once again the point is that it's not doing anything for me; and getting chat notifications while trying to play a game was even more annoying than achievements, if I want to talk to people while playing a game I'll use mumble overlay or something. The chat notifications can be disabled as well but again these are all the supposed advantages and none of them really appeal to me. So, since it doesn't feel like there are any advantages for me, and a pretty big advantage to GOG in that I can back up my install files and use them forever essentially, while with Steam I may just not be able to play some games unless I'm online and if Steam ever goes under or they decide to ban my account for some reason I'll lose access to all the games I have through them. This is where you completely lost me because, when I installed Counter Strike on Steam, the installation instructions did direct me to summon a demon and pledge a blood pact to him that I would give him an organ every time I played, and then the very first time he takes my freaking heart, and I died! o_o!!! I was steaming mad about that, those people at Valve are demonted!!

I like the whole kickstarter thing because I think it showcases demand for things. I like the idea of the profit margins of recent kickstarted RPGs getting the interest of successful publishers, and publishers paying money to have these sort of games developed. However the crowdfunding model in and of itself threatens to stifle creativity in exactly the same manner that the AAA conveyor belt has. It leads to by-the-numbers design in the same manner. No, crowdfunding leads to developers making games based on the preferences of a niche fan group, if the developer wants to make such a game. The AAA publishers demand appealing to the lowest common denominator in an attempt to broaden their appeal as much as possible to maximize profits. If they go to a publisher for PoE2 there is nothing to stop that publisher from demanding as many sacrifices to the original ideals as they believe that they can get away with without alienating the core fanbase immediately in order to maximize profits; then with the next game even more sacrifices are made and so on. I'm happy to keep pledging through Kickstarter if it means that developers who are making the types of games I enjoy are able to continue doing so without being told to change their games by a big publisher. Hopefully they'll eventually have the money to publish their own games or to dictate terms with a publisher that keep the publisher from making unreasonable demands.

Last year I played Wasteland 2, played through the BG enhanced editions, played Shadowrun Returns DMS and Dragonfall, played Avernum 1, spent quite a bit of time conquering Spelunky, and I guess I played a handful of less memorable titles as well, mostly platformers. So far this year I've played through Rayman Origins and Legends, Pixeljunk Shooter Ultimate, and Rogue Legacy on my PS Vita and I'm playing Binding of Isaac on my Vita now. I'm playing through Icewind Dale Enhanced Edition right now too, just got to Dorn's Deep. Up next for Vita will probably be Swapper and Hotline Miami and for PC will be Avernum Escape From The Pit or D:OS, or maybe the Director's Cut of Dragonfall.

Say what? You get a pure thief right at the beginning. OP is right, in IE games thief was the only class with all rogue skills. There is no pure class thief in BG2. Imoen is a dual-class Thief/Mage and yoshimo is a Bounty Hunter kit, which isn't considered a pure Thief; neither of them are consistent party members anyway. Apart from those two are Nalia, a Thief/Mage, and Jan, an Illusionist/Thief. So, the point is that you don't need a pure thief in BG2, nor is one available.

Yeah, it looks like we pretty much agree. I didn't read your earlier comments in the thread before replying, just what you said in response to me specifically.

@CaptainMace I'll also add, after reading through some of your edits, that I agree with the idea that having a "love button" in dialogue is pointless. That approach reduces the complexity and meaning of the whole thing into nothingness. Also, if you are able to romance every single joinable NPC, then that's just strange because it doesn't make sense that every single person you're travelling with would fall in love with you if you said the right things. The possible romances should be rare and should be selective/restrictive, and it should be more about a relationship organically developing than picking the "romance button." This is how things should work with developing comaraderie with the NPCs in your party: your reactions to the things they share with you helps to define your character and your character's relationship with them. Will you tell your fighter to keep his thoughts to himself when he tries to tell you about his past? This will show that your character prefers people to be more reserved and will influence your future interactions with your fighter. This same type of thing should be able to be done with romances I would think.

Do you take pleasure in slaying enemies in rpgs ? I usually do it because it's a way to fulfil the missions. I never said it was about taking pleasure in it, at all, and it's not. Now what's the point of having the same mechanic applied to develop a romantic relationship that never adds anything to the story, the characters or the fulfilment of tasks and such, I don't know. I don't mind these kind of things in fire emblem for example, since relationships affect the gameplay via different bonuses and such. I don't see the point of it if it's there for the sake of being there. A story is "there for the sake of being there." If the romance "never adds anything to the story" for you, then don't bother with it! Romance can be a part of any story and is an important part of a great deal of wonderful stories, so I'm not sure why you think it doesn't add tot he story just because it doesn't show up in your quest log (this is what you're saying, right?). As for taking pleasure in slaying enemies, I'm saying that we inherently take pleasure in the activities in the games we play obviously or we wouldn't play them, I'm not suggesting that we start laughing maniacally or become aroused whenever an enemy's HP reaches 0. I also don't just kill enemies "to fulfill the mission" in RPGs, and everything seems to be centered around that for you. There is more to the story than the character's level progression through quests, that's just a framing mechanism for the story being told. Like I said, there's art and lore and exploration and a whole wealth of other content that isn't just some requirement for completing a mission, and that content is an important part of enjoying games for many players. again, do you enjoy the scenery in the game? If so, why is it okay for you to enjoy that but not for someone else to enjoy something you don't? As for the mechanics being used in romances, I really am only interested in dialogue influencing relationships of any sort with NPCs (as opposed to jarring mini-games and the like), and yes dialogue is a mechanic used for other things I suppose, but I don't see how this could be a problem. Do you only talk to random NPCs to get information vital to your current quest or your overall mission, because I'm often just interested in what they have to say and how they fit into the story. Why is it a problem for you for dialogue or anything else to just be a part of the story that doesn't influence the outcome of some quest or mission?

"Oh, right, absolutely forgot. I'm really having trouble remembering good games with romances in them... Alpha Protocol is a questionable choice and the romances are sort of weak too, Kotor 2 maybe counts, maybe not, I found the romances there to be weird... what else is there? Witcher with it's soft core porn?" I really don't know of any games that have good romances. I didn't mind the BG2 romances when I first played it and they can be ignored if one is uninterested (which I generally do when I replay it). I haven't played the recent Bioware games, though I've heard that the romances in them are pretty cringeworthy and I really don't like mini-game type influences on personal relationships in games. I did not like the whole gift-giving, etc. mechanics of Dragon Age to increase loyalty or friendship or whatever it was, and I'm pretty sure that the romance was tied to that somehow. I do like when interactivity through dialogue choices make a difference. My thought is that romance should be able to be done well, there's no reason it should be impossible. It's certainly not impossible to write a solid romance into a book or movie, and as personal relationships can and should be able to be influenced by the player in a game, I see no reason why romances shouldn't be able to be done well. If people enjoy them, even if I don't, and they are done well, then there is no reason to specifically exclude them.

You see this just highlights the illogical nature of some of the criticism about Romance, why is it weird? Its a game, isn't everything about steps you need to complete ? Why single out Romance ? Because among all the things that you do steps by steps, mechanically, in a game, the most weird one is indeed developing a romantic relationship between your character and some other one. I mean the very association of the word "romance" with the word "mechanic" which is all over this thread just... feels very very weird. All of this feels way way less weird than a romantic relationship. Friendship has never been a game mechanic of any good rpg as far as I know. It's either automatic, part of the narration, or featured in sims-like games. In most Bioware games you need to do a loyalty mission/give enough gifts/achieve enough friendship points for REAL friendship to be unlocked. The requirements for romance and for friendship are normally pretty much the same, except for romance you pick a couple flirting lines on top of that. I said good rpgs. Bioware gifts, which they did only once if im not mistaken, is exactly a sims-like game mechanic btw. Although edited before i saw your answer sorry for that :> Bioware are one of the few studios that ever did romance. If you exclude them, because they are not quality enough... well, what games are we even going to talk about? Baldur's Gate? It may be a good game, but in terms of romance and friendship building it was absolutely mediocre, worse than Bioware games even. Baldur's Gate was made by Bioware.

You see this just highlights the illogical nature of some of the criticism about Romance, why is it weird? Its a game, isn't everything about steps you need to complete ? Why single out Romance ? Because among all the things that you do steps by steps, mechanically, in a game, the most weird one is indeed developing a romantic relationship between your character and some other one. I mean the very association of the word "romance" with the word "mechanic" which is all over this thread just... feels very very weird. That's probably because romance and sex are taboo social subjects while violence and murder are normalized in your society (just a guess). You really think you can justify taking pleasure in your pretend character kiiling some other pretend character AND believe that others can't justify a pretend romantic relationship between the pretend character they're playing and some other pretend character? Don't tell me it feels weird to you, I know that already, tell me why the thing that makes you feel weird is actually wrong when it doesn't make everyone feel weird. All of this feels way way less weird than a romantic relationship. Friendship and inimity has never been a game mechanic of any good rpg as far as I know. It's either automatic, part of the narration, or featured in sims-like games. If you don't see the difference between convincing a npc to trust you in order to fulfil a mission via a series of speech check and making a lady blush for -no reason- via the same gameplay mechanic, you got a problem. If friendship and animosity aren't dependent on some player input, then they're simply a constrained part of the story that could be expanded. Games are all about player interactivity with the story, that's the whole point. If you can make a difference in whether an NPC will like or dislike you, then the game is doing something right and if you can't, then you might be watching a movie or reading a book. I'm not saying that every aspect of the story in a game must be interactive, but that's sort of the whole idea behind games. So, everything has to be related to the mission and anything that isn't is a problem? Is it okay to enjoy the beautiful scenery in the game, I mean, it isn't required for the mission but I want to make sure you won't think I'm creepy for doing it... What about reading the lore books, those aren't required for the mission, so I read them for "no reason" as you put it, which seems to be some sort of issue. So, no, I don't feel a need to draw a line stating that only things pertaining to the mission are acceptable, and I don't think that that means I "got a problem."

Also: NPC friendship is bad because it's creepy to have a series of correct steps in order to make a pretend character befreind you. NPC animosity is bad because it's creepy to have a series of correct steps in order to make a pretend character hate you. NPC diplomacy and stealth in dialogue checks are bad because it's creepy to have a series of correct steps in order to make a pretend character trust you. NPC vioence is bad because it's creepy to take pleasure in hurting and murdering a pretend character. So, the "it's not creepy that I want to murder a series of pixels but it is creepy that you want to kiss them" argument, eh? I generally fall on the side of not wanting romances pushed into an RPG, but let's use reasonable arguments at least. This one makes no sense.

I'm going to say 11.

So PoE didn't target the IE fanbase of the IE games? How's that? I already said why people would care. I'm not forgetting developer preferences, I understand that they decide the game, but that doesn't mean that developers aren't building a game with a target audience in mind, you'd have to be blind to think that, especially in the case of PoE. Well, publisher's don't have exclusive rights to greed. Explain to me how Bioware goes from making the BG games to making the games it makes now, and you will have proved my point. I don't know which participants are most greedy, I'm sure there's plenty to spread around between the developers as well, they aren't the slaves of publishers. So, again, the fact that it does happen, as in the case of Bioware, proves that it can happen. Just because a developer isn't targeting the most massive fanbase they can today, doesn't mean that they won't be tomorrow. You say they'd be making the highest selling sorts of games today if they were the type of devs to ever do that, but that's not true. I mean, there are only a few top dogs among those massive game markets, so there's really no reason to think you can compete in them until you make a game that draws the attention of those fans. Again, the devs at Bioware or Bethesda or other companies didn't start out making the most popular RPGs available today, they started out somewhere making something smaller and made decisions along the way that got them where they are now. I don't think that Obsidian is gonna release Pillars of Eternity 2: Global Assault! Now with First Person Perspective and Assault Rifles!!! I'm pretty sure that if they release a sequel they will stick to their design vision, but that doesn't make it impossible for small sacrifices to be made to appease a new, expanded fanbase which greatly differs from the original fanbase; and it is not too inconceivable that they might start producing similiar but different games in the future because there is a market for them (why souldn't they?). Somehow you think it's impossible for a dev studio to go from making one type of game to making a more popular type of game that the fans of their original games may not enjoy, despite seeing examples of it all over the place, and I'm not sure why that is. It seems pretty obvious to me that such things can and frequently do happen. I'm not saying that any of this is going to happen, I'm just trying to explain the reasoning behind those who are uninterested in this game drawing in mainstream gamers. The other thing that may help in the continued development of niche titles is the Kickstarter model which allowed this game to happen in the first place, which will hopefully allow Obsidian to look at its bottom line and say, "Okay, we can make more niche games like these and remain reasonably profitable." In other words, I do want this game to sell well if it means future titles in the same style as this one, but I'm not too excited about the possibility of a massively expanded fanbase for the game.

That's not how it works. people are talking about future games being more mainstream and the original niche games no longer being produced, and it happens like this: Game A is made for fanbase A, this is a niche game and a relatively small fanbase. Mass appeal leads to both Fanbase A and Fanbase B (a much larger fanbase, lets say "mainstream gamers" for simplicity) being interested in and buying Game A. So, the people who produced Game A now take their new expanded fanbase into consideration, and when a large majority of their fanbase (this would be all those people from Fanbase B who have outnumbered and drowned out the voices of Fanbase A) say that combat is too unforgiving or that the story is too complicated or that more resources need to be allocated toward graphics, the producers of Game A may come out with a new game, Game B, that is nothing like Game A because it is more profitable to cater to the larger fan base. The problem here is that Fanbase B already had a bunch of games that they enjoy, in fact most games are made to cater to the majority because of profitability. So, when a company makes a game catering to a small fanbase, it is natural for that fanbase to want future installments or similiar releases which aren't changed by the desires of a totally different fanbase that already has a million other games being catered to its particular tastes. DA:I, Mass Effect, and Skyrim are "very good" or "amazing" games in your opinion, you're stating this as if it's an undisputable fact. Not one of those games interests me much. I don't feel that I "must" hate modern RPGs and I don't judge AAA titles simply for being produced with a ton of money, but not one of those is suited to my particular tastes, so I don't enjoy them. It has nothing to do with them being mainstream (apart from the fact that my preferences are clearly not aligned with the majority). I think my response to Sonntam pretty sums up my response to this as well. There's a clear logical path from a niche game attracting the attention of mainstream gamers and future releases from the company that released said game being drastically different. To anyone saying that those of us differentiating ourselves from mainstream or casual gamers are being elitist, poisonous, or vile: I can only speak for myself, but I am not in any way trying to suggest that my tastes are superior to anyone else's. There really is no point in arguing about who has "better" taste, and I honestly don't think mine are superior to the tastes of others. So, when I say "casual gamers," I don't mean it in a derogatory sense, it is simply a label that fits. To give a very small sample, I love the Baldur's Gate games and the first Fallout games and I really enjoyed Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns: Dragonfall to an extent. I like all sorts of games, but my primary genre of interest is isometric, party-based RPGs with solid story, gameplay, and some choice and consequence. I don't like Skyrim or The Witcher 2 or Fallout 3 and I shouldn't have to apologize for my tastes, nor should anyone else, so I won't. Whether it's some big publisher, or Obsidian, or some indie dev, there will always be the potential for massively increasing profits by attempting to target a considerably larger market than you've been able to target in the past. It's reasonable, given the history of this genre in particular, for its fans to state clearly that they are concerned with any notion of pandering to anyone outside the core fanbase who takes an interest in the game. These forums show the diversity in the tastes of even the core fanbase, and I certainly don't want to see future games built on the success of PoE changing because the PoE fanbase is flooded with people who liked one or two things about it, or even really loved it, but really, really wish there wasn't so much dialogue, or that there were more cinematic cutscenes, or that combat should be easier, and the list goes on and on.

That's a great article. I would say that it's important for gamers to look back to older games and explore them once they've found a genre they enjoy. This seems to be what happens with films as well, as others have mentioned. The entire professional gaming community is not legitimate so long as they institutionalize games as exclusively casual enterntainment with, as Felipepepe put it, an expiration date. That is simply marketing to increase the profitability of the next game. Can you imagine Martin Scorsese coming out and hyping people for Raging Bull by telling them how outdated and worthless Taxi Driver had become; or film critics stating that Raging Bull has now become worthless because we have Goodfellas, or The Departed? It just doesn't make any sense to suggest these things. Of course, films have been around for longer than video games, and have been regarded as art for a very long time, so the analogy isn't perfect, but the point remains that the field invalidates itself by treating games an inherently disposable. Most games from the 90's aren't too hard for a modern gamer to get into, assuming that they actually like the elements of gaming that have been common throughout gaming history. There has been a huge increase in pushing mindless click-satisfaction dopamine-inducing addictive "gameplay" elements such as filling out achievement bars. These things weren't around as often back in the day, so if it turns out that you're just playing primarily because you're addicted to collecting achievements or something along those lines, you may find yourself floundering in older games. Do you like CRPGs? Sit down and play Fallout 1 for three or more hours and then tell me that it's outdated. There may be a few inconveniences in the interface when compared to modern games (though I can't think of any off the top of my head), and the pacing may be a bit slow, but after a couple of hours you'll be used to any differences and you'll be enjoying one of the great post-apoloclyptic CRPGs. Gaming history is important in the same sense that any history is important: that is to say, it definitely is important in learning from past mistakes and building on past achievements, as well as having a complete picture with which a field can be identified. Roman history isn't complete without Marcus Aurelius, and gaming history isn't complete without Ultima. This is further refined into the history of art, in that film history isn't complete without the works of hitch**** and, apart from being incomplete, because we're talking about pieces of art and entertainment, the works of hitch**** can and should be viewed today. That's not to say that someone who hasn't seen North by Northwest can't enjoy films or even be a fan of thrillers, but it's probably important to distinguish between people who casually enjoy modern thrillers and people who care enough about films and the genre in particular to have seen the best it has to offer. Likewise, those who enjoy exclusively AAA modern RPGs are certainly gamers and RPG gamers in that they play CRPGs, but I wouldn't consider someone to be a serious fan of CRPGs who hadn't taken the time to try out at least some of the best titles that the genre has produced throughout its history.

My thought, too. I can see him thinking the game is something it's not, and then chainsawing the game by it's ankles come release. What little I've seen of him, he seems like a loudmouthed knuckledragger exemplifying the non-gamer gamer generation of self-appointed "nerds", the douchiest of the douchiest. It's not really a "personal issue with consoles"; console "gamers" and the console platform has been poisoning PC gaming for over a decade, and Ruzen is hardly alone in the sentiment. The fact that someone favours consoles (and therefore favours console gameplay) definitely warrants ignoring their opinion and all their input should be treated as suspect, at best. Just so you know, this kind of attitude is much douchier and poisonous to the "gaming community" than some guy who plays Halo or whatever arbitrary line you are drawing in the sand. If you love games then you should be happy that all kinds of people are getting into them which will lead to new viewpoints and experiences in games that we've missed out on due to the insular nature of the business until fairly recently. Remember the wise words of the philosophers Bill S. Preston Esq. and Ted "Theodore" Logan: 1. Be Excellent To One Another 2. Party On Dudes So lets all have fun playing games together and not be horrible little gremlins hiding in our clubhouses with "NO GIRLS OR JOCKS ALLOWED" signs next to the door. This is a nice feel-good philosophy (with which I generally agree), but the animosity of Luckmann and others has a specific source. Attempting to appease console gamers and casual gamers in the making of PC-RPGs has had a clear impact on them over the last decade or more. Dumbing down and choosing flash over substance because of console limitations and casual gamers who need floaty quest markers and achievements, and who care more about how detailed their character's hair is than they do about being able to define that character or about the story or mechanics of the game, has created a group of fans with no games made that they really enjoy. So, I agree that it doesn't do much good to throw around insults and I hope this Joe guy has a fun time with the game, but I don't have any interest in isometric, party-based, western CRPGs (or any CRPGs to be honest, but I'm mostly concerned with this subgenre in particular) being any further corrupted by the desires of casual gamers and console gamers. The result of that corruption/change, call it whatever you like, is every AAA RPG to come out for the last ten years and they can happily go play DA:I, The Witcher 3 for their mainstream gaming needs. So I don't really care who loves this game, the more the merrier, so long as they love it for what it is and Obsidian and other companies don't repeat the mistakes of the past and start trying to broaden the target audience of their RPGs and destroying them in the process. All that being said, hopefully everyone will party on and at least try to be excellent to one another.

Well, i see your point. I'm a digital only backer, just to say. It's true that i didn't imagine at first that people would buy such an expansive game box without willing to open it. But now, i remember that i've already seen this. For true collectors, having a very limited sealed edition of PoE must be unvaluable. Much more than any non-kickstarter game because the KS backer editions are much rarer. So, even, if i'm not into this, i understand your problem here, and that this is a big deal for passionate people. We are all passionate people, just we are passionate about all sort of different stuff. And there are other people who have an opposed kind of ritual, wanting the books before the game to get hyped while waiting for the DVDs (the waiting part is important it seems). While i don't see any problems here, i must say that sometimes, it must be hard to be at Obsidian :D. Must be hard, as a developper, to deal with just one publisher who explain you that you have to do things this way, or this one, and that you have 10 months to craft a dull console game that would need 18. But to satisfy every single backer must give some crude headaches too :D. Just hope we are not worse than EA Games Just to be clear, I know there are difficult decisions for OE to make and that they can't completely please everyone in some cases. If it turns out that the game disks ship separately from the box, I'm certainly not going to throw any hate toward Obsidian. However, while they are in the process of deciding how important it is to include an option for things being shipped in the same box, I'm absolutely going to bring up what I think are some valid points on the matter.