Lephys

No no... "Wait a second... these are the same coins someone stole from the shop... YOU FOUND IT!" *Reputation + 100 with shop owner/city.* "Now if only we could bring that filthy thief to justice." On that note, I actually liked the fact that the Elder Scrolls games tend to actually address the idea of shops noticing that stolen goods are things that are missing. The only bad thing is that they somehow just psychically know sometimes. "There are 1,000 candles in the land, but I KNOW that that particular candle is stolen! Therefore, I will not touch it... and also, GUARDS!"

Yes, because my love of exploration and quest interaction should be punished by forcing the obligation to maintain difficulty in particular encounters that the story, itself, designates as extraordinarily threatening upon me. Also, how many times are you going to oppose a complete void of tangible results from leveling up in response to my not even advocating that in any way, shape, or fashion? Having certain encounters scale neither denies you tangible results from your party betterment, NOR requires that even those encounters scale 1:1. Again, it can totally be an option -- to scale or not to scale -- as it's very much related, functionally, to the adjustment of things via difficulty settings. Much like Expert Mode options and such. Exactly. "Yeah, once my Wizard had such-and-such spell at-will instead of per-encounter, and all 6 party members snagged a 4th Talent, the boss really wasn't so bad."

Wait, someone's gotta referee BruceVC's actions. How 'bout Bruce buys ME a game, then you guys buy HIM your games, then, if he holds true to his role, I'll gift him back a game of equal value. Good. Now we just need someone to make sure I hold up my part of the deal...

I just got the most vivid image of an adventurer traveling around with a caddy: "Cedric! Fetch me my 9-Mithril!"

^ Quest completion and leveling go hand in hand, too. Doesn't mean I'm completing quests specifically so that I can be a higher level. And the encounters in question are very specific encounters. Not just "there's a big bad thing standing around in the woods. If you become tougher, it won't get any easier." So, yes, the advantage of bettering yourself shows itself in the majority of encounters in the game, via relative "toughness." It really makes less sense for it to show itself in some "Oh, you're level 10 instead of level 8? Well, at this point in the game, Big McBaddy locates you and teleports in with only 4 level-8 henchmen, because that's just statically coded into the game, instead of bringing tougher/better-equipped things to actively come deal with you." Certain encounters are meant to pertain to your party "in the moment." Sure, there are dynamics in the story, but it's still supposed to produce certain effects relative to whatever factors are at-play. If some baddy's supposed to be actively ambushing you from his stronghold of evil, and can teleport in with whatever he deems necessary, why would he just decide that, no matter what, he's going to ambush you with only level 8 minions? "Oh, I don't even care if you become far more capable... I made a New Year's Resolution not to ever change my plans once I make them." If it's a persisting entity, then sure, it doesn't need to change. If it's a dynamic event (a la "These foes specifically planned their presence here, recently, according to your presence here, rather than just standing around in this spot all day and night for weeks on end), then it doesn't even really make sense to statically dictate the values.

Maybe if we're lucky, it'll confer major benefits and only lance-corporal drawbacks. That, and what if "watcher" is simply the term for a watch/clock-maker/repairman? There's no rest for the watcher, 'cause everyone keeps breaking their darn timepieces. u_u

Yeah, honestly, I'm not much for stickers and art prints (although some are REALLY cool) and buttons and such. T-shirts, I'm a fan of. And awesome figurines and stuff that urge me to use the word "art" instead of "merchandise." Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying all the merchandise stuff is dumb or anything. I just personally don't prefer a lot of the things a lot of the Kickstarter projects offer as the tiers go up. Sometimes, I'm just like "Can I give you more money, and just get the rewards I want?" Sometimes, it feels like if you go from a $15 pledge to a $40 pledge, you get like 73 more physical items. 8P *checks out link to Kingdom Come* Wow... yeah, that stuff's pretty shnice.

I'd rather not be forced to take the definition of "advantage" that someone else bestows. Maybe I want to explore everything for funsies, and/or because all that optional content is just plain good, and simultaneously do not want that last boss fight to become significantly easier (for example). I'll not say the scaling shouldn't be an optional thing, but, whatever the basis, I'd rather like it if the story decided I'm going to face a really tough encounter no matter what I do, with certain integral encounters, rather than "Well, the Dark Wizard Blegmar WAS really tough, but, luckily, our heroes found all the +5 equipment in the land, and practiced extra hard with their abilities, so that this world-ending threat amounted to simply a moderately tough challenge." That's what some people don't seem to get. Just because I want to complete more content doesn't mean it's expressly so that nothing will be a match for me anymore.

^ That's Od... I Nua guy by that name a while back.

I would, but I don't have his number. Amen. Kinda like Dark Souls? I like that, too. The premise, at least. Your class choice alters some stuff, but it doesn't really dictate hard limitations. You can pick "Knight," then learn Pyromancy. You're just not going to be as badass of a Pyromancer as if you had started with Pyromancer, etc. True true. It's funny... you compare it to Fallout 3/NV (almost the exact same engine), and you see the difference not being able to do EVERYthing makes. I mean, granted, you can do a lot in the 3D fallout games, but... I'm just making a point. When you allow someone to do everything, it just becomes a big bucket to fill. Funly, perhaps, but you're still just filling a bucket. "Have you done such-and-such yet?" is a question that crops up a lot. I don't want everything to be a "yet" task. I want to do one thing as opposed to another thing, etc. I don't want to be a Barbarian and somehow become Archmage of the Mages' Guild.

I, sadly, cannot view that video at the moment. I shall try as soon as I get the chance. But, don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to defend all the "spin with your axe and hit everyone around you" and "Cleaving attack -- do splash damage at melee range!" moves and such in video games. I'm just saying, it's not wholly impossible to strike more than one person with a single swing of a given weapon. I agree that it probably wouldn't be something you could consistently do at-will. Agreed. Or, if it's going to be some "I'm a huge barbarian guy, and I swing my giant weapon really hard," then it should be a matter of basically knocking one foe into another foe, and/or raking about so hard that you strike several weapons and disarm a couple of people, etc. Not just "I produce radial damage." True, but, at the same time, with the game not being able to accurately simulate the exact circumstances of combat that would allow for this sort of thing to occur, it's got to be abstracted a bit, or just never have any nifty stuff like that happen, ever. That said, I think it can definitely be managed better than simply slapping in an ability called "Eye Stab" (in this case) or something. Maybe it's a 3% chance that comes with a perk or something. Oh, you're an archer? You took this perk? Now, whenever someone attacks you, and you have a bow equipped, you have a 3% chance to stab them in a critical spot for critical hit damage (automatic counter-attack). That's pretty reasonable, as just example numbers. Or, it could just be "in the eye." Thus, creatures it wouldn't work against creatures without eyes, . That's half joke, but half truth. The point being that, it's nice to work in things like that and represent them somewhat accurately when they actually contribute to the dynamics of the game's mechanics. If you just have an active "eye stab" ability, that gets real bland REAL fast. AND it basically just gives you a "press here for a critical hit" button. So, it's mechanically not very interesting. To represent things like the Legolas Eye Stab, I actually would prefer something like "Opportunistic Strike" or something. The exact effect (both aesthetic AND mechanical) would depend on the state of the opponent: flanked, prone, stunned, etc. That could be pretty cool. It's the "same" thing every time, but depending on when you use it on them, it could actually provide slightly different mechanical utility. And/or at least have some kind of variety in what happens, instead of just stabbing them in the eye with an arrow every time. Maybe it could just be called "Improvised Strike" or something; sometimes, you'd damage them with their own blade/weapon head. Sometimes you'd stab with an arrow you had drawn. Sometimes it'd be a pommel strike. Sometimes a headbutt, etc. I don't know how that would be coded, though, and how many different things to have. Ahh, agreed as well. And, I think pseudo-magical "I just shout/stomp things into submission" abilities should be few and far between with warriors. I'd much rather have "I leap 20 feet to strike" and other such enhancements to actual fighting than just "I have a new ability that no fighter already has, because magic." Again, I don't mind magic-ness of Fighters at all, but it needs to be Fighter-y magic. Shouting until someone falls down has nothing to do with fighting.

^ That's a worthy tribute, if ever there was one. Not that I can offer any kind of assurance or anything, but it seems to me like (especially given the nature of the text) they'll probably be able to work this in, even though it's a little late. Definitely go ahead and contact them via the pledge management page or what-have-you (maybe it's just regular ole Obsidian Support?) and just let them know what happened. I'm hopeful that all will be well.

If it helps the design in particular context, then yes.

Ehh, true I suppose. However, I think it's still significant that they're even kind of doing the "here's wht we wish we could've done on this other game that we developed, but didn't because we weren't in full creative control of the project" stuff. So, even then... more "typical" to the general recreated oldschool cRPG, but still not quite typical, if that makes sense. Basically, they don't have to make it easy just because numbers suggest 7 million people will buy it if it's easier, instead of 4 million. They're already catering to a select audience. There's still variation within that, sure, and they don't want to arbitrarily put-off anyone, but they're not really making this for the "typical" gamer. That, and it'll be a lot less "hard" because of wild misses and critical hits and such, and more actual hard because of challenge. So, *shrug*. Whatever that's worth...

Yeee-uh! Stronghold Manager 2015! It could actually be quite similar to Majesty, only without the "All you do is build things and place bounty flags to try to get your peep to do what you want" mechanic.

I think they should've offered surcoats, or cloaks (or both), instead of T-shirts. Seriously, the next major Kickstarter game (set in any medieval-ish era) needs to offer legit hooded, waterproof cloaks, in place of jackets/hoodies. I'm not always serious... but when I am, it's hard to tell I'm not joking.

In all fairness, the very idea of this game involves how things don't usually go. I'm not sure considering it probable for this game to copy your typical modern game is at all prudent.

^ I second Illathid's sentiments, in that it seemed as though Suburban-Fox was vying for realism. Also, in response to the "it should be impossible to hit multiple people in a single swing" thing, I'm pretty sure that isn't true, even within the bounds of simulation. I'm pretty certain it's possible to slice 2-or-more torsos with a single move of the blade. What isn't possible is performing a spinny attack that simply damages everyone within a certain distance of you. Now, if you create a magical whirlwind, or otherwise project some sort of energy, then cool. If you cause your blade to become SO sharp (again, supernaturally) that it slices through anything like a lightsaber, then, still cool. But, if your blade's simply supposed to be slashing in a spinning frenzy, it shouldn't just strike people standing behind other people, etc. Again, mechanically, that makes it feel like the same thing as "Magic Nova," only it's "Blade Nova," dealing Blade-type damage in a circle instead of Magic. I think IF they're going to have Fighters (for example) combatting folks in a real-ish manner, then it should act differently. Again, maybe you get to pick a few targets for a combo, or maybe you get to hit only those few people nearest you (anyone further away would get missed by a spinning blade/slash), etc. That makes it not only mechanically unique, but also more interesting. I have absolutely no problem with Fighters being able to do supernatural things, so long as there is actually consistency in the lore (a supernatural force/ability is cited as the source of some maneuver, etc.). So long as it doesn't become so similar to some other class as to be negatively dissimilar/bland. Also, just for what it's worth, in regard to the typical "shout and make people's defenses go down"-type abilities, I think it'd be interesting to see much more plausible functions/designs for those. For example, sometimes people like elaborate finishing blows, purely for eye candy. But, what if one of the Fighter's moves was to elaborately overkill an opponent, purely to strum at the fear string in the remaining foes' minds? "Oh my crap! Look how brutal this guy is!" Then, that in-the-moment terror/effect could manifest as a numerical defense detriment, and/or morale break/panic (behavior would change -- attack speed lowered, abilities used/wasted all willy-nilly, fleeing, etc.). Just a thought.

@Osvir: It would be pretty awesome for a game to have dynamic tools for the DM to create stuff as you're playing, for the party. On that note (and with regard to MMOs -- although this is getting a bit off-topic), I'm wondering why an MMO hasn't come about that allows players to, if they so choose, log in and command random creatures throughout the world, instead of PC-characters. If no one was in control of given creatures, they'd just be AI-controlled, as usual. But, how they fight you and such would depend on how many players were currently commandeering creatures in that area, and how they decided to control them, etc. That, and GM's who actually have tools to influence creature spawns (maybe some auto-pilot spawning and such -- not someone hand-spawning every single creature in the world -- but tools to directly change spawn rates, locations, how many creatures can be player-controlled, etc.). And they could set quest triggers, etc., and change circumstances in areas, and NPC dialogues. That, and they could even, at the very least, take existing, "everybody does this quest" quests, like "Deliver this package to Steven L. Rewarder in RiverDale" and change up the circumstances. They could take control of Steven, and move him around. And/or change the route that's available to get to him, and/or what it is you're delivering, etc. At the very least. That would be the laziest thing to do with such tools, and it'd still be 1,000 times better than other MMO systems. Guild Wars 2 is pretty great in its "look at all these dynamic events instead of quests!" regard, but... it's still the same stuff over and over, just with a bunch of different branches (same branches). Even when it COULD easily be super-different, like when you have to escort some dude out across the battlefield to deliver something/collect something. He could at least take a different route each time (5-7 different routes... not infinite, necessarily), and there could be different circumstances/enemies/factors, etc., that you face each time the quest runs. Annnnnnywho...

If your contribution isn't a lot of work (some text, or a name or something), you're probably fine. If it's an inn/whole character/elaborate item, they might not get it in there. But, even then, that's still a very strong "might." They could find themselves with an extra week to spare with some artists, etc, or a week behind, towards the end there. I'd definitely just let them know ASAP, though, if I were someone who just realized I hadn't filled it out. Which the OP did, it would seem, so I wouldn't worry too much. As for a physical good like a t-shirt, unless you wait like a YEAR too long, you're probably just looking at a shipping delay at worst.

I wonder... whatever happened to strings A-F? o_O

It would be, but it would also be a lot of extra effort. Unless it was horribly sub-par, in which case it would be self-defeating. I'm not sure the extra work on making the beta into its own little story/segment wouldn't just cancel itself out, however you look at it. I mean, unique content = unique content testing. Not to mention the waste of content that would occur if that beta segment didn't make its way into the game somehow (as like... the prologue?). *shrug*. I very much love the notion, in isolation, but I don't see it being feasibly, unfortunately.

*nod nod*. It seems to just be the contrast, at this point. Earlier, they had the Scooby Doo effect going on, where the whole character didn't seem to fit. Now, it seems that, as long as the feet match the ground (as long as it looks like the same lighting is hitting the feet AND the ground plane at that location), everything's coo. For instance, if that sentry standing beside the building had really light edges around his feet (because they were apparently being lit from all around, which is why there's no hard shadow near his feet? Doesn't really matter), to match the light, shadow-lacking ground plane, he wouldn't look floaty. In the red-hooded-guy screenshot, those characters don't so much look grounded because they have heavier shadows, but because their feet are darker AND the ground is shaded (dark). So, yeah, again, they may already know about that. The dark-feet-edge-versus-light-ground effect on that sentry might be completely not intended to be the final aesthetic. *shrug* But, yeah, as long as they pay attention to contrast-matching with feetses, I think there will be balance in the universe.

Yeah yeah, Lion of Lannister. Wolf was the only thing that supported a pun. Literal humor trumps accuracy.

^ The Wolferine!