DeathQuaker

*sigh* Tell me... did you back Project Eternity by any chance? Yes. Also because it looked like a good game made by a good design team. And while we're here, it was also a little less overt with the "spiritual successor to X!" claims -- at least what I read of it talked about it being made in the vein of older games like Baldur's Gate II and Torment without saying it was somehow part of those franchises, which is different than actually getting the rights to and using the franchise name again. To me they were saying to expect a certain kind of mechanics and style of play and writing as opposed to expect a repetition of/revisitation to setting/theme.

I decided to back this after looking at the sample art and taking into consideration the creative team is pretty effing awesome. I was reluctant to, though. I tend to mistrust claims of "spiritual successorship"; I don't like a new game riding on an old (and much beloved) game's laurels, especially when we know it can't be a true sequel. Honestly, if you say, "Old skool style RPG based in Monte Cooke setting with surrounding themes of beliefs, memory, mortality, and suffering," then you have me sold. But you lose me again when you start saying, "And it's gonna be like Torment! It's gonna be called Torment! It's going to be Torment, except without the setting or characters of Torment." Then I'm like, "So, you don't think your game is good enough to sell on its awesome premise alone, so you're going to grab nostalgic gamers by the balls by invoking another game title--and then subsequently raise expectations way, way, way too freaking high." There's also of course the fact that Wasteland 2 isn't even done yet. We don't know if inXile can deliver yet. Right now, my gut says I can trust they will, but it's the video game industry, and **** happening in the video game industry is just part of the whole deal. But I ignored all the wank about Torment, read otherwise the proposal of what the game was going to be like, looked at the art, read the creative team bios, and I thought, "Okay, I can risk throwing $20 at this, it'll probably be pretty dang good." (But personally I wouldn't risk more than that.) In short: it looks like a good game. I just wish they made the appearance of believing in their game enough to try to sell it on its own merits rather than on another game's.

Just started playing Dungeon Siege III recently... I think I'm about 2/3 of the way through the main story. So far I like it (I remember getting bored silly in the original game, so big improvement there) and wouldn't change much save for some tweaks: - It is really hard in-game to get a sense of what the stats do and how they help you/don't help you. I think the stats could be simpler and I wish there was some way we could get some improved feedback during combat to see how stats are helping (or lack of stats are not helping). For example, I often can't tell if it would be better to boost armor, boost blocking, or boost stamina. It's hard to see sometimes how a given piece of equipment is really useful versus another one, except when all around the stat bonuses granted are higher. - I know Dungeon Siege is at heart a hack-n-slash monty haul game, but I feel like there's too much junk. You can only wear so much gear, and when new equipment constantly drops--but it all more or less is the same quality (maybe with different benefits or tradeoffs--it stops being cool to find new stuff (and often unless a piece of equipment is obviously better, I end up equipping what I think looks coolest on the character model because I'm like that). I'd really be happy to trade off less item drops for more rare/unique stuff. And/or I'd love to see some option for customization, so if you've got that one shirt or weapon you really love, you can enhance it rather than feel forced to give it up later for something else. - ETA: While I'm at it, I'd like to see the character stats and the inventory screen at the SAME TIME so I can see directly how the character's stats total up when wearing different equipment. - I'd like to see all party members in cutscenes, even if they're not an active party member. I mean, given you can swap them out at any moment, presumably the other two are following behind clearing up stragglers or something. So they should be present in actual dialogue scenes--which means you can get fuller, more interesting dialogue, maybe even see the characters bicker a little, give a much better feeling like you're all a team. If the influence system is kept (which I have mixed feelings about) it also gives you a chance to earn a little more influence, without being "broken"--after all, often with multiple answers, each will please one person, so you can't boost all their influence at the same time even if you have them with you.

As Obsidian's Fallout team is comprised of many of the original Fallout designers (1, 2, Tactics), I'd love it if they made another Fallout game and it continued in the southwest--although it would also be interesting to see further expansion east/north FROM the original Fallout setting in California (e.g., I loved the area design in Honest Hearts)--maybe see a further-east region largely occupied or destroyed by the Legion, for example, with some additional warring factions. Or even go back back southwest and see how California is doing decades after the original Fallout (IIRC, there was some talk of doing LA which would be awesome since IIRC LA was pretty devasted in the Great War and even 200 years later is probably a mess--and thus an interesting and challenging location for a Fallout game). I am equally cool with any of Bethesda's development team continuing to make its Fallout games on the East Coast--for example, I think the rumors of Fallout IV taking place in Boston are pretty damn cool. I love the idea of MIT being a center of activity in post-post apocalyptic America. Ain't no reason we can't have both. Yes, I do have cake, and yes I will also eat it, thank you very much.

Why do you have to do that? Not arguing with you, I just don't understand the issue. The only problem I've had with offline mode is every once in awhile (not as often as every 30 days) Steam's config file mucks up and says stuff like it can't find my login (sometimes it's because I myself have force closed Steam or something). If you make a backup copy of your config file when your offline mode is working and then use it to reset it when that happens, that should fix it. If you Google around for the full fix you'll find it, I don't remember the exact procedure (i.e., the file you need to backup). Of course one shouldn't have to deal with the problem at all, but there is a workaround at least.

This is way late, but I just installed Dungeon Siege III and thought I had hit this problem... until I realized there are two different activation codes. Inside the box there should be TWO documents, the Square Enix registration card and the game manual (which is just a few pages long). On the back of the game manual is the code (mine was fifteen characters) you need to use to register the game to Steam. The Square Enix code does NOT work, that is just for registering your game with Square Enix (which has nothing to do with setting up your game with Steam). Once I had the right code in, the game installed just fine, no problems with Steam or anything. Hope that might be helpful to anyone else with similar issues.

But what if he feels spoiled by reading the manual? I am not sure what the manual could spoil, it's just information on how to play the game (there is a difference between a manual and a guide or walkthrough). I understand the joy of discovering stuff on your own, I'm an exploration based gamer at heart. But if I don't, effectively, know how to do anything in a game, then I can't explore, and then I can't discover anything, so I'm going to do what it takes to learn how to play. Again, Arcanum wasn't designed, like most games are now, to be played manual free. It's an advancement in game design--designers make sure the play and mechanics are accessible and learnable as you go along, usually through an ingame tutorial and tool tips. What he's doing is the equivalent of skipping through the opening tutorial having never played the game before. It's his prerogative to do so, but if he spends 90 minutes fighting the same undeafeatable monster not getting anywhere and is getting frustrated about it, it might behoove him to, indeed, explore other options so he can get into the meat of the game. (And I really do want to see him get into that "meat" because once he gets to certain areas, his charisma-based character will get to do some really fun things.) However if he is truly enjoying fighting the same low-level monster he can't defeat over and over and over again, more power to him, and I look forward to future installments of his cursing at Virgil, because that's frankly entertaining enough on its own.

Lore should transfer over easily, as should of course game maps, etc. Converting feats and such is also pretty easy; just pay attention to skill consolidations and make sure that a converted feat doesn't actually duplicate something that a PF feat already does. If there's a PF version and a 3.x version I would always err on the side of using the PF one (which also goes for spells). For converting classes, pay attention to the HD being tied to BAB progression, as well as save progressions, etc. Many 3.x classes will be weaker than PF ones because PF made an effort to eliminate "dead levels" on classes; I'd check for a PF class and/or appropriate character archetype to reflect a concept before converting a 3.x class. For converting races, I'd consult the Advanced Race Guide for guidelines with the race builder. On the surface, converting characters and monsters is "easy," but then there are a lot of tricky little things you have to double check because of skill consolidation, new consistencies in monster rules (i.e., some elementals in 3.x had d8 HD and in PF they have d10), extra feats, etc. I'd echo the suggestion of looking through the Bestiaries for new monster stats, and convert only the truly unique monsters you feel you can't replace. Likewise with NPCs I would consult the GameMastery Guide and the NPC codex for similar NPC stats that might suitably replace 3.x ones. All the books I mention are legally accessible on the aforementioned 3rd party site, but I prefer personally to use Paizo's official Pathfinder Reference Document since I only use Pathfinder RPG line books and no 3rd party content (d20pfsrd mixes RPG line and campaign line stuff all together, and I don't use the campaign line). For my personal purposes I prefer the way the PRD is organized as well; YMMV. If there's something specific you want to convert and are having trouble, let me know what it is, I might be able to convert it for you (if you'd like).

I'd really prefer the capture of the 3D model, personally. I like the portrait to look like the character I actually designed in char creation. In games where you had to pick a portrait, I never felt like any of the available portraits ever looked like what I wanted my character to look like (and of course they don't change if you change your equipment, which is a feature I like), and hunting for a custom to import is annoying. Course if there'd be an easy way to implement either that'd be the nicest compromise, but I'd rather them put efforts into other areas than character portraits. And I'd settle for whatever works best with the interface.

I don't mind if Chris Avellone puts up the full play video (although editing out repeat fights might be worth it), but I would humbly request that he a) reads the game manual (the game was NOT designed for people to just boot up and go) and b) figures out how to use the world map (the one time he tried, he just clicked a little too low). I mean, if he wants to play the way he's going, that's his thing, but he seems frustrated in the videos himself, so... I think once he figures out certain basic mechanics the LPs are going to be a lot more eventful and there'll be fewer reasons to edit. As for Project Eternity, looking forward to the backer stuff getting up and running.

I'd rather there be no level cap, or if there were a level cap, you would really have to beyond-completionist bust your butt to scrounge every XP in the game to hit it, and you would hit it no earlier than very close to the endgame. What I don't like about level caps is when it is too easy to level, you hit the level cap 3/4 of the way through, and then you have no further character advancement to look forward to. I am about as far from a level grinding type player as you can get (grinding bores me to tears), so if a game lets me hit the level cap, then leveling is too fast or too easy. Whether the level cap is 10 or 100, I don't want to even worry about whether I'm going to hit it until I'm prepping for the end.

I liked a lot of David John's work from Neverwinter Nights. Sometimes I just play his Infinite Dungeons and Kingmaker themes just because they're awesome. But whoever does it, I'm sure it will be good. Seems like the samples up so far are nice.

This should probably be in the tech support forum below, where there might be an answer. I know activation issues are addressed in that forum at length. One thing is I think the activation was actually patched out, but your installing the patch after you tried to open the file maybe caused an issue. What I'd suggest doing is uninstalling the game entirely, then reinstalling, do not try to activate but go straight to installing the patch, then try opening the game. I bought the game on Steam, which of course is managed by Steamworks, but if you don't mind that and you otherwise can't get your copy to work, what I'd suggest is waiting for the game to go on sale on Steam and then buy it from them instead. It is often on sale for way cheap, like $5. Of course, I know you'd rather not buy the game twice, but if there is no other way to get it working, that is an option. Good luck, I hope you get it working as it is a really fun game.

I've run several games and look forward to running again. Right now my main game of choice is Pathfinder. I also would like to run Mutants and Masterminds and would love to be a player in a Savage Worlds game (though I'd try most games given the opportunity). I used to play a lot of oWoD awhile ago, never got into nWoD (no opportunity as much as anything else). Now, if I could keep someone who could keep me in a comfortable lifestyle so I can spend all my time designing and running adventures, then things would be good. And as to the original poll, when I run a game, you can call me whatever you like as long as it involves the word, "Master." I've had a few games fall apart, a long time ago. I learned not to invite players who couldn't be relied upon to show up. I don't mind players taking things off the rails but I have been absolutely blindsided by the players deciding to do something I'd have no idea they'd do. I try to design a sandboxy world--lots of background--so I can adjust on the fly though. I don't mind that--and indeed sometimes it can be a lot of fun--but what does bother me is when the players themselves make certain plans, you count on those plans when you design the next adventure, and then they change their mind. Specifically, I ran a game where the players said several times that they were going to stop in the next city, take some downtime to gather contacts, allies, and craft equipment, before they went on to the next area where the big bads were. So I designed and populated the whole city and made sure they had ample opportunity to seek allies and get gear. One thing is I knew they were a little under equipped so I loaded the city with opportunities for them to resupply. Then when they got there, after a very brief initial adventure, they decided they were just going to skip the city and go straight on to the next area they needed to get to. Leaving me with about 20 pages of unused notes, which I had written up solely because of the plans they themselves had made. AND they bitched and whined non-stop that they were under equipped, but never took the time to search for gear, buy it, or craft it. Overall that was a good campaign, but that issue was extremely frustrating. I couldn't make them stay though--I suppose I could have dropped bigger plot hooks to keep them there, but even there, what plot hooks I did throw at them they just ignored.

Nice stuff, and I am not feeling waah, urrr, arrrgh, or meh at all about it.

I trust Obsidian to design a world that is well thought out, and has a good sense of verisimilitude. While I trust them to look to past cultures around the world, I also trust them to consider how magic or other unique or variant events on the world might change how different kinds of people are treated in different societies. Moreover, I do not expect them to create a mirror image of historic medieval Earth, or else they would have said the setting was historic medieval Earth (and as an aside, I am also certain that a game that was actually set in historic medieval Earth and was as accurate as humanly possible to recreate, a number of you would claim it didn't appear medieval at all.). I expect them to create a fantasy world that is most importantly internally consistent with itself, not necessarily with any other world. As to how both men and women are treated, a lot of things have to be considered, including issues of land, war, and health. Most cultures that mistreat women or at least keep them strictly in a role as uneducated wives and mothers are usually borne of situations where maternal and child mortality is very high. Women "have to" be kept in a certain position, ultimately to ensure the proliferation of the race. Men are placed in a position to protect them and ensure they are around to raise the children and make sure the children survive, and unfortunately often cultural traditions that build up around that end up with women being in a very poor position, humanitarian-wise. Notably in real life cultures, those where women have gradually gained civil rights (although are ever working for more), it is usually in societies where maternal and child mortality is down, and the population is booming. Women end up not needing to have as many children or have no children at all, their children need less protection, and thus women realize they have time and opportunity to learn and work and fight, and push to have those rights. In a fantasy world, taking into account what the standard of living is important in determining what social roles of men and women should be. If, for example, magic is abundant enough that disease is rare and many causes of maternal and child mortality are down, then perhaps women are treated more as equals to men--or are at least in a process for fighting for that equality. And so on. But if there IS sexism in the fantasy world, there needs to be more of a reason than "women had no power in the medieval ages," which is a gross oversimplification (and underestimation). The world itself needs to have been shown to have evolved in a certain way. On another note, whether there are sexist societies or not within the world, it needs to NOT AFFECT CHARACTER CREATION. I do not want my choices of what I can play affected by gender. I want to play the hero I want -- after all, heroes are usually the exceptions to many rules. I want to be sure that a male or female hero has the same access to equipment, quests, etc. NPC interactions may be different, but in terms of character options, I think it would be a poor judgement call to limit those. I also don't want to feel like I am punished for playing a female. I recall a horrific time I had in the game Arcanum, which depicted a sexist society and meta-wise seemed very proud of that fact. There is a "Gentleman's Club" in the game you have to get to in order to access a few different quest lines. If you play a male character (male characters also had twice the race options for characters), you can more or less walk right in. If you play a female character, you have to get permission from a lecherous old dude who runs the club. Your options are a) whore yourself out to him to get it, b) pickpocket him (taking an alignment hit for stealing), d) kill him (taking a MASSIVE alignment hit for killing him), or e) refuse. If you refuse him, you can provoke him into attacking you. If you kill him in self defense, you STILL take the massive alignment hit -- I remember my character with pristine alignment suddenly went all the way to the other side of evil if this happens. Basically, the game tells you your female character is evil UNLESS she prostitutes herself out to him or you just avoid the situation entirely. Not cool, on so many levels. I've had many people tell me this situation was a bug, but that's the kind of thing that should have been fixed. It was so very frustrating, and so very not fun. I felt again, like I was being punished first for playing a female hero, and then being punished for trying to preserve my female character's honor and pride. No video game should ever give that impression. As for rape and other triggery issues -- I hope Obsidian decides to deal with those issues, if they write them, with careful thought, discretion, and compassion for real life victims of such crimes, both male and female alike. And if traumatic events are to occur to characters, then it should be "equal opportunity"--there should be potential for males or females alike to suffer such things. If that is being "politically correct," then I'd rather be PC then endorse a crippling double standard that alienates half a potential customer base.

Cool. Let me know what you think.

Now, first and foremost, one person's fun is not another. Such is the way of things. So bummer, marelooke, that you didn't enjoy it. I can certainly see how if you didn't enjoy it/get used to it, it would make enjoying the story much much more difficult, if not impossible. For my own two cents, just speaking of my experience, I thought I would hate the timed dialogues, and I ended up loving them. I normally in dialogue heavy RPs do sit and agonize over my choices, trying to pick the "Best answer" whether from a mechanical perspective (what will earn me the most influence/get me the most XP, etc.) or a roleplaying perspective. I like usually to read and read and think about my options. At first the timed dialogues seemed like a horror--how could I know what to say, what if it was wrong, what if I wasn't roleplaying. Then I realized -- there really was no wrong answer. Yes, certain answers might gain or lose influence with someone, or otherwise take a new path down the plot I didn't want/expect. But then I realized that losing influence had its own advantages as gaining it and simply opened different avenues; the avenues themselves were different ways of playing, but they didn't make me bigger/better/faster/stronger, they didn't make me lose out on something --- or if I seemed to lose out on something immediately, I still gained in the long run. (Often pissing off one person pleased another and vice versa, and so on.) Or at the very least, the story that resulted that was very interesting. Also, once I realized Mike was going to be more or less a jerk no matter what you said (or to quote Yahtzee Croshaw, the "ponciest ponce who ever ponced past a poncing parlor"), I didn't worry too much about making the wrong roleplaying choice. Mike has a distinct personality of his own, it's just about what sides you bring out in him. I also find that the moments you did need to stop and think a minute, they did give you a little more time. And I did find that once I got used to the system, I got better and better at making snap decisions and getting the result I desired most anyway. That the game also tends to default your answer based on past choices -- i.e., if your last answer was professional, the selected option to the next question will default to professional -- makes it easier. You can be guaranteed consistency at least (which has its own perks) -- if you're not sure what to pick, going with the "personality" you've been picking for the most part is always a fine defaul. Now there are rare moments you could feel like you screwed up -- usually in a few yes/no or arrest/kill scenarios where you accidentally pick one rather than the other. I noticed most of those they give you a little more time to decide, however. There was only one time when the choice was "go/stay" where it was really nebulous as to which answer matched the thing I wanted to say because of the way the dialogue was worded and I picked the "wrong" thing--but I just went with it and I still accomplished everything I wanted to. Even with the system's occasional flaws, I still ultimately felt freed by the situation rather than constrained, which is what I thought I would. It shifted me to a different way of thinking that does indeed mesh with the fast paced feel of the game that helps immeasurably with immersion. So I am very glad that I personally gave it a chance, and I'd like to see a similar system show up again in games with a similar feel. If anything, I'd want any obvious mechanics further removed from the player's view -- don't tell me if I gain/lose influence, just note it in the software silently and let me keep playing. Anything that keeps me from feeling there's a right or wrong answer improves my feeling like I can truly play as I want. Maybe show me when I've earned a perk for a certain kind of behavior, but that's it. I wonder if there'd be a way to make timed dialogues optional, but I don't know if that would really truly help to please both sides.

Late to this, but FWIW if you don't mind d20 based games, in addition to being a fun fantasy game, Pathfinder's got gunslingers and clockwork automata in some of its supplements (Ultimate Combat and the Bestiary 3, respectively, both of which are legally, freely accessible in the Pathfinder Reference Document). The alchemist class from the Advanced Player's Guide (also in the PRD) would probably also suit your world concept well. You could probably pull in the steampunk stuff from 3rd party publishers or maybe adapting material from Iron Kingdoms (by Privateer Press) if you didn't homebrew it up yourself.

You move one password with the mouse and click the correct area, and the other password you move with the WASD keys and use the spacebar to select. It can be a little fiddly with PC that shouldn't work. The alarms and such will get notably harder as the game progresses unless you train up your sabotage skill. Remember there's also a skill (I think under technical) that allows you to destroy electronic devices with EMP charges, and you can shut off alarms with radio mimics. If one area is too hard, you can always leave the city you're in and go to another and do a few adventures there to level up. If the game is unusually buggy or difficult, I'd suggest restarting or reinstalling the game. You also might want to make sure your game is fully updated.

I'm not sure it would be right for Chris Avellone to write himself into the game... In more seriousness, as far as gods go, I am all for "whacky" and "sober" alike, but I hope that there is a reasonable, easy to remember number of gods in the pantheon. It is far too easy to get carried away and create Zax the God of Coat Racks and Sally the Goddess of Scones and Jam and Ekiel the God of Chattering, GIggling Girls Who Irritate You on Public Transit, but you can easily end up with dozens and dozens of gods who end up being impossible to work into the setting truly meaningfully and are difficult for all but the most zealous of fans to keep track of and remember. I'd rather have, for mere example, six gods that are interesting and easy to remember and play a notable role in the game's backstory if not gameplay story, than 30 gods who are largely indistinguishable and make my eyes glaze over from trying to remember them all. Even if these completely hypothetical six gods are "typical" -- say, a nature god, a city/civilization god, a war god, a love god, a trickster god, and a death god -- you could still portray them in unique and compelling ways. (NOTE I do not think Obsidian should make only six gods per se, I'm just using that as an example. The general gist is sometimes less can be more.) I think in fact what makes a unique pantheon is less the weird and bizarre portfolios, and more how the gods protect their portfolios and spread their teachings. I'd love to see some tropes averted -- rather than have a typical "flighty Aphrodite" sort of love goddess, have one who takes her role of guardianship of love deadly serious, or one who combines her portfolio with something OTHER than the typical beauty, etc. etc. I always liked the idea of Ishtar, who was goddess of both love and war, but that doesn't get repeated/reused very often. Or have a kindly death god who shepherds souls gently to their rest rather than the usual inexplicably blary scary undead monster that fantasy death gods often are. A reluctant war god who mourns the death of soldiers even as he sends them into battle; a god of civilization who favors the underworld and black market as essential to perpetuating civilization more than government or above-board mercantilism, etc. etc. Not that everything should be "opposite" to what is typical but just that these things can be played with. I did like one poster's idea that a god might often represents both sides of their portfolio "coin" as it were. On another, separate note, I've liked some fantasy worlds where some cultures have holy warriors and priests of saints/ascended humans rather than actual gods. I think that's also an interesting take, especially if they really do get divine power from their patron, because it suggests other mortals can ascend to some form of divinity, whether typical or atypical.

Veteran is fun because of the extra dialogue options. It also makes it way easier to play a stealth based/minimal violence character.

I hear you Melkathi...

Good to hear. The internet is full of SIE-haters. Though it seems to be the same group of people who are angry that Sis isn't a romance option... Must be an age thing. I think I am getting too old for the internet. SIE is hands down my favorite character in Alpha Protocol, so you are not alone. And you can't get too old for the Internet (sadly, I'm sure a lot of people who want to "romance" Sis are not themselves young people...).

I like this -- have degress of success rather than extreme "win" or "game over" scenarios. I would also like to see something pitched from the direction of your being rewarded if you succeed on a quest quickly, and while you can still achieve your objective over a longer period of time, you may not receive a bonus reward (whether that reward is mechanical or narrative in nature). Or there maybe different alternatives that may not be better than another but different -- like say if you act quickly to stop an enemy plot, you may save more people but won't get as much evidence to convict the foe, but if you take your time to investigate, you may risk more lives but also seal your enemy's fate. Or more positively, quick action may impress one potential ally while careful patience and exploration may attract another. Also, with regards to time limits -- include them or not, but don't tell me "You must hurry!" if actually, I don't need to hurry at all. It is getting really old in RPGs where someone goes, for example, "Please, you must rescue my husband from the bandits before they kill him tonight!" and then you walk around, loot several dungeons, fulfill several other quests, and then a week of game time later finally go rescue the husband, where the husband and bandits have been patiently waiting for you to attack this whole time (and ironically, in a sense, the husband was not actually in danger until you showed up). If for story purposes you need me to do something by tomorrow, then I want to have good reason to do it by tomorrow, and if I am free to wander and quest as I choose, then the narrative itself should make that clear. I would also prefer time limits to side quests, or short, limited quests within a main quest chain, than a broad one like "find the water chip." If a single quest that takes me an hour realtime to play through has a time limit, I'm cool with that if it means after that hour, I can go back to wandering around for awhile. That way you can have the best of both worlds, events that have a true sense of urgency while still feeling like you have ample opportunity to explore.