Lephys

Three-hundred thirty six hours!!!

Noooo! Why! That would've been AWESOME! The only existing Wheel of Time game I know of is just a glorified shooter that doesn't make much use of the lore. It was fun... in a standalone fashion. But... A Wheel of Time RPG? I'm waiting on someone to make a film or miniseries or something, at the very least. Not like... Michael Bay. But, you know, someone who might actually do it justice.

All classes have spells in Pillars of Eternity. They are called active abilities. My apologies. I should've said "but not with other spells that are designed to counter them." I thought I made that distinction clear in the rest of my post, though. In fact, I thought I'm usually the one who types too much, and not too little. 8P I really couldn't care less whether the things you're doing are called "spells" or "abilities." I'm more concerned with their design and function. If Knockdown stops a Wizard from casting Super Bad News For You, then awesome. If that ability is instead called "StopSpell," and its tooltip is "make a Wizard stop casting a spell," then I'm sad.

I'd still love to be a game designer. Even knowing how ragged you guys are run. Unfortunately, my Accuracy is 5, and Game Design's Deflection is 1,000. I need to level up a bit. 8P I wish it was something you could apprentice, like blacksmithing or sorcery. @BAdler, Just know that we are eternally (see what I did there?) grateful for how hard you work, especially when it comes to getting us a final beta build in the midst of the maelstrom that must be The Final Weeks Before Launch.

The available evidence is that team Obsidian isn't sitting around picking its nose, nor has it been since the last build came out (which is the last evidence we have of the Ranger needing help, as a class). So, unless you have some evidence that suggests there will be absolutely no improvements to the Ranger class whatsoever, in almost 2 months worth of development time, I fail to see the lack of my argument, or the presence of yours.

But, but...! Like three people in existence might actually have Windows machines, while having a friend with a Mac! Then, they could use ONE copy of the game for TWO people to play it! Obviously, we'd better charge everyone twice for wanting to install a game on both their Windows desktop AND their Mac laptop, u_u... Better to piss off a bunch of people on principle, than to let those three people completely ruin the game's profits! /jest You guys make awesome decisions, ^_^

@Baron_Bathory: I'm not calling you on anything. I'm simply calling it. However you want to look at it or value it, a unique individual deja-vuing an entire adventure is the complete opposite of any kind of consistency. There is no "Yeah but." There is no trick point, hiding behind that one. It's just an observation. It doesn't make you wrong, unless your point is the exact opposite of that. Which I don't believe it is. I apologize for being frustrating, but you seemed to be suggesting earlier on in the thread that it'd be weird for our unique, individual characters to do anything but warp back to the starting point of the whole adventure and begin it anew while retaining their exact status in all things, including those factors directly effected by the adventure that they're about to mulligan. You were not, which I now know. I'm sorry for not-knowing from the get-go, and I mean you no ill-will, nor do I desire to argue for argument's sake.

I realize it's now just sort of gaming terminology, but it's a bit funny that everything you could ever do is often referred to as a "quest." I think, originally, a quest was typically some major/overarching goal, like "I'm a quest to prevent this war," or "I'm on a quest to locate the missing magical thingy." You did stuff along the way, sure, but you weren't really on 73 quests at once. And to call "Hey, could you please pick up some soup for me at the store while you're there? I can't make it to the store because of my rickety old bones, and I can't find my son." a quest is a little over-doing it. Ultimately, it's not really that big of a deal. But, it'd be a bit like calling a rusty dagger a "legendary" weapon. The game could do it, and could even have normal equipment progression from there. It'd still be really weird not to simply have aptly-named equipment tiers. So, I'm glad there are three levels of "quest."

Since PoE doesn't use the morality system, instead of good reviews, I hope it'll get [passionate][rational][clever] reviews.

I was wondering! His post sounded very informed, and I thought it a bit odd if he was just some random stranger, heh. Also, "obsidianite" sounds like something you mine to make Obsidian equipment. Because, as we know from crafting games, everything has an ore.

It's being logical has to do with whether or not it is logical. I fail to comprehend why you keep putting the word "logic" in quotes, as if its existence is questionable. Logic is not subjective. Also, I said "for what that's worth." The only reason I even observed that in the first place is because you, yourself, questioned our characters "vanishing into nothing" by not warping back to the beginning of the game for a New Game + run. My initial response was merely that that isn't really strange or unnatural -- our characters only persevering into the future of the game world (the expansion or sequel) -- but that New Game + is still a fun game mode that could totally be included in this game. Ever since then, you've vehemently disagreed with me, as if you need to somehow defend your desire to want this in the game. Something I never even questioned. The only remaining thing you could be worried about (that we both mentioned) is the logic of your character accumulating items and effects from a whole narrative, then somehow warping back to the start of it all to do it all over again, with all of those accumulations remaining. So, I felt the need to clarify that, while that's a blatant game-world continuity disaster, it's still a fun option in games. I don't comprehend how you can disagree with that, and simultaneously not care whether or not it makes sense. I could be wrong, but I get the feeling you're reading my toneless text with an assumed tone of malice, which is why you've decided I'm trying to "prove you wrong," or that this is somehow about you and your desire for this feature. It is not my intention to beat you at anything, and I don't think it was necessary to retaliate against me by pretending I'm seemingly trying to make 17 other points that no one cares about, or by telling me how pointless my posts are. That isn't very kind. If you simply believe that it does make sense to have Xarneth's Unique Axe when you first encounter Xarneth in a story, then I'm interested in why you believe that, so that I may further my own understanding of things, rather than just assuming I know everything in the universe already. And if you don't believe that, then I cannot find anything upon which we disagree (or have disagreed upon this whole time). See, you've set a double standard, here. You're dismissing my analysis on the subject with "this thread is just a yes or no question," while you've shared your own analysis on the feature (as opposed to merely asking if it will be in the game). It's not possible for anything but an answer to the question to be irrelevant, AND for your analysis to be relevant while mine is not. Things like this confuse me, and I feel the need to request clarification.

I'm with you on reactive tactics. Not with you on counterspelling, for the most part. I love countering spells, but not with other spells. I don't want to stop someone from Expelli-ing my Armus by casting "Anti-Expelliarmus." And I think that the combat requiring you to do something very specific in reaction to something else isn't very much fun, save for the figuring out what that specific thing is phase. After that, it starts to feel a bit like quick-time-events. "Oh, crap, I didn't counter that in time with the one feasible option in this situation, -___-". In general, I'm not really a fan of CTRL-Z ability design in RPG combat. I'd much rather have to figure out how to take back the advantage, or spoil someone else's advantage, then simply undo their advantage with the "Remove Advantage" spell. Doesn't mean there's absolutely no place for something like Dispel or something, but there are some more interesting ways to do dispel effects, even than just to erase them with a spell effect. Even healing. Healing is undoing damage. Again, doesn't mean it can't be neat. But, it irks me when a game is designed around "if you don't have enough healing, you lose." Instead of just "if you don't win the fight before you run out of health, you lose." Healing (or, counter-damaging, ) should be a tactical choice, and not THE thing you do because the enemies are designed to output more damage than you can take in a fight without healing. Annnnywho... I'm sure I'll get all sorts of fun responses to that. "YOU HATE HEALING?!" *sigh*... As for AI, I very much second that, in lieu of "intelligent" AI, random stuff is the way to go. Sure, sometimes something an enemy does won't make a boatload of sense. BUT, I'll take that over "these guys always predictably target the same people in the same circumstances, and never ever switch targets." I think some simple scripts to have the enemies do something different sometimes (maybe a check after each attack for "not engaged? roll to see if you switch targets," just for example), and/or randomly choose targets, can go a long way.

No no no. That's what the game's doing. Real life uses d20's, u_u...

But, if they were regular-sized stitches, how would you see them?

^ There's not much time left now, but we don't know what all they've changed since BB v.435. Or even what they were working on but didn't have finalized when they packaged BB v.435. *shrug* I just suspect we'll see more changes than people think.

Seconded. A lot of games can't seem to get hoods right. They end up looking really goofy. This one looks legit. I really like a lot of the detailing on the character/equipment models. The feathers/fur, for example, on the starting "barbarian" armor (hide armor?). And that hood.

Then I do not comprehend what it is you disagree with. It doesn't seem like you understand my point, because you keep "disagreeing," then seemingly providing the reasoning for that disagreement as being things such as: When I've not debated the fact that oodles of other games have had this feature, nor have I debated the fact that it's nice/pleasant from a player's perspective, I don't understand how you disagree with me when your "only point" is not in contest with anything I've said. The only thing you seem to be disagreeing on is that warping the exact same character from the end of a game to the beginning of the exact same game is somehow entirely sound and logical. I'm not saying we can't do it unless it's logical. It simply isn't logical. "Hey, I got this Xarveth's Great Axe that I'm jogging around with. There's only one in the whole world, and it's unique to Xarveth. Oh look! It's Xarveth! And he's got his one-and-only great axe! I'll fight him with my totally sensical instance of that same axe! 8D!" No, there aren't really a hundred ways to explain it without time travel, because the state of your character is the direct result of all the things he did throughout the game. It'd be one thing to simply start with your "same character" at a higher, and with some starting gold or something. Or better starting equipment. But, starting over with your exact character state from the end of the game makes as much narrative sense as starting the game with the stronghold in your ownership, then getting to the point in the game where you take over the stronghold, but you somehow already own it. Again, it just doesn't make sense. This does not mean that it can't or shouldn't be a game feature. The two are not the same point.

*Bites fist*... I'm at 110... and I'm maybe halfway through? Maybe? And I'm just casually playing it as I see fit, 8P. Which kind of illustrates the whole "different strokes" point,

Make sure he attends no weddings.

The expansion isn't irrelevant when you're commenting on character persistence. There is nothing inherently normal about a character "persisting" into an alternate timeline (a new game), while there is something inherently normal about a character persisting into a later event or narrative (aka, an expansion/sequel). As stated, there's nothing wrong with simply desiring to start a new game with the instance of your character from the end of the game. That is not somehow "correct" or lacking in strangeness, though, when it comes to character continuity.

That's not entirely true. You can "complete" all the game's dialogues without reading them, for example. Or you can unearth all the books without actually reading them. Especially if it's not your first run of the game, like with speedrunners (which is perhaps why Cantousent brought up speedrunning? *shrug*). They already know how the dialogue goes, so even if they're doing a "100%" run, they're still skipping through dialogues and not really fiddling with much little stuff at all. Basically, there's still a difference between "doing" everything in the game, and taking your time with everything in the game. For what it's worth...

So, your character not-hopping into a DeLorean and heading back to the beginning of the adventure, only to murder his past self and assume control of his identity, is the equivalent of "my character vanishes into thin air, never to be heard from again"? If you can continue with the same character into the expansion and/or sequel game, then he doesn't vanish into thin air. You can load up your last save game, before the point-of-no-return spot, and jog about doing whatever you want. Your character didn't go anywhere. There's just no further time written for the world of Eora, past the end of the game. Don't get me wrong. New Game+ mode is fun, but you're acting like it's nonsensical for your character to do anything other than time travel.

No. Obviously... I mean, they don't want to let in flies. 8P

I think it only shows that stuff while paused. Which, don't get me wrong... I don't want to see all that stuff all the time. But, I kinda wish there was some kind of show-while-held button, so you could see who's engaging whom while the action's still occurring. Maybe there is...

Respawning is only good for salmon and undead armies. 8P